Originally posted by bigbert81
Imagine the future, and what we can become...
bigbert probably has the best of intentions. I do applaud his alleged concern for humanity. I really do. However, secular humanism is an amoral
philosophy. It has historically led to the worst human atrocities known to mankind. It never fulfills its stated goal of "thriving humanity."
It is the philosophy of Karl Marx. Marxist theory speaks of a "workers paradise" very similar to what bigbert's literature is saying. Sounds good
on paper. In practice, it is the same philosophy that allowed Stalin to slaughter over 20 million people.
Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it
Let please please us not forget the lessons of the cold war please!
Humanism on Paper
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and
wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through
human means in support of human interests.
Humanism in Practice
Stakin's Killing Field
Ideas do have consequences.
Humanism is a logically inconsistent philosophy in that it completely undermines the foundation of human morality. There is a Moral Law defined by God
alone. That law is written into the conscience of every healthy human being.
Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means
This reduces morality to mere human opinion. Thank God that is false! Morality supersedes human opinion and it provable by sheer logic. By the
doctrine of humanism there is no difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa. Hitlers opinion - Mother Theresa's opinion - no good & evil -
preference- chocolate & vanilla- just choose what suits you.
The Moral Law is an absolute objective standard of morality. You can not explain that in Darwinian terms. Here's an illustration:
which line is straighter?
The first because it is closer to the absolute standard of a straight line which you know is this :
Now if there was no absolute objective standard for straightness then the question would be meaningless.
This is exactly the same thing you do when you compare the behavior of Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. You must appeal to an absolute moral standard:
The Moral Law. The moment you say one set of moral ideas is better than another it is because you are comparing both to a standard. Just like the
If the moral law does not exist then there is no difference between the behavior of Hitler and Mother Theresa. It's just ones preference. Thank God
we all know better! Because there is an objective standard,
that standard is written on our hearts.
Thus, I have demonstrated by pure reason there has to be a Moral Law.
I think a person of logic and reason will concede that it follows every law has a law giver. Prescriptions have a prescriber.
In summation, please consider that:
1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a moral law
3. Therefore there is a moral law giver.
Who else but GOD could it write on the hearts of all of humanity?
Nothing personal bigbert. Humanism is evil. I sincerely love you heart for helping people but I won't allow you to preach secular humanism
unchecked. It would be against The Moral Law for me to do so.
[edit on 5/28/2008 by Bigwhammy]