Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
The problem is, in my mind, that it is not working. And it is really getting ominous, as we observe ourselves playing nuclear chicken.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Humanianity: The Religion for Humanity??
- Thread starter Bill Van Fleet
- Start date
I find man's technology is a two-edged sword: Atomic energy v/s Atomic bomb.
Not working because as per Psalms 46:9 only God can and will bring an end to war.
Because ' it is Not working ' is why we need divine involvement into mankind's affairs.
We are all invited to pray the prayer of Revelation 22:20 for Jesus to come !
Come and bring Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.
The executional words from Jesus' mouth as per Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16 will rid the Earth of the wicked.
If you had a beautiful house that became infested with rats you would Not get rid of your beautiful house.
Rather, you would get rid of the rats. Jesus will get rid of 'rat-like' people.
ALL the wicked will be ' destroyed forever ' according to Psalms 92:7.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
I agree that there might be poor judgement in my making these the subtitles of those three books, but at the time I wrote the books, I had specific reasons for using those subtitles, and believed what those subtitles say. I still believe those things, and for book1 and book3 I explain right away why I believe those things. Book2 is not as good a book, but I still believe that the Humanianity process is what will save our species, or save it from enormous amounts of PSDED, if that is possible. And I feel reluctant to change the subtitles of those books when I was sincere in assigning those subtitles. If I came to the conclusion that they were stating or implying something incorrect, I probably would revise them. But just to "please a wider audience" has never been my intention. It has always been to say as clearly as I can what I want to convey, i.e., what I believe and am advocating for, not just what will have "wider appeal." (We have many things with wide appeal that are not, in my mind, optimal, such as attacking the other, especially when cleverly done.)
siti
Well-Known Member
I have a problem with the notion that there even is such a thing as an "ultimate ethical principle" - reality - human reality - is an evolving process nested in an impossibly tangled web of innumerable nested evolving processes...what was "ultimate" or "optimal" for a human society one day might very well not be the next. I get what you are suggesting but there are many possible answers - for example "as little pain...as possible" could be achieved with more liberal doses of morphine and "as little disability...as possible" might be accomplished by legalizing euthanasia. And whilst longer lives may be perceived as an advantage for an individual human, a burgeoning population of aged and utterly dependent humans doesn't do much for either the economic or the ecological status of our species in regard to long-term "contentment" and "survival" prospects, to say nothing of the wider ecological status of "life on earth", as it were. I am no longer convinced that longevity and contentment are all that important to be honest - entangled, as they are, as our lives are, with the complexity of the evolutionary struggle, I am inclining more towards the view that we should rather learn to embrace the strife than to seek illusory contentment.
I don't know if you have answered these questions elsewhere in your site (I'll gladly consider if you point me to them) - but the front page puts me off digging to much further because of this perceived over-simplification - life is a mess and it always will be - I reckon its the wonder of the mess we should revel in, not seek to straighten it all out.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
I agree that technology is not working if we want to follow the HUEP. That is because technology is just a tool, which can be used for various purposes, ones many of us would say were bad as well as good. A hammer can be used to make things better, or worse.
I personally do not have the belief that there is an entity watching me and that is regarding some of us as rats to be exterminated. I would want to see the evidence for that. And I am in a very small minority (possibly even alone) in my belief that punishment has enormously negative side effects. I try to remain as close to the "understanding" end of the continuum that exists between "understanding" and "judgmental." That results in a marked reduction in anger and the tendency to be hostile. (Of course, I am not perfect, but I try to work on it.) And I know the normal response to that, which is, "Well, what if it was your [fill in the blank]? The implication would be that I was a terrible person for not having anger under those circumstances. Etc.
At any rate, regarding our tools, we have to work on ourselves (ethically) to make ourselves prone to use our tools in ways that are consistent with the HUEP. That is what I advocate for. Does that seem okay to you?
I find 'many' think Scripture is a sort of illusory contentment.
For 'long-term contentment and survival' is why we are all invited to pray the invitation of Revelation 22:20 for Jesus to come ! Come and bring ' healing ' to earth's nations as described at Revelation 22:2.
God promised father Abraham at Genesis 12:3 and Genesis 22:18 that ALL families of Earth will be blessed.
And that ALL nations of Earth will be blessed. Blessed with the benefit of healing for earth's nations.
The wider ecological status of ' life on Earth ' is that Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will fulfill God's promise to Abraham and Jesus will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill and there will be healing for Earth and mankind.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
Yes, I recommend that you look at the following:
https://humanianity.com/humanianity/humhome.php?_menu=2#d19
And Book2 also deals with those concerns, I believe.
https://humanianity.com/homorationalis/hr204.html
siti
Well-Known Member
That's all tickety boo then! But I already read that book - I was responding to Bill's "new" revelation.
A person can be angry but that does Not mean an angry person has to sin / do something wrong.
In Scripture anger is Not always synonymous with wrongdoing.
There is punishment, and there is punishment.
Just as there is discipline, and there is discipline.
I find Earth was promised for humble meek people to inhabit the Earth.
So, we can all choose to be humble or to be haughty.
It is Not so much as some Entity watching, but that we are all given two (2) choices:
We can ' repent ' ( of course we are not perfect but trying to work on it ) or we will ' perish ' (be destroyed).
Not Scripture, but false clergy teach everlasting fire as punishment, whereas the Bible teaches destruction only for the wicked. We all have the free-will choice to act responsibly toward the Golden Rule or not.
siti
Well-Known Member
Thanks Bill! They do indeed touch on my concerns. BTW - the Book part seems much easier on the eye on my laptop than the humanianity home page. I am a bit annoyed with you though because I now have quite a lot of reading to do and too little time to do it. Whilst I am naturally skeptical, I like the Belief Manual idea (it seems like a kind of "wiki" thing that any registered user can contribute to - I guess there is some kind of editorial/censorship process to prevent misuse/abuse though?).
Anyway, it reminded me of an idea I tried to discuss with a number of people a few years back - that the best single strategy we could come up with to achieve what you are advocating would be to reverse the manner in which politics and economics are currently done - that is to have a "free-market" government - in which the framers of the laws (ethics I suppose) that are proven to contribute most to human happiness are rewarded with greater law-making privileges - and a democratic economy in which everyone simply has what the happiness index (which also measures the success of policy-making) indicates they need to be happy. Is there anything like that in humanianity?
Last edited:
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
Please note that I have not had some sort of revelation experience. I have developed a set of ideas over the course of my lifetime that I have acquired from others. I am putting them together in a way that I hope will be valuable to others. That remains to be seen. That is why I am asking for feedback. I want to optimize my presentation of those ideas, just like countless others have done and are doing.
siti
Well-Known Member
I know - I didn't intend to 'religify' your efforts - but I do think the "enlightenment" promotion of rational thought as opposed to religious obeisance was a kind of revelation - of the natural rational kind rather than the supernatural religious kind. Anyway, I certainly meant no offence - and I have provided some feedback on what I have been able to read so far.
Here is a suggested proverb for humanianism - "The revelation of the human intellect is: it's OK to think for yourself" - on that idea, I am most certainly, and unapologetically, a proselytizer.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
No. I have thought and even worried about that. I know there are many angry people in our current world who wish to ruin things for other people. I am waiting to see what will happen. Proposing beliefs that are counter-productive and non-genuine would simply be voted against. But anything is ruin-able. If the Belief Manual does take off and seems valuable, it will need to be turned over in some transparent fashion to people like Google who are Humanian and can preserve the nature of the Belief Manual while preventing its corruption. I am hoping that destructive people will not find the Belief Manual interesting.
Only if someone puts it there for consideration. And when you say "in Humanianity," I assume you mean in the Belief Manual, where such ideas would be there to vote on and stimulate discussion. I am not knowledgeable enough in politics and economics to have a worthwhile opinion. The closest I have come has been in Book1 on Rational-Ethical Government, but as it states there, my opinion is not well-informed and is only suggested for thought by others. But if you put it in the Belief Manual, I'll give it thought and vote on it, and perhaps ask for further discussion in the Forum (and/or here).
But it is a great question, or topic. It seems to me that there should indeed be some weighting of voting on procedures (governmental decision-making) that would promote those having the most knowledge having the greater impact on decision-making. I would not want decisions regarding my surgery to be made by group vote of all hospital staff.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
I did not take it as offense. I just needed to clarify. But BTW, I consider my efforts to be religious. Remember that I believe almost everybody makes a mistake as to what "Religion" is, this being disagreed with by most people. I believe Religion is extremely important to our species, and needs to keep on improving, drastically.
https://humanianity.com/humanianity/humhome.php?_menu=2#h2
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - but don't you think its a bit odd for a religion that seems to be promoting consensus as the means to genuine progress to insist on a definition of the word "religion" that is contrary to how "almost everybody" understands the word? Sorry to 'nit-pick' - but I think I now agree with what someone else said earlier - if you are redefining such a commonly used word, it would probably be better not to use it at all.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
I understand. But I am trying to be accurate. The way people define "Religion" is such that some of the things we point to and call a "religion" do not have the characteristics that such definitions imply. I have dealt with this in detail on the website. Have you read these notes? Does anything seem not correct?
https://humanianity.com/humanianity/humhome.php?_menu=2#d13
siti
Well-Known Member
A couple of things stand out to me:
First, you define religion as "the adult systematic study of how best to live our lives" - but there is already a word for that - ethics (which word you also use frequently when discussing religion as far as I can see so maybe you are conflating the two).
Second, you make the point that the tendency to assume that "religion" implies beliefs about the existence of supernatural entities (deities) is erroneous on the grounds that some religions don't have such beliefs - i.e. are "non-theistic". I agree to a point, but would also note that there is also a tendency for "non-theistic believers" to avoid calling their beliefs "religion". E.g. - you will often hear Buddhists (not all of them of course) say that Buddhism is not a religion. In English usage though - since about the 16th century, the word 'religion' has implied reliance on/obedience to a higher supernatural power(s).
Maybe you could coin a new word if you are promoting concerted and inclusive human effort: "rely-gion" (meaning a system of beliefs that promotes mutual reliance for mutual benefit - but maybe that sounds too much a like an insurance sales pitch).
Or, since as I mentioned above, you might be conflating ethics and religion, how about "ethi-gion".
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Maybe the term religion needs an overhaul. Because so many religions dont do religion properly. Coercion systems should be illegal.
It all is just a fight to make ones moral conscience king of the hill. Be it religion or any other cause.
Laws are about banishing actions that cause harm right. If it causes no harm its good then.
Sooner or later some group is going to take a god role and start deciding for everybody whats right and whats wrong.
Everyone champions themselves as rational.
Its a carousel, generation after generation a fight for establishment.
Personally there are two levels of conscience, universal objective morals, and personal conscience. What would 100% of the total population totally agree on?
When is conscience a matter of public importance, and when is it private?
If there is no harm in the personal conscience of people, by all means practice it. Yet dont force it down my throat if it aint universal.
My universal conscience is pro life, but i am perfectly tolerant of those who commit to abortion. Obviously i am at odds with humanitarians. So i accept that its my personal conscience for now and leave it at that. And i am quite comfortable with that. Humans are not divine, and its never my responsibility to play that role, nor is it anyone elses.
It all is just a fight to make ones moral conscience king of the hill. Be it religion or any other cause.
Laws are about banishing actions that cause harm right. If it causes no harm its good then.
Sooner or later some group is going to take a god role and start deciding for everybody whats right and whats wrong.
Everyone champions themselves as rational.
Its a carousel, generation after generation a fight for establishment.
Personally there are two levels of conscience, universal objective morals, and personal conscience. What would 100% of the total population totally agree on?
When is conscience a matter of public importance, and when is it private?
If there is no harm in the personal conscience of people, by all means practice it. Yet dont force it down my throat if it aint universal.
My universal conscience is pro life, but i am perfectly tolerant of those who commit to abortion. Obviously i am at odds with humanitarians. So i accept that its my personal conscience for now and leave it at that. And i am quite comfortable with that. Humans are not divine, and its never my responsibility to play that role, nor is it anyone elses.
siti
Well-Known Member
Or an evolving process of seeking moral common ground among an astonishing variety of personal moral consciences?
What on earth are "universal objective morals"?
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
YES!! Not conflating the two, but saying that Religion is a cultural activity the purpose of which is to optimize our ethical beliefs. Absolutely! That's what sermons and other such presentations are. That is why people study religious literature. For self-improvement. Did you check out the notes regarding ethical beliefs and existential beliefs?
Is not Buddhism widely considered one of the world's major religions? So we should change the definition of Buddhism from what most people consider it to be?? Just to be able to look down upon Religion? (Why do people want to make sure that they are not considered to be involved in Religion?) Do we want to continue the tendency to demonize well-meaning people? Can we not improve?
Because most religion is like that. But not all. Are you assuming that whatever is done by almost everyone is obviously the right thing to do? I don't make that assumption. If everyone thought Earth was flat, that wouldn't make it so. (I realize that a definition is not the same as a proposition, BTW. But there are consequences of a bad definition, one of which is the promulgation of faulty thinking.)
And then there are the consequences of continuing with an incorrect definition (incorrect for the reasons given), which can lead to mistakes and perhaps significant PSDED. We have to allow for progress in whatever we are doing, right?
A definition is of the nature "X is all Y of which Z is true."
A definition is not of the nature "X is all Y of which Z is true of some."
And the consequences of that would be, in my opinion, the destruction of the Humanianity concept, in addition to making it easily laughable by those prone to ridicule.
One of the important aspects of Humanianity, IMO as a Humanian, is our overcoming our tribalism, which has us fighting and killing each other all over this planet. To foster the current tendency to exist in groups that look down upon one another -- rather than to incorporate within our groups the ability to have difference of opinion, with the continuing effort to work together toward agreement to that which is accurate and optimal -- is to continue that tendency. I am for Religion. Much good is done by Religion, right along with the bad. It is not true that religions are just groups of bad people. I find most participants in most of the religions to be highly motivated to do good things for their fellow humans. Of course our human tendencies toward "corruption" get into our religions to some extent, as they get into whatever else we create. The problem is in us, and from us it gets into whatever we do. But we also do good, a lot of good. We don't stamp out children because they are not mature; we help them to mature. We need to work on ourselves, our species, and we need therefore to work on our religions. Religion can improve. And it is improving. It's just that our species is still just a toddler with significant behavior problems.
IMO (being politically correct)