I find it very funny and interesting that Christians, the followers of the teachings of Jesus(assumed) seem to feel threatened by humanism as it is defined today.

Having read through the gospels of Jesus, i am convinced thAt Jesus was definitely one of the world's foremost and renowned humanist.
I would love to open a debate on this topic.
All are welcome.

Good day Plaetton,

It depends on what you call religion and humanism...if indeed you refer to what I believe both to be then the answer is that Jesus was both a humanist and a religious leader...The truth really is that it would be impractical for one to be a Christian without being a humanist...

I am quite concerned about your reasons for believing that Christians are antagonistic to the principles of humanism because I know that being a humanist is a prerequisite for anyone who wants to identify with Christianity.

Jesus was an athiest who saw nothing wrong with human behaviors,be it gay or otherwise. He was a huge fan of loving your neighbour regardless of their race,sexual orientation etc...... Haven said that,he wasnt the only one who tried to enlighthen his people.We have several other individuals who fought for the abolishment of slave trade, equality of all men ( martin luther king jnr) and presently,people fighting for the right of women.

Every generation had its own messiahs. Jesus perhaps was for the jew,Martin luthers kingjnr,malcom x amongst others for black ppl in America. Fela,Ken sarowiwa and co for Nigerians.

Despite what is generally accepted, I see scanty evidence In the gospels that Jesus was very religious. Infact, he spent most his time repudiating the religious leaders of his time, much like NL atheists.
He hardly mentioned god or yahweh by name. Infact, The early church fathers debated and fought among themselves trying to decide which deity to asign to Jesus.
The gospel records of Jesus ministery clearly show that the ideals and teachings of Jesus were purely humanistic and not religious.
Jesus, influenced by the Buddhist teachings that he had perhaps been exposed to,sought to free his people from the shackles of slavish religion, and offer them in it's stead, humanistic ideals to live by.

striktlymi: Good day Plaetton,

It depends on what you call religion and humanism...if indeed you refer to what I believe both to be then the answer is that Jesus was both a humanist and a religious leader...The truth really is that it would be impractical for one to be a Christian without being a humanist...

I am quite concerned about your reasTistic to the principles of humanism because I know that being a humanist is a prerequisite for anyone who wants to identify with Christianity.

Ask your brothers frosbel, anony and all others who have openly attached humanists and humanistic ideals on this forum.

Jesus was a racist with some good moral teachings. Quite a hypocrite.

Humanism logically ends up being irreligious due to the division ALL religions cause.


Jesus should be better known as a religious teacher.

God defies humanism. He despises it. You are born with sin and your humanity is not yours, it is his. Your se.x organs are disgusting....circumcise the males and avoid the menstruating females. You dont have freedom....no freedom of religion....deny my one true religion and you burn in hell....muhahaha...I am that I am.

Homosexuals be stoned, heathens slayed and witches burnt to a stake.

Jesus was more of a social and ethical revolutionary whose philosophical teachings gradually morphed into a religion due to the social and political exigencies of the era.

plaetton:
Ask your brothers frosbel, anony and all others who have openly attached humanists and humanistic ideals on this forum.

You raised an ish in the OP and now that it is time to put your money where your mouth is, you want me to turn to someone else?

Ah mehn....

plaetton: Despite what is generally accepted, I see scanty evidence In the gospels that Jesus was very religious. Infact, he spent most his time repudiating the religious leaders of his time, much like NL atheists.
He hardly mentioned god or yahweh by name. Infact, The early church fathers debated and fought among themselves trying to decide which deity to asign to Jesus.
The gospel records of Jesus ministery clearly show that the ideals and teachings of Jesus were purely humanistic and not religious.Jesus, influenced by the Buddhist teachings that he had perhaps been exposed to,sought to free his people from the shackles of slavish religion, and offer them in it's stead, humanistic ideals to live by.

So you believe there actually was a Jesus and he wasn't a rip off from Buddhism?

inurmind:

So you believe there actually was a Jesus and he wasn't a rip off from Buddhism?

Am not sure if Jesus lived or not, but the teachings attributed to him are what keeps real to a lot of people.

plaetton:

Am not sure if Jesus lived or not, but the teachings attributed to him are what keeps real to a lot of people.

Well why the uncertainty? I'm quite interested.

inurmind:

Well why the uncertainty? I'm quite interested.

Well, aside from the gospels written by anonymous scribes some 300yrs after the events, there are no other written or archeological evidence to corroborate or prove the historicity of a man that supposedly had such an influence in his time. Those Gospel accounts from whence we know Jesus, are not credible as historical facts.
Most importantly, the virgin birth, miraculous deeds, crucifixion and resurrection of a saviour god are age old mythical and mystical narratives of nearly every ancient culture from Egypt to the far east.

plaetton: Despite what is generally accepted, I see scanty evidence In the gospels that Jesus was very religious. Infact, he spent most his time repudiating the religious leaders of his time, much like NL atheists.
He hardly mentioned god or yahweh by name. Infact, The early church fathers debated and fought among themselves trying to decide which deity to asign to Jesus.
The gospel records of Jesus ministery clearly show that the ideals and teachings of Jesus were purely humanistic and not religious.
Jesus, influenced by the Buddhist teachings that he had perhaps been exposed to,sought to free his people from the shackles of slavish religion, and offer them in it's stead, humanistic ideals to live by.

True talk bro

On a broader, somewhat related note, considering the Jesus legend is an amalgam of various others and most codes seem to evolve towards humanistic ideals, humanism can be interpreted as the ideal moral code the rest strive to become, perhaps some sort of objective code even. Ultimately though it won't be 'humanism' but 'life-sm', if that makes any sense. That won't stop certain eediots from insisting there was no morality before Jesus.

Jesus_f_ing_christ_literally.jpg what an asinine thing to say.

wiegraf: On a broader, somewhat related note, considering the Jesus legend is an amalgam of various others and most codes seem to evolve towards humanistic ideals, humanism can be interpreted as the ideal moral code the rest strive to become, perhaps some sort of objective code even. Ultimately though it won't be 'humanism' but 'life-sm', if that makes any sense. That won't stop certain eediots from insisting there was no morality before Jesus.

Jesus_f_ing_christ_literally.jpg what an asinine thing to say.

Yes indeed. Jesus merely reiterated, with his own unique style, the universal ethos of great antiquity: what we call today, humanism.

one should define humanism before claiming that Jesus was a humanist.


ethics doesnt equal humanism
morals too

^^

Standard meaning will do. Can't copypasta atm, but basically love thy neighbor, place a focus on this world ('materialism' as the current dumb and dumber troupe calls it), reason, etc. Abandon hocus pocus when dealing with others from different cultures, etc.

As religions become more 'modern' they tend to move in this direction (except you, islam). Slowly but surely as the world integrates, even if they retain their (often silly) spiritual core. Love thy neighbor is universal anyways, mistrust just gets in the way and silly, selfish, myopic religionists distort it. I intend to post on the 'civilizing process', it should be interesting.

Humanism is related to ethical codes imo, no matter how you look at it

wiegraf: ^^

Standard meaning will do. Can't copypasta atm, but basically love thy neighbor, place a focus on this world ('materialism' as the current dumb and dumber troupe calls it), reason, etc. Abandon hocus pocus when dealing with others from different cultures, etc.

As religions become more 'modern' they tend to move in this direction (except you, islam). Slowly but surely as the world integrates, even if they retain their (often silly) spiritual core. Love thy neighbor is universal anyways, mistrust just gets in the way and silly, selfish, myopic religionists distort it. I intend to post on the 'civilizing process', it should be interesting.

Humanism is related to ethical codes imo, no matter how you look at it

I understand your point. All religions are humanistic to a degree but then they diverge at a point from humanism.

I will be easier for someone to define humanism first, which I feel the op failed to do.


100% disagree that Jesus was a humanist

plaetton:
Well, aside from the gospels written by anonymous scribes some 300yrs after the events, there are no other written or archeological evidence to corroborate or prove the historicity of a man that supposedly had such an influence in his time. Those Gospel accounts from whence we know Jesus, are not credible as historical facts.
Most importantly, the virgin birth, miraculous deeds, crucifixion and resurrection of a saviour god are age old mythical and mystical narratives of nearly every ancient culture from Egypt to the far east.

Exactly, so why do you still classify the nonexistence of Jesus as a probability, not a certainty, at least that's what you implied in your previous posts.

.

@OP,

Your logic is clearly "illogical". You say jesus was not religious, yet he taught his disciple how to pray, he quoted and taught from the religious scriptures, he taught with parables on what the kingdom of god is like, he made prohesies, he said "I and the father(god) are one", He said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, he identified John the baptist as the Elijah who was foretold to come before him, etc. And you still think he's not religious??

How can Jesus be humanist? Is it jesus copying you guys(humanists, atheists, secularist, etc) or it's you guys copying him? If I agree some sayings of mohammed or buddah or krishna, etc, does that mean they now belong to my "cult" instead of islam, buddism, or krishna respectively? Humanism is a new age movement and was not there at the time of jesus, therefore jesus could not have been a humanist. Besides, jesus never preached or taught outside the context of god or religion which clearly you humanist do not identify with. What you are doing is simply trying to "hijack" christ, just as you try to hijack science as if no religious person ever did or built on science before the advent of new age movements.

Qkeyxyz: @OP,

Your logic is clearly "illogical". You say jesus was not religious, yet he taught his disciple how to pray, he quoted and taught from the religious scriptures, he taught with parables on what the kingdom of god is like, he made prohesies, he said "I and the father(god) are one", He said he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, he identified John the baptist as the Elijah who was foretold to come before him, etc. And you still think he's not religious??

How can Jesus be humanist? Is it jesus copying you guys(humanists, atheists, secularist, etc) or it's you guys copying him? If I agree some sayings of mohammed or buddah or krishna, etc, does that mean they now belong to my "cult" instead of islam, buddism, or krishna respectively? Humanism is a new age movement and was not there at the time of jesus, therefore jesus could not have been a humanist. Besides, jesus never preached or taught outside the context of god or religion which clearly you humanist do not identify with. What you are doing is simply trying to "hijack" christ, just as you try to hijack science as if no religious person ever did or built on science before the advent of new age movements.

I cant believe that i agree with most of what you just said. Thank you, Jesus was religious. Jesus wasnt a humanist

Logicboy03:


I understand your point. All religions are humanistic to a degree but then they diverge at a point from humanism.

I will be easier for someone to define humanism first, which I feel the op failed to do.


100% disagree that Jesus was a humanist

I can see what you mean as well, and I agree that perhaps the term needs to be clarified, but I think you're being too hard on the hippie that came to die for your sins, for whatever whargarbl reasons it may have had.

I think you're ignoring context, in that considering the zeitgeist of the day the core principles are relatively humanistic, or forward thinking if you will. At least some of the authors designed them with that intent, even if they may have failed spectacularly. Like with lincoln (and I know you have problems with that slave master as well though I, personally, can't see how he did much wrong), for that epoch a lot of the message was rather advanced as far as humanism is concerned.

There were others with similar values of course, like I said xtianity is simply an amalgam/evolution of other ideas, but its core, before foolish religionists went to various extremes (or perhaps inevitable logical conclusions likely unforseen by some of its founders), is rather humanistic when compared to other faith systems/religions of the day. Compare OT to NT to see what I mean. Again, doesn't mean NT is flawless mind you, far from it.

For instance a thousand years from now people might be calling humanists of today barbarians because they do not extend humanistic principles to all life (as best they can), eg enjoying suya, but that wouldn't be too fair now, would it?

I do agree that xtianity is inherently imperialistic, thereby intolerant, which egregiously violates the spirit of humanism, but it's still a fairly commendable effort.


In before someone comes in and says I actually believe jesus existed. And what's with the long list of rules while posting, aren't they obvious? Che.... Perhaps we should just move to /islam

wiegraf:

I can see what you mean as well, and I agree that perhaps the term needs to be clarified, but I think you're being too hard on the hippie that came to die for your sins, for whatever whargarbl reasons it may have had.

I think you're ignoring context, in that considering the zeitgeist of the day the core principles are relatively humanistic, or forward thinking if you will. At least some of the authors designed them with that intent, even if they may have failed spectacularly. Like with lincoln (and I know you have problems with that slave master as well though I, personally, can't see how he did much wrong), for that epoch a lot of the message was rather advanced as far as humanism is concerned.

There were others with similar values of course, like I said xtianity is simply an amalgam/evolution of other ideas, but its core, before foolish religionists went to various extremes (or perhaps inevitable logical conclusions likely unforseen by some of its founders), is rather humanistic when compared to other faith systems/religions of the day. Compare OT to NT to see what I mean. Again, doesn't mean NT is flawless mind you, far from it.

For instance a thousand years from now people might be calling humanists of today barbarians because they do not extend humanistic principles to all life (as best they can), eg enjoying suya, but that wouldn't be too fair now, would it?

I do agree that xtianity is inherently imperialistic, thereby intolerant, which egregiously violates the spirit of humanism, but it's still a fairly commendable effort.


In before someone comes in and says I actually believe jesus existed. And what's with the long list of rules while posting, aren't they obvious? Che.... Perhaps we should just move to /islam

You do have a funny way of explaining things. I agree with what you say but your explanations are quite from a different perspective.

Yes, christianity does have some humanistic values compared to Judaism and Islam.....


As for the long list of rules, I think "Oga on top", "price of garri" and "first to comment" have trolled Seun to the max!

@weigraf, @logicboy

Your arguments are out of sync with logic and evidence. Christianity does not have humanistic values, rather humanism have adopted the values of christianity while rejecting god. Simples.

Qkeyxyz: @weigraf, @logicboy

Your arguments are out of sync with logic and evidence. Christianity does not have humanistic values, rather humanism have adopted the values of christianity while rejecting god. Simples.

Lol. Why Christianity? Why not Hinduism or Buddhism?

People weren't humanist before Christianity?

Christians thinking the world revolves around them.. Lol..

Qkeyxyz: @weigraf, @logicboy

Your arguments are out of sync with logic and evidence. Christianity does not have humanistic values, rather humanism have adopted the values of christianity while rejecting god. Simples.

See this one....you know wetin humanism mean?

Qkeyxyz: @weigraf, @logicboy

Your arguments are out of sync with logic and evidence. Christianity does not have humanistic values, rather humanism have adopted the values of christianity while rejecting god. Simples.

No comment

musKeeto:
Lol. Why Christianity? Why not Hinduism or Buddhism?

People weren't humanist before Christianity?

Christians thinking the world revolves around them.. Lol..

Okay. Substitute hinduism/buddhism for christianity but don't say they have humanistic values, rather it is humanism which has adopted these ancient doctrines but rejecting their divine attributes.

Qkeyxyz: @weigraf, @logicboy

Your arguments are out of sync with logic and evidence. Christianity does not have humanistic values, rather humanism have adopted the values of christianity while rejecting god. Simples.

Christianity is a newcomer as far as religion is concerned. Incase you do not know, much of Christianity is borrowed from older religions and philosophies.
You seem ignorant of the fact the world was not on a void before Christianity

^^^

Read the post above you.

Qkeyxyz:

Okay. Substitute hinduism/buddhism for christianity but don't say they have humanistic values, rather it is humanism which has adopted these ancient doctrines but rejecting their divine attributes.

Here's my definition for humanism. I'm using the term to describe philosophies that espouse values such as these

humanist site:
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

Etc etc, blah blah blah

Not just official organizations/schools that sprung recently.

Note also that like I've already stated, I believe these are universal values that all cultures, etc, consider regardless of who or what they actually come into contact with, they are universal. Similarly to how 1 + 1 would equal 2 and any intelligent alien species would have also discovered that truth, they would also have considered humanistic (or '$species_name'-stic) values, and would evolve towards them over time.

You don't have to agree with me about the above though, that's just my thing, and I don't want to get into it atm. Just note I'm not speaking of modern humanistic schools of thought when I use the word 'humanism'.