MatCauthorn
Member
It seems to me that a lot of Christians (and probably members of other theistic religions too, but I am most familiar with Christianity on this point) take the approach to the Bible that they believe the parts that make sense to them and reject the parts which don't. And I don't mean to split hairs and bring up the idea of wearing blended fabrics and such - I'm talking about bigger ideas.
Many people, for example, do not agree with the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, for any number of reasons - their best friend is homosexual, or they feel the belief is outdated, or they believe homosexuality is genetically determined and therefore the individual cannot choose his/her sexual preference, etc. These people are using human reason to determine what they think God's view on a particular issue would be. Isn't that a lot like what humanists do when they apply reason to human experience to determine what they feel to be moral/ethical? So, should the people who do this be considered humanists on that issue?
To take it one step further -- is it such a big leap to go from determining one's morality by applying reason to human experience in one area and instead doing so in all areas? If reason is a sufficient measure for questions about one moral situation, why not just apply reason to every moral situation?
-- Mat
Many people, for example, do not agree with the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, for any number of reasons - their best friend is homosexual, or they feel the belief is outdated, or they believe homosexuality is genetically determined and therefore the individual cannot choose his/her sexual preference, etc. These people are using human reason to determine what they think God's view on a particular issue would be. Isn't that a lot like what humanists do when they apply reason to human experience to determine what they feel to be moral/ethical? So, should the people who do this be considered humanists on that issue?
To take it one step further -- is it such a big leap to go from determining one's morality by applying reason to human experience in one area and instead doing so in all areas? If reason is a sufficient measure for questions about one moral situation, why not just apply reason to every moral situation?
-- Mat