Hey guys - I've been in & out, working on the house, and working nights. I guess I missed Harv's reply to some of my statements, and now we seem to be several replies beyond that, batting around semantics a bit. I've also had a chance to read more of the "might be a liberal" thread, and I see that there are differences in thinking that will not be rectified in a few short posts. Therefore, I reply knowing full-well it is probably folly.
I was asked to give examples of humanism causing conflict, and then instructed to follow certain rules in that reply. Sorry if I don't, because the "rules" are in error. I find no recognizable deity other than man's foolish elevation of himself, using his faulty, warped interpretation or invention of diety, in any of the geographical places mentioned as off limits to my reply. All are therefore humanist, as they spring from the mind and reason of man, rather than the living supernatural God as portrayed in scripture. A little dictionary work regarding humanism may be helpful for the one who made the initial reference to using one. And then there are the purely atheist states, completely devoid of any semblance of faith, who trample humanity, such as China, and until recently, the USSR.
This faith in God is a matter of personal belief, and none of us can force it logically upon the other, nor can it be reasoned or reckoned into being. That may frustrate, appear incomplete on the surface, and unsatisfying to any who expect me to answer with "logic". I see in this thread that the Scriptures are afforded, by some, equal status with other writings, and perhaps even considered to be inspired/influenced by those writings. I believe that Scripture is the inspired word of God, written by men as they were urged supernaturally by God, in their own writing style, with all of their own cultural experience included in the text, but uniquely guided to the point by a supernatural, all powerful, all knowing, all present God. It is a partially historical, partially prophetic, partially poetic, instructive manual for all of mankind to use to better understand God's existence and nature, His love for us as sacred created entities, and His plan for our salvation through Jesus Christ.
The Bible itself claims to be the sole written communication between man and God (Jesus Christ was and is God communicating to us directly in the flesh); it chronicles God reaching out, humbling himself to His creation, sacrificing himself to repair a relationship with humanity. All of the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ; all of the New Testament points back at him. The Scriptures are intended as a redeeming work for mankind, a map to salvation through Jesus Christ. No other book in mankind's history portrays a supreme being reaching out to humanity. All of the rest pace humanity through a variety of works in a vain and unclear attempt to gain a sort of heaven, or at least higher enlightenment, through human effort.
There is endless scholarly evidence available to answer questions of origin, accuracy of translation, correlation with other contemporary writings, historical accuracy, and the like. I am not a biblical scholar - it is beyond my ability or intention to fight that fight. I have my answer, and have found it to be absolutely true and applicable in everyday life, also highly relevant and crucial, and not in any way dated. Despite what we may tell ourselves about our current state of intellectual and philosophical evolution, our hearts have not changed.
Interestingly, I'm reading a book of quotations about our Godly heritage as a nation, and I came across one this morning that is banging at my forehead right now: "A little philosophy inclineth a man toward atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion" - Sir Francis Bacon, in Of Atheism. I am less a philosopher than a biblical scholar, but I recognize shallow thinking in this thread. Toss in pride and it becomes quite a mess. We can be a bit more honest by either accepting or rejecting scripture, without feebly attempting to devalue it in our own eyes.
So, peck away at these statements, twist and turn, cut and paste out of context, and apply clever re-interpretations at will. There is the truth - the truth that "set me free". I did not create it, I am simply attempting to articulate it. I do not intend to feed egos by fitting myself into someone else's predetermined frame of argument. Egos kill their bearers.
