3 added 56 characters in body
source | link

Reading throughThe following definition of a great chathumanist was given by @MarcGravell, he posted this bullet point summary of humanism:Andrew Copson

As a humanist I try:

• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe

• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality

• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect

• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.

Even the last point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical. When Jesus says, "I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly," it seems really, really close to this. (Admittedly, the implication of "this one life" is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)

In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.

The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?

Reading through a great chat by @MarcGravell, he posted this bullet point summary of humanism:

As a humanist I try:

• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe

• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality

• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect

• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.

Even the last point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical. When Jesus says, "I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly," it seems really, really close to this. (Admittedly, the implication of "this one life" is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)

In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.

The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?

The following definition of a humanist was given by Andrew Copson

As a humanist I try:

• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe

• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality

• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect

• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.

Even the last point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical. When Jesus says, "I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly," it seems really, really close to this. (Admittedly, the implication of "this one life" is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)

In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.

The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?

    Post Closed as "not constructive" by studiohack, Caleb
2 added 5 characters in body
source | link

Reading through a great chat by @MarcGravell, he posted this bullet point summary of humanism:

As a humanist I try:

• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe

• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality

• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect

• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.

Even the last point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical. When Jesus says, "I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly," it seems really, really close to this. (Admittedly, the implication of "this one life" is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)

In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.

The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?

Reading through a great chat by @MarcGravell, he posted this bullet point summary of humanism:

As a humanist I try:

• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe

• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality

• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect

• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.

Even the point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical. When Jesus says, "I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly," it seems really, really close to this. (Admittedly, the implication of "this one life" is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)

In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.

The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?

Reading through a great chat by @MarcGravell, he posted this bullet point summary of humanism:

As a humanist I try:

• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe

• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality

• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect

• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.

Even the last point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical. When Jesus says, "I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly," it seems really, really close to this. (Admittedly, the implication of "this one life" is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)

In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.

The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackChristian/status/171150969038577664
1
source | link

Is it possible to be both a humanist and a Christian?

Reading through a great chat by @MarcGravell, he posted this bullet point summary of humanism:

As a humanist I try:

• To be rational, looking to science in an attempt to understand the universe

• To be ethical, acting in a way that puts human welfare at the centre of morality

• To recognise the dignity of every individual and treat them with respect

• To find meaning and fulfilment in this one life and help others to do the same

As a Christian, I'm not sure that I would disagree with any of those statements, and I suspect are all fully compatible with all Chalcedonian Christian doctrines and practice.

Even the point, which is probably the most controversial, is, to my mind, fully biblical. When Jesus says, "I come that you might have life, and have it more abundantly," it seems really, really close to this. (Admittedly, the implication of "this one life" is, I am guessing the rejection of an afterlife, but that is something I could be reading into it.)

In fact, my initial reaction is to argue that standard Christian practice should embrace all four of these points. Of course, in fronting that, I want proof.

The question is this - Would a Christian own all four of these points, and if so, why. If not, why not?