NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/messiani/3475

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 7.5 KB | 169 lines

Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!watson!Watson.Ibm.Com!strom
From: [e-mail] (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Humanism (personal experience)
Sender: @watson.ibm.com
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:21:19 GMT
References:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 157

In article <[e-mail]>, 21010JIS@MSU writes:
|> Advance Warning: My text editor doesn't seem to cooperate as nicely on
|> UseNet as it does for regular e-mail. My newest comments start with JS.
|>
|> |> Re Rob's question of humanism vs. mysticism, there are obviously
|> |> different brands of humanism floating around. Off the top of my head,
|> |> I'd suggest these distinctions: 1) pantheistic humanism- you really
|> |> believe in gods, goddesses, mother earth, etc. and man is one of the
|> |> forces/gods himself; 2) chance humanism- we're all protoplasm, therefore
|> |> all values are relative and internally defined; 3) I'm not sure of
|> |> a word for this; homotheistic? anthromorphic? but anyway, man as god;
|> |> 4) theistic humanism- the earth was made by God for man- we are the stewards
|> |> of creation.
|>
|> But it seems you're confusing the discussion by broadening
|> the term "humanism" to mean "everything Christians don't like".
|> If your definition can't distinguish the Druids from Paul Kurtz,
|> it's probably not very useful.
|>
|> JS: Actually I think I was just codifying and clarifying existing
|> definitions as opposed to creating my own. The term is used in
|> different ways, and I think 4 clear definitions would be superior
|> to 1 confusing one. I wouldn't call them all humanism, but I think
|> all are called humanism by someone.
|>

Four clear definitions are OK provided you call each of the
four things something else.  It would help to use the terms
that the groups use to describe themselves.

Group 1 seems to be newage spiritualism; group 2 is materialism;
I don't know if group 3 exists; group 4 is Jewish humanism.

There is also secular humanism, which is very like Jewish humanism
except that God-language is replaced by more rationalist language.

|> [story of weirdo "motivational seminars" deleted]
|>
|> JS: You didn't respond to the main point, which is that these
|> courses in the Defense Department and the Public Schools were government
|> sponsored and paid for by all our tax dollars. You agreed previously
|> that they were "very bad"; now I've presented you with evidence that
|> the "very bad" a) has occultic content, and b) is imposed/presented
|> by the government.

I'm still skeptical of the Public school example.  I've never
heard of a required public school event which took place on
a weekend.

Whether this motivational seminar was an occult religion
or a pseudo-scientific groupthink exercise, I agree
that it's pretty nonsensical.

On the other hand, if you got rid of all religious activity
in the DoD paid for by our tax dollars, you'd have to
get rid of Christian religious activity as well, you know.

My sister-in-law's husband gets paid by the Army solely
to give Fundamentalist religious counseling and preaching.



|> |>
|> |> Among other things, we paired up with people and told the other person to
|> |> descibe someone we were thinking of, a room in our home, etc. I told
|> |> someone to describe my girlfriend. They did to a tee, *including the
|> |> fact that she had a disclocated left knee*. They described her
|> |> appearence, everything, and I hadn't mentioned a word of her. I also
|> |>
|> |> So, what do we have here? The Torah is very clear. I was engaging in
|> |> divination and witchcraft. It was real 3000 years ago and it's real now.
|> |> Thanks be to G-d that He paid the penalty for my sin.
|> |>
|> You were the victim of a charlatan's tricks.
|>
|> JS: 1. The person giving me the info on my girlfriend was another paying
|>        attendee. A plant, you say..? then explain
|>     2. I didn't mention my girlfriend because she was in Bowling Green,
|>        I was in Cleveland, and since our relationship wasn't great, I
|>        was looking to meet someone else (my manners have improved somewhat
|>        since then, Praise G-d). They had *no* way of knowing anything
|>        about her. The first time I mentioned her was when the 20some of
|>        us paired off 2x2. BTW, the other pairs had similar results.
|>
|> JS: I'm perfectly willing to consider an alternative explanation. Care to
|> provide one? :-).

This is a standard magician's trick.  Such tricks are incorporated
into the routines of people claiming occult powers.  Sometimes,
they are incorporated into the routines of people claiming
occult Christian powers --- e.g. the "faith healers".  Every time
such routines are examined carefully by anyone familiar with
stage magic, they are found to be bogus.  In this case, I believe
the Silva people knew more about you than you think.  You trusted
them, and you gave away more information about yourself than
you would have had you been a skeptic.  You also didn't give them
too hard a challenge --- since your relationship with your girlfriend
was probably not that secret.  If you had asked them to describe
a conversation you had with your brother when you were age 7
(assuming that your brother wasn't in the group and there was
nothing significant about the conversation that would have
made you tell anyone else about it), there might have been a different
result.



|>
|> JS: You questioned what this all had to do with humanism. I suggest:
|>
|> 1. We are using different definitions. Please note that if my
|> definition is well formed and has meaningful content, it is
|> just as valid as yours. I did state that all of these definitions
|> are in use by people, and all have a common thread of humans
|> being central in importance.
|>

It's more valid if it corresponds to a doctrine publically
called humanism.

|> 2. I contend that any tenets based on many having ultimate/godlike
|> powers is a religion, called "humanism" in contrast to "theism"
|> (both your brand and mine). Thus these teachings of "man as god"
|> are humanistic. This is a part of what I consider humanism to be.
|>

None of what you discussed showed man as having ultimate/godlike
powers.  They just showed man as having more powers than
man is normally thought to have.

They're only religions if these beliefs are based on faith.

A belief that man can become stronger by exercising is also
a belief which claims that man can develop new powers, but
it's not a religion --- it's a scientific hypothesis, which
may be true or false.  Would you call classes that teach
you to break boards with karate religious?

|> 3. Whether partially or in toto, by chance or by intent, small
|> scale or large scale, these teachings are being promulgated today
|> *using tax dollars*. That's illegal (as well as repressive to all of us
|> of whatever persuasion in this group), but it's happening anyway.
|>

Using the government to propagate religion is something which
I oppose.  But actually most fundamentalist Christians I
know don't oppose it.

(1) E.g. my in-law who is a chaplain
(2) all the people who argue for public school prayers

If you tried to clean house and do away with occult religions
masquerading as motivational seminars, you'd also have to
do away with conventional religious preaching masquerading
as chapel.  And there's more of the latter than the former.
--
Rob Strom, [e-mail], [phone]
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598