I need to check up on “Shofar member”. (Give me a few more days.) We had a couple of questions for him/her that we were particularly interested in…

On the “hypothetical” example, to some it is more hypothetical, to others it is less. Our understanding for what it means to be human, that is, to have 46 chromosomes, including an X from your mother and a Y from your father, if you are male, and further appreciation for how the “laws of nature” work, it is quite a bit less hypothetical. I know some consider the conception to be a “creation event”, in that God e.g. created the other 23 chromosomes on the spot. I don’t know whether that kind of thing would make Jesus a real human though, that’s a matter of semantics maybe.

In any case, that’s not what I was really on about, I was sketching out the differences I perceive between what it means to be a follower versus what it means to be a believer. The hypothetical is useful in the way it helps you reflect on what your stance is in that regard.

But what God does want is for us to realize that his advice is always the best advice

Would you then agree that, if some advice we perceived, turns out to have been bad advice, we either perceived incorrectly, or the advice wasn’t from God in the first place?

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Nice verse! (Empharsis yours.) I like the emphasis on empirical testing to determine what is true and good and acceptable.

Therefore, it is not entirely the same as “deferring authority”, because you still chose to “defer authority” making you responsible for that decision (which is deferring responsibility).

It seems you feel that choosing to defer to an authority that isn’t telling the truth, is as much your responsibility as any other choice in life. That’s a hard-line approach that I personally prefer not to take, as it would make me too intolerant and negative towards young earth creationists. Even if said responsibility is true. I’m talking about my “relational stance” now. Basically, by “testing” the impact of accepting that meme into the core of my worldview, I determined it to be harmful, measured in the context of love and compassion.

Even more so! Look. The Old Testament is just that. The Old Covenant between God and His people. Now we have a New Covenant with God, through His Son.

But if you consider Borg to be writing about The Hebrew Bible in particular, in that context, you would agree? (Original comment starts with “The way of seeing and reading the Bible”, in my comment #54.)

Citation please?

Wiki on Humanism (Life Stance) Quote: Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition.

Fair enough, but you did drop the “(capital ‘H’, no adjective such as “secular”)” and refers to the IHEU’s use of the word. Humanist… I took a look back, I’m mostly writing about “humanists” and “humanism”, but you were explicitly referring to “Humanism” with a capital H. The discussion is currently about “Christian Humanist is an oxymoron” I think, which is a bit of a stretch… since the definition you talked about is explicitly defined as being with “no adjective”.

So I think we’re talking a bit past each other, as to whether we’re talking about general humanism and humanistic philosophies, or a particular union. I certainly agree that traditional Christians would not be able to join that union…!

Re homosexuality:

If I was forced to give a gut feel answer, I strongly believe it is caused by nurture, not nature.

Would you be prepared to go test this, and accept any new insights such testing might reveal? Some resonance with Romans 12:2 intended. Question: if your views of homosexuality predates your Christian status, could you accept that that view of homosexuality might actually be “confirming to this world”, and that Christians that decided to question their prior biases and actually tested it, and come to the conclusion that it is nature and not nurture, at least have some foot to stand on when they’re compassionate towards, and accepting of, committed monogamous homosexual relationships? Or… say… non-physical ones then? Though, granted:

I am not really into the entire Homosexuality discussion.

…so we need not get stuck into this.

There seems to be a fair amount of hate speech coming from Shofar’s side with regards to Humanists, and this anybody can verify for themselves by listening the sermons on the Shofar website. This is unfortunate and something that I do not like.

Thanks. (Emphasis mine:) I appreciate the sentiment.

Sorry about taking so long to respond. I’ve not touched on the bits that you’ve discussed with Kenneth, and some of the other places where we are more or less in agreement.

I believe that once your physical needs are provided for, the next more difficult problem rears its head. Needs of the heart. Those can be just or near as painful as physical needs.

Agreed. But the assumption that god is the answer to “needs of the heart” needs to be tested, not assumed. There are other equally effective ways to deal with these needs.

My brother lives in Britain at the moment, and he is not a believer.

A question. Assuming (granted, AITMOAF) that your brother is an atheist (I’m uncertain whether “not a believer” means non-Christian or non-religious), do you honestly believe that he will burn in hell for eternity?

But he finds it’s almost impossible to deal with the people there because of their self centeredness. They will step onto anybody and everybody to satisfy their needs.

In what sense does this differ from the general run of human societies, at any time, in the history of humankind?

Sexual immorality running amuck,

I’m uncertain what you mean by sexual immorality. If you mean promiscuity, again, how does this differ from the general human societal pattern?

parentless children who have to accept their fate that they will grow up in unforgiving loveless environment.

You’re telling me that there are more parentless children in Britain than there are in South Africa?

I doubt that.

Let me tell you, they (the ones with their physical needs met) need God more than you think.

No. They need their emotional needs met. Finding god does not equate to this, although you can certainly argue it is one way of doing so.

This doesn’t paint a pretty picture of your god…

Depends on your point of view. Maybe God knows where Baal worship leads too, we don’t. If Baal worship leads to worse circumstances than a 3 year drought, it paints a pretty picture.

A child that is forced to eat yucky vegetables (instead of yummy sweets) does not paint a pretty picture for the child either (of his parents). But over time children become adults and they realize: “Hey wait! My parents actually wanted to help me become strong and healthy.” The same holds true for the relationship between Christians and God. Over time we learn that He only wants us to be free from the bondage of sin. This is not an overnight thing, and I believe this is why it is near impossible for a unbeliever to understand what is going on with Christians.

You can look at this the other way round. In a world where all physical needs are provided for i.e. most western societies, there is no need to psychologically deal with hunger or thirst or danger by inventing a father figure who will make everything alright some nebulous time in the future.

Yes I see your point. I believe that once your physical needs are provided for, the next more difficult problem rears its head. Needs of the heart. Those can be just or near as painful as physical needs. My brother lives in Britain at the moment, and he is not a believer. But he finds it’s almost impossible to deal with the people there because of their self centeredness. They will step onto anybody and everybody to satisfy their needs. Sexual immorality running amuck, parentless children who have to accept their fate that they will grow up in unforgiving loveless environment. Let me tell you, they (the ones with their physical needs met) need God more than you think.

Again according to my personal experience, which is listening to the testimonies of the people in the church, there are a high number of stories that include difficult circumstances.

OK. I don’t doubt this. But are you aware of how many testimonies there are that show precisely the opposite? The church is a subset of the population, and you are unlikely to get irreligious folks to talk about their trials and tribulations there. Surely a holistic view of whether “foxholes” cause “atheists” to convert should also feature the irreligious?

I’m not denying your experience here. I just doubt it’s the whole picture.

This angered God greatly so he declares to his profit Elijah that it is not going to rain for many years in Israel.

As usual this tactic works and many people are converted.

This doesn’t paint a pretty picture of your god…

Few people come to God while sipping their martini on their new yacht heading out for a cruise.

You can look at this the other way round. In a world where all physical needs are provided for i.e. most western societies, there is no need to psychologically deal with hunger or thirst or danger by inventing a father figure who will make everything alright some nebulous time in the future.

Are you saying that all an unbeliever needs to do to see god is to be put through a bit of pressure?

Well I am not sure. Again according to my personal experience, which is listening to the testimonies of the people in the church, there are a high number of stories that include difficult circumstances.

The Bible has lots of stories indicating this is a common pattern God uses to get people to “see”. For example, In the book of Kings one of the kings (king Ahab) allowed Israel to worship Baal. This angered God greatly so he declares to his profit Elijah that it is not going to rain for many years in Israel. (Remember Baal had authority over the fertility of the land in Canaanite religion). Then after 3 years the people suffered greatly and in that way brought them into a place to receive God. See their false god Baal had left them (no rain) and now God can come in and bestow grace to the people. As usual this tactic works and many people are converted.

Few people come to God while sipping their martini on their new yacht heading out for a cruise. In my personal experience turning to God (and thus away from sin) is not an easy road to take and the struggle can be rough at times. Expect to lose friends and loved ones . Very few “magic wand” moments there as God opens your heart to receive Him, but you still need to receive Him.

I have another conversation going too, which just included this little gem:

Ugh. Just…ugh.

Would you be interested in observing and chipping in with some facts, once or twice, should that conversation drift in the direction of actually discussing that matter?

If you think it would help.

@Werner

How many times have you heard unbelievers say “Oh my God…” in a time of need?

I say it all the time…although not quite in the circumstances that you are envisioning!

On a serious note, that sounds like a “no atheists in foxholes” type of argument. Are you saying that all an unbeliever needs to do to see god is to be put through a bit of pressure?

The next post could really be just a short little one.

I have rather a low statistical certainty estimate regarding this prediction…

You could have added skepticism about me actually writing the post today. *sigh*. I have another conversation going too, which just included this little gem:

It is also important that proper science is practised. Go and check www_creationontheweb_com and/or read my book “Skepping & Evolusie – onversoenbaar!” to see why I believe that evolution is bad science and creationism is far better science. Evolution is not only refuted from the Bible but also from science.

Would you be interested in observing and chipping in with some facts, once or twice, should that conversation drift in the direction of actually discussing that matter? (I might steer clear of it though, this is on a theologian/pastor/blogger friend of mine’s blog, he finds himself a target of the fundies’ witch-hunt. I’m trying to avoid derailing too much, that the conversation can remain as useful to others as possible.)

@Michael, #61, thanks for the kind words! Your impression of what I’m about very accurately matches what I’m striving for, that makes me happy.

@Werner, #62, sorry, time pressure. I’ll have to respond to your comment later.

Your second paragraph raises a interesting point, and I happen to agree with how that hypothetical scenario will play out. But it is hypothetical.

About my “eat your vegetables” metaphor. It is just an example (and there are probably many) where human nature resists someone telling itself how to live its life, even when said advice is good advice. The reason for this is probably easy to guess. Human nature and its need for free will is fairly strong. I believe God intended it this way. We do not want to be robots to anyone, not even God. But what God does want is for us to realize (in your words “use your brain to think about it, to wrestle with it, to mine out the truth, or seek out truth if truth seems too hard to find” ) that his advice is always the best advice, to the point where we follow it without question. Because I say God wants I naturally need to back that up with Scripture: Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. Therefore, it is not entirely the same as “deferring authority”, because you still chose to “defer authority” making you responsible for that decision (which is deferring responsibility).

Suppose a Shofarian that holds a literalist belief were to make the same statement, would you have responded equally strongly?

Even more so! Look. The Old Testament is just that. The Old Covenant between God and His people. Now we have a New Covenant with God, through His Son.

From how I understand the New Testament, the idea is that Jesus came to remove the obstacles that stood between people and God. This was, for example, symbolized by the tearing of the cloth/curtain that kept the not-pure-enough out of the holiest-of-holies in the temple. “That is what the New Testament is all about, how can you miss that?”

Exactly! That is correct, but with a slight caveat. In order “to make it work for you” (as it is not automatic), you must believe in Jesus. That is the, through Jesus, as in by believing in what Jesus did (he interceded for us), that I am talking about. If the emphasis is not on that, then it is wrong. I am sure if I read Borg’s book I would find that he agrees with this, I am sure that, that passage was out of context and did him wrong.

And how do you know that your church’s interpretation or way of following is more spirit-guided than e.g. Borg’s? Playing literalism for a moment: would it be an unforgivable sin if you were to say Borg’s interpretation is misguided, if it was actually “spirit guided”? If so, how safe do you feel in making such a suggestion?

You clearly think too much, that is a very interesting observation you make. I have also encountered this “thought” on my road and something I have yet to properly figure out for myself. It applies on many “levels” or entity relations. I just cannot comment any further on that question.

Actually, I say Shofar is a charismatic/Pentecostal church because they believe everyone should pray in tongues.

Technically Shofar believes in only what that the Bible says. If the Bible says that people that are indwelled by the Holy Spirit can pray in tongues, then it is so. The “should” there is misinterpreted. Some people only start praying in tongues much later than their baptism. It took me almost 2 years to first pray in tongues.

Thus, anyone that is unable to, can end up wondering if they really have the spirit.

I agree with this, but this is not something Shofar suggests, but is firm in the mind of the “baptee” (in fact I would suggest to a friend that the thought is from Satan himself). There needs to be better education about this issue. Same goes for worship.

You do believe Jesus was 100% human too though, right?

Yea you got me there. I do believe that. It seems kind of confusing for me; he is supernatural now but was not then. Something like that!?

Citation please?

Wiki on Humanism (Life Stance) Quote: Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition.

I expect you would agree that you don’t need any beliefs in the supernatural to be able to determine murder is wrong, or stealing is wrong. In that sense, you too, have some humanism in your worldview.

Yes. As I said earlier, A humanist and a Christian has a largely overlapping set of values. This being one of them.

I am not really into the entire Homosexuality discussion. If I was forced to give a gut feel answer, I strongly believe it is caused by nurture, not nature. Naturally I have no proof of this, but I even believed this before I was a Christian so I doubt it is because of Biblical influence. Furthermore it is not like we hate Homosexuals, or shun them. They will however find themselves under a friendly obligation to go for a session of deliverance. Unfortunately, they must want to be delivered from this or they giving homosexuality a right over their lives and nothing we can do about that.

Let me cut to the chase. Shofar and creationism seminars like emphasizing the definition of secular humanism in terms of “we don’t need God (to live good lives)”.

I agree. There seems to be a fair amount of hate speech coming from Shofar’s side with regards to Humanists, and this anybody can verify for themselves by listening the sermons on the Shofar website. This is unfortunate and something that I do not like. Most of us were Humanists once (before we got “saved”) so why now condemn them. It makes no sense, as a Humanistic life stance got us where we are today. The jump is small in contrast to something like Satanism, which has a much worse yield of born again Christians(no citation, but according to my personal experience of the testimony of people in the church) if you get my drift.

Where I’d hope we would agree, is that humanism is a good thing, considered e.g. within the context of people that already don’t believe in God, and aren’t going to start believing. That would be, for me, a happy note to end this discussion on. I don’t think we ever disagreed on that, but I’d just like an explicit confirmation of the positive, constructive aspects of it, albeit within the frame of your grievances about it.

Most certainly I agree. But I would like to conclude by saying that you should not underestimate God’s love for every human being on this planet. He will always come for every one of us in a way we ever expected. He is smart like that. They key is just then to receive him when He comes for you. It usually gets worse before it gets better, but that is just His way sometimes. How many times have you heard unbelievers say “Oh my God…” in a time of need? There are some situations that only God can get you out of; I pray that when that day comes for someone they are in a place to receive that love that transcends all

@Kennith, I have heard of Last-Thursdayism briefly before, Hugo touched on it before. I have not studied it in depth because the question it poses “Why not treat something that looks old, like it is old?” is something that is difficult for me to answer. This is because I do not believe that we can ever with 100% certainty say everything points to an old universe. We can never know.

You are absolutely right. We can’t know anything with certainty. There is always a statistical uncertainty involved in something like this. The problem with the “We can never know” assertion is that it presumes that we can never know anything. This is demonstrably wrong, because this isn’t a binary either/or kind of issue. There is a continuum between ignorance and certainty. The evidence at the moment, however, points to a 99.9999…% certainty for an old universe. At some point you have to look at the evidence and decide that it is (to borrow from one of the best science writers of the last few decades) perverse to withhold provisional assent.

@Hugo

The next post could really be just a short little one.

I have rather a low statistical certainty estimate regarding this prediction…

1) I wonder if they themselves chose the “Christian” label, or whether that label might have been given to them by outsiders, who found it hard to refer to a group as “followers of… Their Way?” Accepting terms from outside the community is common. I ponder “geek”, which was a negative word at some point, I think, but has turned into a whole “geek pride” thing.

2) I’m thinking: there was some things they explicitly wanted to distance themselves from. These things needed a label so that they can talk about it? In my case, I’m not so often labelling the things I’m pushing away from, probably due to my desire to remain as inclusive as possible. I mutate my definitions, while striving to grasp at the underlying ideas I care about, the ideas I feel those labels should be pointing to. When I say “I am not a Christian”, it is less a matter of wanting to distance myself from something than it is about Christians taking exception to me using the label, as they feel I’m too much of a heretic. I don’t subscribe to Christian creeds, not without significant footnotes added explicitly or implicitly to explain the contexts and meanings of the words… (A non-literal approach to creeds? If I insisted on maintaining the label at all times and in all contexts, I bet someone would eventually feel the need to create a meta-creed, a creed about how the creed should be understood. )

To bed with me, hard work for three days, Thursday is public holiday, Ascension day, so is Switzerland then more Christian than South Africa? — and then I’m taking long-weekend.

I owe this blog some posts, it’s been more than a week now. I must break the habitual thought that “posts are supposed to be long, take long, drain me of my energy”. The next post could really be just a short little one. Details could be hacked out in comments, and posts can be updated or expanded at a later date. Yea. OK, I’ll aim to write it in the next 20 hours.

To someone coming from the “following angle” though, whether Jesus had a virginal birth is not so critical. Consider the hypothetical: suppose we were to discover, next week, irrefutable proof that Jesus had a biological father, what impact would that have? For believers and literalists, this would undermine their fundamentals, namely specific beliefs, while followers could shrug about it, and continue following.

but he has it wrong when he says God is testing us, cultivating this feeling that God is against us.

That’s an interesting angle on what he’s saying, I suppose I can understand why you think of it that way, when I think from your perspective. From my perspective, I disagree with the suggestion that Borg is saying God is testing us, but that’s probably because I don’t feel any pressure to “believe the right things”. (Being a follower, rather than a believer )

How does your “eat your vegetables!” metaphor fit into the picture, does that map to “believe the right things”? On the grounds that “believing the right things” is considered “good for you”, like eating your vegetables? What is human-behaviour-101, that we must repent from wanting to think for ourselves and follow the instruction of our parents (aka the Bible in your metaphor)? I see as another flip-sided element of human-behaviour-101 the desire to defer authority to some authority figure or source, so that we don’t have to take responsibility for our choices and what we believe. “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” -> is an easy way out, to avoid having to use your brain to think about it, to wrestle with it, to mine out the truth, or seek out truth if truth seems too hard to find. That is behaviour I feel must be unlearnt too (repented from).

But I think we’re more or less understanding one another.

Yes I do understand your point of view though, when you say you follow.

Moving on…

Rather, it is about a deepening relationship with the God to whom the Bible points,

That is just plain wrong. I am sorry. If he makes a statement like that, and expects people to eat it, he is mistaken. Any Christian that understands the doctrine of Christ would laugh at that.

Huh?!

This was a rather disappointing paragraph… that you would take exception to something as simple as that. Marcus Borg is talking about the Bible here, as a whole. He starts with the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament), for example. The Hebrew Bible, read by the Jews, is… “about a deepening relationship with God to whom the Bible points”. Thinking of it like that, how on earth could you gripe so strongly about that statement? Suppose a Shofarian that holds a literalist belief were to make the same statement, would you have responded equally strongly?

You’re saying: “Any Christian that holds my/our understanding of theology, would laugh at that” or in other words “we laugh at that statement”. Or… “anyone that doesn’t laugh at that statement, clearly doesn’t understand the doctrine of Christ correctly”. I strongly disagree with you here. There are people that would take Borg very seriously there, in total agreement with him, while still subscribing to what you call the “doctrine of Christ” (according to Paul , correct?).

And isn’t a relationship with Jesus supposed to be a relationship with God? From how I understand the New Testament, the idea is that Jesus came to remove the obstacles that stood between people and God. This was, for example, symbolised by the tearing of the cloth/curtain that kept the not-pure-enough out of the holiest-of-holies in the temple. “That is what the New Testament is all about, how can you miss that?”

but I may discern and appeal to him to rethink what he believes, based on what is written in the Bible

I can guarantee you that he knows the Bible better than you do… So “go read the Bible again and rethink what you believe” is not exactly going to be helpful now, is it?

[context: follow his ways in the way that Jesus intended.] There is only one that can determine this intention, I believe. [the Holy Spirit]

And how do you know that your church’s interpretation or way of following is more spirit-guided than e.g. Borg’s? Playing literalism for a moment: would it be an unforgivable sin if you were to say Borg’s interpretation is misguided, if it was actually “spirit guided”? If so, how safe do you feel in making such a suggestion?

Therefore you can say Shofar is a Charismatic church.

Actually, I say Shofar is a charismatic/pentecostal church because they believe everyone should pray in tongues. “Anyone that has the spirit, can pray in tongues” goes the Shofar theology. Thus, anyone that is unable to, can end up wondering if they really have the spirit. So in your mind, you might equate my definition of “charismatic/pentecostal” and yours, but in my mind, there’s a very significant difference. The Dutch Reformed church also believes they have the Holy Spirit… as do most Christian denominations.

Jesus is a supernatural being

You do believe Jesus was 100% human too though, right?

but then the definition of a Humanist rejects supernaturalism

Citation please?

The shortest possible definition of the humanism philosophy is: “reason and compassion”. I’ve come across some diversity in groups that label themselves humanists. Some do equate Humanism with “secular humanism”, others insist on adding the “secular” adjective in order to distinguish from some of the more bizarre groups that also consider themselves humanists. I can link you to the thoughts and definitions under which my perspective of humanism was shaped, two old blog posts in particular. But, let’s go with Wikipedia’s definition. Shortening to the clauses I feel are relevant (with regards to the discussion about the supernatural):

the ability to determine right and wrong [...] without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts

That is distinct from believing or not believing in the supernatural. As I mentioned earlier:

Here is a related question:

“It is wrong to commit murder.” Do you think someone that has never come across any sacred texts from any tradition knows this, or can come to know this by considering it and thinking about it, or do you think the only way someone could possibly conclude murder is wrong, is by submitting to the authority of some sacred text?

I expect you would agree that you don’t need any beliefs in the supernatural to be able to determine murder is wrong, or stealing is wrong. In that sense, you too, have some humanism in your worldview.

The wikipedia page on Humanism does seem to lean towards the secular kind, not surprisingly. Consider Christian humanism (arguably a less refined article) for another angle thus, which even has a section Selected Humanist Teachings of Jesus.

One place where we (humanists) differ from some literalists (not all), would be on homosexuality. Based on reason and compassion, we consider the evidence, we see homosexuality is completely natural, and not a choice. By compassion, we then determine our homophobic culture is wrong. If you were in their position, how would it make you feel? (If your culture told you you may only have intimate relationships with other males, no females, how would that make you feel? As a way of swapping roles. I’m assuming you’re hetero here.) Whereas those believing in supernaturally-revealed morality often cite the Bible as irrefutable proof that homosexuality is wrong. (And the best response here, I believe, is to show them good Biblical exegesis around how weak that belief’s foundations actually are, with regards to what scripture “really says”.)

Ok my mistake, but how does this make things any better? Something must be used as a guide, as I am sure they are not using a magic Eight Ball? So how do they circumvent this “problematic state of human nature”?

By grappling with it: by recognising their own flaws and not denying it, by striving to improve, by relying on reason and compassion, being prepared to change their minds (repent) if they find better reasons. By using science: back to the homosexuality example, prior to scientific evidence of it not being a choice, humanists might have had a more uncompassionate or hateful stance towards homosexuality, but through reason, accepting the evidence, they continually strive to improve their ways, and repent of their past wrongs.

So forget about believer-vs-non-believer, how would you describe to a non-believer, that doesn’t consider himself to be a humanist, what it means to become one?

Reading it again I might have misunderstood your question. When you say “[...] what it means to become one?” do you mean a Humanist or a Believer/Christian?

I meant a humanist.

Let me cut to the chase. Shofar and creationism seminars like emphasizing the definition of secular humanism in terms of “we don’t need God (to live good lives)”. The emphasis I was seeking in this discussion, “from a non-religious person’s perspective”, is… “affirming the dignity and worth of all people, striving towards ethical and moral lives through the use of reason and compassion”.

From http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=2095 :

“A humanist,” I said, “is somebody who thinks that people should all take care of each other, and whether there is a god or there isn’t, we should spend our time making this life and this world better.”

and

Many others call themselves religious humanists, including many UUs. Some of these use the word “religion” in the traditional way, which Webster’s defines as “belief in a divine or superhuman power to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator and ruler of the universe.” Others claim and redefine the word “religion” in ways that transcend theistic belief, building instead on shared values, community, and the desire to be and do good.

And there’s some nice bits in my old post (I quoted a nice comment someone left on a previous post):

On Labelling Myself a Humanist

Where I’d hope we would agree, is that humanism is a good thing, considered e.g. within the context of people that already don’t believe in God, and aren’t going to start believing. That would be, for me, a happy note to end this discussion on. I don’t think we ever disagreed on that, but I’d just like an explicit confirmation of the positive, constructive aspects of it, albeit within the frame of your grievances about it.

I’ve been following some of your conversation with Werner and it occurs to me that the labels “Christian”, “Humanist”, “Socialist” (virtually any ‘ist’) is not set in stone but evolves constantly over time (like all language). It may be worth asking two questions:

1) Why did the believers in Antioch adopt the label “Christian” in place of the then-favoured “followers of The Way”? I have no idea! But perhaps, the previous label had been hijacked by religious people who they wished to distance themselves from?

2) Was it not precisely this situation that prompted Soren to distance himself from the label “Christendom” in 19th century Denmark, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer to distance himself from the label “religious” in Nazi Germany? These people were disillusioned with the institutionalised Church, so they adopted new labels. Why then can’t we do the same if we feel the need to distance ourselves from the “Christian” label, which to so many people has come to mean “bigotted”, “closed-minded”, “homophobic”, and “violent”?

At first, the answer seems to be that we should go ahead and distance ourselves. The problem is that “the foot that calls itself distinct from the body is not revolutionary, but merely deluded! A foot that revolts against the foot may find itself soon seperated from the Head” (1 Corinthians 12 very paraphrased . This desire to distance ourselves from the Christian label is the same desire that led to denominationalism, and the terrible violence associated with it. We have to ask ourselves whether indifference or revolution or reconstruction is the best option for someone who professes to follow Christ?

PS – About Kierkegaard: he wrote a lot of good stuff, some intensely personal, some very academic, and some very philosophical. I have avoided the second category. I recommend “The Journals” (English version published in 1938) and “For Self Examination” (1848). Here’s a great quote that I think you’ll like (from “Journals”):

“if the Church is to be emancipated, then I must ask: By what means, in what way? A religious movement must be served religiously—otherwise it is a sham! Consequently, the emancipation must come about through martyrdom—bloody or bloodless. The price of purchase is the spiritual attitude. But those who wish to emancipate the Church by secular and worldly means (i.e. no martyrdom), they’ve introduced a conception of tolerance entirely consonant with that of the entire world, where tolerance equals indifference, and that is the most terrible offence against Christianity”.

So forget about believer-vs-non-believer, how would you describe to a non-believer, that doesn’t consider himself to be a humanist, what it means to become one?

Reading it again I might have misunderstood your question. When you say “[...] what it means to become one?” do you mean a Humanist or a Believer/Christian?