A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto

I had a typo in Faith’s disallowed words list, fixed now. Apologies.

ringo writes: Faith writes: I didn't say they OBEYED the law, I merely stated the law. It's not a law. The Commandments mention no such law.

It is considered to be a law, called a "Creation Ordinance" and we are to obey the Creation Ordinances as laws. There is only one other I know of -- "be fruitful and multiply" -- but there may be more:

Ligonier Ministries

THANK YOU PERCY FOR EASING UP ON THE **********.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course it's still a free country. You are free to obey your god to your hearts content. No one is going to **** you that right. But everyone else is also free to obey their own gods or lack thereof without any interference from you.

No, I believe it is not a free country any more when a Christian cannot obey God without being punished for it, as the businesses who refused to cater a gay wedding were punished.. It's just the beginning of worse to come as I and many others see it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: No, I believe it is not a free country any more when a Christian cannot obey God without being punished for it, as the businesses who refused to cater a gay wedding were punished..

But it was not "Christians", rather just a simple cultist Chapter of Club Christian. They were treated no differently that other Christian cults that have practices that break laws like dancing with venomous serpents, drinking poison or practicing polygamy.

It is not God's Law you are obeying but simply the dogma of your particular Chapter of Club Christian.

No, the Christians who were punished for obeying God are the true Biblical Christians, no cult, and each of those business owners understood the ***** in the same way independently of one another, because it is standard Biblical teaching: A man shall leave his ****** and mother and cleave unto his wife. There has never been any doubt in mainline Christianityh as to what that means, it is indeed God's law, called a Creation Ordinance, and it does not include homosexual partners. So we will be punished for taking this stand in a country that has validated gay marriage.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, I believe it is not a free country any more when a Christian cannot obey God without being punished for it, as the businesses who refused to cater a gay wedding were punished..

---

Except that they are disobeying God. There is no rule forbidding catering to gay wedding parties. And before you argue that they believed that they were obeying God, the exact same may be said of segregationists who also disobeyed anti-discrimination laws.

quote:

---

It's just the beginning of worse to come as I and many others see it.

---

The descent of the Right is of far greater concern to anyone with any sense.

Just like the cult members that believe God commands them to take up snakes or drink poison or have multiple wives.

You can claim your "True Christian" status all you want but it is no more legitimate than any other silly claim.

You may not dictate what Christians believe. It is clear to us that a gay wedding violates the Creation Ordinance of marriage between a man and a woman and that if we participate in a gay wedding we are violating that law. All the businesses put in the position of being asked to cater to a gay wedding understood that it violates God's law and had to obey that law instead of the secular law.

But this is all I want to say about this. It's off topic of course as the last few pages have all been off topic, and there is nothing more to say about it anyway.

quote:

---

You may not dictate what Christians believe.

---

And I clearly did not do so.

quote:

---

It is clear to us that a gay wedding violates the Creation Ordinance of marriage between a man and a woman and that if we participate in a gay wedding we are violating that law.

---

But you obviously would not be violating that law if all you do is provide paid services. Anyone who marries before being able to move out of their parents home more clearly violates that “law” and yet I doubt very much that you would object.

quote:

---

All the businesses put in the position of being asked to cater to a gay wedding understood that it violates God's law and had to obey that law instead of the secular law

---

And yet there is nothing in “God’s law” that justifies such a stance, but there is a requirement to follow the secular law.

quote:

---

But this is all I want to say about this

---

Indeed, you have no answer to the fact that your position hardly differs from that of a die-hard segregationist. The only difference is that you are fine with discrimination against gays. Yet you have no better claim of persecution, nor any cause to say that there is any great loss of freedom in extending that anti-discrimination laws to protect gays.

Faith writes: It is considered to be a law, called a "Creation Ordinance" and we are to obey the Creation Ordinances as laws.

That's reverse engineering - i.e. adjusting the Bible to fit the doctrine.

I suspect it is simply how men of superior spirituality understand the *****.

jar writes: The issue is testing what the Apologists say and so far you have not presented even one example of an Apologist that stands up to even cursory scrutiny.

As I have tried to tell you over and over and over again. Christianity is not fully supportable by or through evidence. Christianity is a tested belief. A belief validated through scripture, the experience of believers, and countless testimonies that corroborate each other despite having separate incidents and locations. I realize that you actually laugh at this type of Christianity. (or call it sad and pitiful, for some odd reason) I feel that you have never allowed yourself to believe anything without evidence. Its almost as if you have to actually see an event happen before you will ever allow it to be true in your mind. In addition, much of what you believe has been concluded through evidence, logic, and reason. I'm not saying you are wrong, though I'm saying that what you consider foolish may, in fact, be the right answers.

And recently you brought up the Harvard Divinity Schools synopsis of the humanist manifesto. From that article:

Recurring themes of the Humanist Manifestos include agreement on the dismissal of the supernatural, the centrality of human potential, and the need for a global community that seeks to maximize the good of humanity.

Supernatural manifestations are one of the clearest signs that point to the reality of God's presence among us. To dismiss these simply on the lack of objective measurable evidence is willful ignorance at best. Granted much of it is faked...but I don't believe that all of it is. Human potential is nice, but throwing God away is not the answer. Atheists always claim to be a large minority, but atheism is gaining ground intellectually largely due to the efforts of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennet. The Four Horsemen are a big threat. Though you claim to be a believer, you lean more towards their side than you do the apologists, not all of whom lie and misrepresent anything. Why you and Theodoric claim they do cause a call for evidence.

Faith writes: I suspect it is simply how men of superior spirituality understand the *****.

No such thing as "superior spirituality". Jesus Himself recommended the understanding of a child.

The understanding of a child IS superior spirituality.

Faith writes: The understanding of a child IS superior spirituality.

Amen. But you're contradicting yourself. It isn't the understanding of a child that puts your definition on marriage.