Humanity has been obsessed with the ‘Why’ of things since before homo sapiens ever emerged from its previous ancestors. And as you might have gleaned in my last post, God & Man – Part Three – Scarcity, I am asserting that we have had little choice in the matter as to what type of animal we would become. Much of our future was predestined by the nature of ourselves within the environment about us. You may think we’ve had some options, and you’d be wrong; the point being that humanity can never exist, nor evolve in a manner that does not fit within the universe’s natural mechanics. Something not there cannot be a causal agent. Continue reading Man and God – Part Four – Our Social Construct
In a previous post, I discussed the concept of particulars. Perhaps then, a reader might have wondered what this has to do with Christian issues and values, and certainly what does it have to do with a certain hypothesis I repeated from Man and God – Part One:
“Try to consider the possibility that God created and continues to create only good things. And try to imagine that no good thing can stray from being a good thing; for to see such happen would render God as less than good himself. Now consider, therefore, that mankind is thus good and has not strayed from the course that God set forth for mankind when created.”
“Mankind is evolving; this we must acknowledge, for man has changed in all ways physically and intellectually since recorded, historical evidence began, and therefore, this evolution is and must be of God’s will. Now, here comes the hard part for many. Now imagine that where man is today and where man will be tomorrow is also in God’s plan and of God’s will.”
There has been a recent think-storm over a recent (supposed) statement that Pope Francis made to a man from Chile. It was a statement that appears to condone homosexuality. Well, quite a few opinions have begun circulating around; one of them from the journalist and past American presidential candidate, Patrick J. Buchanan, in an article on the WND website. A few noted paragraphs are here:
Progress, by definition as a noun, refers to the movement towards either a specific goal or simply the movement in a particular direction. There are a few characteristics to progress:
First; that progress implies towards, rather than away.
Second; that progress is necessarily imbued with the idea that any movement entailed in progress is for the benefit of the mover and not to any disadvantage. Words used in defining progress include: advancement, improvement, development, and growth.
Third; that any new quality achieved through progress is considered to be superior to the previous quality.
Progress, by definition as a verb, refers more towards the idea of the movement of an object or condition without the adjudication, at the same moment, of any subjective value of good or bad.
Recently, a good friend of mine read my essay on Pluralism & Relativism, and asked the question if I could comment on Secular Humanism. As I had started a series of moral arguments, it seemed practical that the next one may as well be on such an “ism”.
I also have to note, with great emphasis, that this essay quickly became a satire and a screed, and for that, I apologize. It just became so ridiculous examining the humanist point of view and then dealing with it in a mature and educated fashion. So I took the gutter. And while the gutter is smelly, dirty, and offensive, it still leads us to where we need to go; to the understanding of the very dangerous nature of Humanism.
In taking a hard look at Humanism, it became efficient to deal with the primary doctrines of this movement of man, and for accuracy’s sake I went to the source: The American Humanist Association (AHA). Within their website I found the three, basic humanist manifestos; generated in 1933, 1973, and 2003. Though there are other affirmations of their common goals to be found, and well worth the read, I am going to concentrate my discourse on the three manifestos as noted in order to contain the content of this essay. Yes, the devil is in the details – in this case the applications of Humanism into our American society – and I do believe it is the Devil who writes any doctrine that attempts to usurp the authority of God.