Giles Fraser asks in the Church Times Why don’t humanists give value to humans?
Christopher Howse in the Telegraph writes about Peter Howson’s harrowing of hell.
Theo Hobson writes in the Guardian about the sex life of Adam and Eve in Face to Faith.
Stephen Bates asks on Comment is free Who would God vote for?
John Lloyd writes in the Financial Times about Uganda’s controversial pastors.
Earlier in the week, Andrew Brown wrote about The cult of personality.
Simon Barrow wrote a column for Ekklesia titled Beware politicians and ‘God talk’.
Lloyd’s article highlights an issue with any megachurch who thinks their priests are God and can use Malachi to justify their theology. Malachi is a direct rebuke against priests. “It is you, O PRIESTS, who show contempt for my name. “But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’ “You place defiled food on my altar. “But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ “By saying that the LORD’S table is contemptible. When you bring blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice crippled or diseased animals, is that not wrong?” (Malachi 1:6-8) Is it… Read more »
Fraser’s comments against plagerism apply as much to modern day Christians as they do to humanists. Humanists, who sought to take from the religious faiths the dignity and respect and claim that it no longer required “God”, who are then willing to denounce life and reverence. Priests, who sought to take from the mystics the dignity and respect and claim they no longer required “God”, who are then willing to denounce life and reverence. Humanists at least have the excuse of claiming they do not know God. Priests do not have that luxury. Jesus, at the transfiguration was enveloped by… Read more »
Is the link to Andrew Brown’s piece defective — missing initial h ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/oct/21/religion-anglicanism
Yes. Sorry. Now fixed.
S.
But humanists do give value to humans – which is why they believe that humans can make choices for themselves. That’s what real value and respect means, rather than giving over one’s thought processes to external beings.
Cheryl, you wrote: “”It is you, O PRIESTS, who show contempt for my name. “But you ask, ‘How have we shown contempt for your name?’ “You place defiled food on my altar. “But you ask, ‘How have we defiled you?’ “By saying that the LORD’S table is contemptible. When you bring blind animals for sacrifice, is that not wrong? When you sacrifice crippled or diseased animals, is that not wrong?” (Malachi 1:6-8) Is it not wrong to be prepared to sacrifice GLBTs, is that not wrong? Malachi 1:14 “Cursed is the cheat who has an acceptable male in his flock… Read more »
BillyD
“You’ve drawn a parallel here between gay people and “blemished” animals offered for sacrifice. Watch who you’re calling “blemished,” “defiled,” “crippled” and “diseased,” lady.”
Having just conceded your point on Christian charity, whoops!
Cheryl sometimes uses comparisons that are maybe a little unfortunate, but she is firmly on our side, has her heart in the right place and I am proud to call her a friend.
Keep reading what she writes, even if you don’t feel the need to comment, I hope you’ll come to see it too.
Merseymike Be careful. There are good and bad humanists (and the continuum in between), just as there are good and bad Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists… Humanists are just as capable of dodgy thinking as any other category. In fact, it’s when people think that since they belong to a category that they can no longer have dodgy thinking that they usually end up making the worst blunders. Look at our current debate with conservatives, we have too many priests claim that the grace of Jesus saves them from sin and makes them infallible. That’s how their solo scriptural interpretations went… Read more »
Can we stick to comments about these articles please.
I applaud Hobson’s efforts to be frank about human sexuality, but I am less convinced and celebrate less – his bringing all the standard old baggage along with him as he adventures into frankness. Using Augustine as special religious authority for us is at first an obvious gesture – except that Augustine’s views of an alleged completely voluntary (therefore, pure) sexuality before the mythic disobedience in the primal garden is not only now dramatically and newly opened up (to modern inquiry based on modern evidence). Quoting Augustine is presuming the baggage instead of inquiring newly into the baggage. Such a… Read more »
Thank you, Giles Fraser, for your insightful article on the difference between the secular idea of humanism and that of the Christian. I have long thought that the fact of the human Incarnation of Jesus should tell us that God, too, is a humanist – (not withstanding God’s and Christ’s divinity). Otherwise, why would God have bothered to create any of us in the Divine Image and Likeness of God’s Self?
“Many of these pastors are global figures, constantly travelling, setting up churches, preaching to vast audiences. They are a kind of global intelligentsia: and – this is central – these are modern people. They use modern media, they provide good entertainment, they create megachurches which are all-embracing institutions: a world in which you can live.” – John Lloyd: article for the Financial Times – Does this sound anything at all like the modern phenomenon of the re-asserter Global South/Gafcon renewal enterprise, I wonder? Just asking! The new ‘Prosperity Gospel’ so attractive to those who have little or nothing, is the… Read more »