Cause and Effect

Cause and Effect
Or is it vice versa



As I have been studying several papers on philosophy and Kant; I came across a paper entitled: On the Way to a World Republic? Kant on Race and Development. The remarkable thing that I found in this was the accusation that Christians were responsible for slavery and racism. The thought process is that if people who claimed to be Christians were responsible then Christianity promotes slavery and racism. That would be like us saying that because non-Christians commit murder then all non-Christians are murderers. The purpose in doing this is to promote their own way of thought and in doing so they break the rules of their own argument. The problem with this is that we do not argue the fact because we know the Bible to contain passages on slavery, especially in the Old Testament. However there were specific rules regarding slavery and in many cases the slaves were actually people who had sold themselves into bondage to people to whom they owed money to. This was the same as tenement farming where I settle on your land and work for you in order to one day own the land I settle on. The rules put into place in the Old Testament limited service to 7 years at which time, the debt if it had not been repaid would be released. We have a similar thing today called bankruptcy in which if we file for it remains on our records for at least 7 years and then it is supposed to be erased from our credit rating. We also have slavery today in the form of debt because if we owe anyone money we are slaves to that debt until it is paid off but the majority of us will not be released from that bondage for at least 30 years and while we don’t work directly for the lender all that we work for goes to cover that debt and to keep up the collateral for that debt. The other difference is perspective. When we view certain words in other languages they might have several different meanings so we choose one that best describes what we assume the word to be and since bond men is not one that is used regularly another word that describes a bond man is a slave, one that is indebted to another.

1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another
2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence
3 : a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another

Chattel: an item of tangible movable or immovable property except real estate and things (as buildings) connected with real property.

One also has to interpret their objective for making such claims especially in light of their denial of God. If there is no supreme being then it is not Christians who are making others slaves but mere men utilizing their own free thought. The other observance is that other nations practiced slavery long before the Israelites came on the scene and who themselves were slaves before they actually became a nation. Now to fully understand their actions we have to understand their agenda and that agenda is to discredit not only God but all who claim to be His and the easiest way is to indoctrinate these beliefs into the minds of our children and in doing so they can build up the case against God, which generates the doubt that He really exists, because if God is love how could He endorse such things or how could His people do such things and by altering their perception they then continue to do so by portraying all those who were instrumental in the abolishing of slavery as actually humanist. This now reinforces everything they are being taught and anyone who appears racist is now clumped together and defined as Christians. This is helped along with the false believers and teachers that Satan has had infiltrate the body of Christ who make radical claims or bomb abortion clinics or any of the other senseless acts that are carried out by them. All of this is so he can make his claim against Christ and us to justify the persecution during the Tribulation. Once we have realized this then it is up to us to live as Christ asked us to live regardless of outside situations because all of the accusations against us now are a result of us living as we are of the world and not of Him. They are able to judge based upon our actions, which confirms their perspective that God does not exist. And we do the same thing when it comes to obedience to Him. We rationalize that as long as we go to church and tithe it is enough. We rationalize that as long as we look but don’t touch it is okay and meanwhile your son is sitting right next to you saying to himself, ‘ if it is okay for dad to look and not touch because he is married, then it is okay for me to look and touch because I am not married and if that is okay for him as a Christian then God’s word must not be the truth in fact it is possible that he doesn’t exist at all therefore because I am attracted to my girl friend in a sexual sense then that makes it okay and once they have gone the whole way and nothing happened it keeps building up. They may still attend youth group and be involved in church but that does not mean anything because dad looks at other women even though the bible says, he who looks after a women to lust after her has committed adultery with her in his heart,’ dad is still active in the church. Maybe he is a deacon or maybe he holds some other position within the church but if his son sees anything that is against what the bible claims then in his mind it is not true because dad does not live it. The same goes for money or taxes. It does not matter where we fail at because that is the point that they are going to begin with and from there who knows where they will go. It includes our relationships with others and grudges we may hold against others because if they don’t see us as loving and forgiving how is God supposed to be loving and forgiving. It doesn’t matter that we are only human. That is the same philosophy that they preach and it doesn’t hold water because we are called to be different. We are called to lights in the world and if a light is hidden by any human characteristics it can’t be seen by any one.

Yes we are under grace but grace does not exclude works and since we are under grace we are to provide grace to others regardless of the results, especially regardless of the results. The grace is evident the greater the sacrifice especially when it affects us personally. The greater we are hurt by others but we continue to show grace towards them the greater our example becomes to our children. However the more we resort to vengeance or the greater the grudge we hold the more it tells our children and others that God does not exist. We are the evidence that they are seeking. We are the proof and the reasoning that they seek. Consider for a moment an empty glass. It is useful if you have something to put in it, if I were to put ice and filled it up half way with water it would be refreshing but if I were to fill it up the rest of the way with vinegar it might look refreshing but the taste of it would disgust you and that is how we are. We look good outside and we have the presence of the Holy Spirit but it is the rest of us that makes Jesus disgusting to others. It is why they have a bitter taste in their mouths towards Christianity and God. The glass is still usable, it still has purpose but it has to be emptied out, cleaned and filled back up again with good water and that is what God is asking us to do. He is asking us to cleanse ourselves from our own will and desires. He is asking us to let go of those preconceived self centered notions and be filled up by Him. It is only then that we can be seen truly as His children by others because now all they see are; people who believe in someone who is not there and the reason is that while we acknowledge Him with our lips we deny Him with our actions. Thus the effect is the result of the cause.


Truths of Grace


Grace is a gift of kindness given to someone who does not deserve it.

Grace is not reciprocal. It goes one way

Grace is costly. Someone has to pay the price for it.

Grace looks at what people can become and seeks to help them reach their potential.

Grace does not condemn those who have not yet arrived.

Grace focuses on solutions, not problems.

Grace leads to action.

Grace is what motivates God to relate to us moment by moment with perfect love.

Grace is the lubricant that eases the friction in any relationship.

Grace expects the best but offers the freedom to fail.

Grace celebrates success and does not keep score of wrongs.

Playing By Their Rules

Playing by Their Rules


There is a constant that is required to partake in any venture or experiment and that is there are rules that must be followed. However in any discussion that involves God or the existence of God they set the rules and the rules continually change in order to fall into their own thought process. So if we are to have an every changing set of rules based upon our own free thought concerning God then should we not change the rules that apply to their concepts and ideas? The idea of this is neither preposterous nor unfair because it allows all aspects of their own standards for reasoning. When evidence is revealed, said evidence is quickly discounted based upon the rules that they have set or the rules are changed to dismiss the evidence. Their basis for this is that our knowledge is ever increasing so therefore new information changes the outcome of the argument and thereby changes the rules that first applied. However this only applies in the realm of religion or moral beliefs and not in any other area of discourse. If you were to consider that if evolution was held to the same standards then it would not only fail but fail miserably because the evidence presented is merely speculation and has no beginning by which to build on. The answer from them would be that it was a scientific fact which is false because there is no substantial evidence that would hold up to the scrutiny that they place upon creation so the facts becomes merely circumstantial and relies totally on the common thought of those who believe it to be a fact therefore claiming the majority and because the majority believes it to be so then it must be true, which denies their allegations against us that belief does not constitute truth.

The aspect of experimentation also fails regarding evolution because no experiment can prove that something can be created from nothing, even if you were to use one single cell ameba it would not turn into something without any outside influences and regardless of the amount of time that it was left to itself it would not become an intelligent being. The case for evolution was made during the Scopes Monkey trial using the concept of a human embryo to prove evolution as believable. However if we accept this as truth then they must deny the claim that abortion is viable because the embryo is actual being and not just tissue. If we are to follow their rules concerning logic we cannot accept both of these as being truths because they cancel each other out. One argument must be false. If you are to accept the result of Scopes then you must reject Roe vs Wade but if you accept Roe vs Wade then you must in fact deny Evolution, which thereby also discredits Roe vs Wade. The argument then becomes that we have made great strides since then so the decision to cancel out either argument does not alleviate the other. Now the change of the rules begins and that being the case we know that by reasoning that if we have learned more since then, then that means we were wrong then. Therefore if we were wrong then, what is the probability that we are wrong now? The reasoning we had was based on the wrong data therefore corrupting the conclusions of the argument making any new information also corrupted because it relied on the data given during Scopes and once again if you throw out Scopes then you must also throw out Roe because the two are linked based upon the precepts of life and what constitutes life.

While the basis of Roe vs Wade is about the right of privacy to her own body it was determined that the embryo was not yet a being, totally denying Scopes claim that the single cell was in fact a being thus proving the evolutionary process that something could come from a single cell. Of course the argument was made that as a single cell it had not yet developed into a being but that does not alleviate the fact it was living. In order for anything to become it must have life since a single cell removed from any outside influences will not continue to grow and when you add the fact that the heart begins beating after 21 days you end up with a clear case of euthanasia. In getting back to Scopes as proof of evolution it would then stand to reason that if the evolutionary process is indeed fact then a single cell ameba left alone without outside influences should begin to have a heartbeat at the same time an embryo does. Of course the response to this is that the conditions have to be right in order for it to happen to which I ask, what are the right conditions? If it happened once then it should continue to do so. Plus where did these conditions come from? These questions cannot be answered nor will it change the minds of anyone to whom they are asked because it is not about proof when it comes to this subject it is about reasoning and logic which is only accepted when it is apart from a thought of a Supreme Creator. The problem I see with any evolutionary ideas concerning the earth is that it just does not work. Everything in nature screams against it from trees to animals they all produce after their own kind. Oak trees do not make apple trees nor do monkeys make dogs and dogs don’t fly. The very evidence they claim that supports their ideas screams out in disagreement because they know where they come from and they don’t have to reason about it. They don’t have to use a false logic to determine their origin. Man is the only one who has to wonder and then determine based on his own reasoning. And the reason for this is because he refuses to accept the logic that is before him relying on his own logic which is flawed.

The flaw is not in the right to think but in the direction of the thought, with direction meaning purpose and ultimate conclusion in regards to the affects on others. It does not mean that we don’t have the right to question because we need to question and that right extends to all proposed thought not just ones of a religious nature. The concept that has been developed is that any thought that does not agree with the proposals of those against religion in any form is therefore wrong; is this not the same thing that the Catholic Church did in times past? The very bondage that was placed on people then is being placed on them once more. The ideas of the Catholic Church were not biblical ideas but mans own ideas which lusted after power and wealth. Their purpose was not to promote God but their own agendas and to keep people under their power they set up rules and regulation which restricted free speech and kept people in the dark. This same concept was extended during the reign of Hitler and all other communist regimes in which those who opposed were persecuted or executed. If we truly look at the logic that they propose we see the limitations being set in place that would relinquish our rights to the freedom of thought that they propose, but by creating a mind set that we are the ones limiting free thought they make it politically correct to be intolerant of our beliefs. The only way to accomplish this is to indoctrinate the concept into the minds of the children at an early age and then convince others that their rights are being violated by us. By generating chaos they expect to be able to create order.

Is there any way possible to reach those who are convinced that their logic is correct? In my mind there is nothing that we will be able to do to reach these people for Christ and neither is it up to us to do so. It is up to us to but be obedient in being able to answer every man and it is up to the Holy Spirit to do the rest. I admit I get discouraged as I write these things and as I study these different principles but then I am reminded it is not up to me. I get discouraged as I see the influences within the body of Christ and how we so eagerly invited it in not just into the church but into our homes and I am reminded it is not up to me but to Christ. The only thing I am to do is to be obedient to what He lays on my heart to do. We are not going to be the losers in this battle but the victors. We need to realize that it is not just faith, that we have been given the very evidence that He has provided to us since Creation that justifies that faith. We have confidence in that evidence because we have seen each creature procreate after their own kind; we have confidence because the seeds we plant produce after their own kind; we have confidence because two cells meet and begin to create an unimaginable feat that takes shape over a period of nine months and provides the purest example of love between man and women; we have confidence because on the third day He arose, defeating death and providing a promise of eternal life with Him. We have confidence because if He did not rise we would never have heard about Him; we have confidence because we know that He IS coming again to gather His own unto Him, and we have confidence because His glory is manifested throughout all His creation. Do we use reason? Yes, we do but we also use evidence and that evidence is provided in every secular means possible. It is historically sound; it is confirmed not only in documents but in architecture. It is cosmologically sound; regardless of their claims and regardless of equipment we find solid truths concerning the cosmos recorded in the scripture and while they claim that it was written much later Isaiah has been confirmed to be written earlier than they contend based on archeological findings. It is scientifically sound; even though they attempt to discredit the translation claiming it to be misquoted it has encouraged every early scientist to push the envelope in their experiments and while they claim that these scientist were really humanist, if one were to read their actual works they would find that their devotion was to God. It is sound logically; as the Creator of logic we will never while on this earth be able to comprehend His logic and try as we might we cannot achieve a fraction of it. It is sound morally; the desire to remove morals from society does not detract from Gods viewpoint of the requirements of morals. Regardless of the belief or unbelief of a person we must all one day stand before Him and be accountable for the things that we have done. Our reasoning will not matter, our logic will not matter, our denial of Him will produce the judgment deserved and the sentence will be just and the punishment will be eternal. If every nation of people had some concept of a higher being and while not acknowledging Him as God knew that there was something more would it not stand to reason that there is One who is there. Even though the entire city of Jericho heard of what He had done; they still did not repent save one family. We hear it, we see those who will stand for it, but we do not want to acknowledge it because then it would mean that we will have to be accountable for all that we do.

Logic and reasoning put aside
I could not deny Him, although I tried
Though all around me put Him down
No fault in His Word could be found
With all creation screaming His Name
To believe in myself would be a shame
So on my knees I shook and cried
His love for me is why He died
A new life for Him I now begin
And eternal life since He rose again
So how can I deny He Exists?
And others so readily resist
With all creation screaming His Name
To rely on ourselves is a shame.

Refuting Humanism

Refuting Humanism

Much of this will be response to what I pulled off of a humanist blog page. What I write will be bold italicize so that you will be able to tell the difference. The battle we are engaging in has been ongoing and has reached into our own thoughts and hearts. It will not be quickly won nor will it be our doing that wins the battle but it does require each of us to stand in the gap. To get you in the right frame of mind I want to pose a question to you. Do not answer quickly because while you might think the answer is correct let me assure you that someone will think it is not. How can you claim the bible to be true and Christians to be right when other religions have their own beliefs that they claim to be right? After all the bible is full of bloody wars and promotes hatred towards others, what evidence is there that shows anything different?

I'd like to expand a little on a couple of these, if that's all right.
"And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), don't such 'injustices' or 'evils' seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?"
The problem of evil is usually posed as being the incongruity of a loving god creating a universe with evil acts so woven into its fabric. The question is not intended to be, "How is it that evil exists in the world?" - which does beg a religious answer, because it presupposes that the concept of evil is a natural and integral part of the world - but "How do you reconcile the contradiction between an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity and those things which exist which cause pain and suffering?" It's not implicit recognition of evil as a universal concept, it's an attempt at getting inside your worldview and showing the contradiction inherent in it. It's the same as asking, say, a Scientologist how they reconcile Xenu with scientific observations of the earth's age. Asking about Xenu does not imply recognition of Xenu.
That's not to say that I or atheists in general don't believe in the existence of good and bad human behavior; but atheists tend to think these concepts are based on the social instincts of our progenitors, and thus on utilitarian notions of group survival, not on divine mandate or design.

The main problem with this thought or concept is that it in fact denies itself. If the concept that all men are inherently good if left alone without input from either government or religion then there would be no need to determine that evil would in fact proceed from these men. This contradicts itself for the simple reason that if it were true then there would be no need of laws to keep men from committing crimes. The other variable is that the presuppositions that they claim Christians are supposing are the same ones that they themselves suppose from the other end of the spectrum. This removes the entire argument of social instincts of group survival. It does however enforce their belief of survival of the fittest and gives them the justification for their beliefs. In other words if the claim is true and man if left alone is good then anything that man would decide to be right would be good regardless of its affect on other men which begs to differ with their own humanistic belief because it does not coincide with the concept that they have concerning all men being considerate of the happiness of other humans which even in a social instinct setting it would consider their own welfare above the happiness of others. Can they be good people? Yes they could be but it does not mean that their goodness is evidence of their own presuppositions. Furthermore in order for their hypothesis to carry any weight it would need to insure that the goodness of man would ensure the life and liberty of all man regardless of circumstances or deformities. In most cases when considering the notions of group survival one would sacrifice the weak in order that the strong would survive thereby defeating their claims because in a society where one would consider the benefit of others thereby displaying goodness it would require the sacrifice of the strong to insure the survival of the weak.
I'd also like to thank Mr. (Dr.?) Licona for offering a question which was not an attempt to poke holes, but rather to engage the answerer in reflection.
In re: to Mr. (Dr.?) Koukl's question, I think it's really imperative to read the link on the cosmological argument Ebon posted. The brief blurb showing on this page doesn't do much towards explaining why a supernatural explanation is not a decent theory, while the words written on this page alone seem to indicate a "there's no positive evidence for anything so all explanations are equal right now and I just like mine better" sort of feel - which I know you didn't mean, but an apologist could easily twist it.
On the last issue - the perception of truth - I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective from the one you offer.
I didn't email Alvin Plantinga, considered by many to be among the greatest philosophers of modern times. But based on his assertion that naturalism is self-defeating, we could formulate this question (thanks to William Lane Craig for some of the concise wording): If our cognitive faculties were selected for survival, not for truth, then how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true? (By contrast, theism says God has designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that, when functioning properly in an appropriate environment, they deliver true beliefs about the world.)
You offer arguments to support the idea that we have evolved in a way to perceive truth relatively correctly, and to display to the theist that people's vision is not as well-formed as they think. I'd like to pass up the question of whether we do perceive the truth correctly entirely and get to the heart of the argument, which even if we accept his premises is a real bear of an affirmation of the consequent wrapped in an irrelevant conclusion wrapped in a non sequitur.
First, I take exception to your assumption that having an intelligently, benevolently designed brain/sensory complex necessarily means our perception is accurate. If you're familiar with psychological horror, you're familiar with the idea that knowledge and true perception can break your brain and make your life a lot worse than it used to be. In this sort of world, a benevolent designer would have made our brains to keep us from the truth. That's the non sequitur - the belief that a designer would design us to see clearly. But let's assume this isn't secretly a Lovecraftian universe and move on.
The two possibilities are put on the table - maybe human perception was undesigned, and thus has a chance that it's fundamentally flawed; or maybe human perception was designed, so on the whole it means we can perceive the truth. The first thing to note is that the askers give no evidence as to whether perception is fundamentally flawed or not; indeed, they've given a criterion for proving the lack of a designer (flawed perception/mental processes) but not one for proving the presence of a designer, since even perfect perception would not falsify either choice. Their argument, then, isn't (A --> B) ^ A --> B, it's (A --> B) ^ B --> A. You can't possibly draw any conclusions about the converse, only the contrapositive. That's the affirmation of the consequent.
The only reason you give for why you would believe in design over mindless selection is that it makes you feel good - if you were designed, then you're perceiving things correctly! If not, you can never be sure. Just because something would be nice doesn't make it true. That's the irrelevant conclusion.
Good answers Ebonmuse, sorry I had to stick my big nose in, couldn't resist ^^;.
Comment by: AnonaMiss | February 2, 2009, 9:41 am
(Sorry about the pronoun switching in the last bit, I got a little carried away with my logic. Honestly, symbolic logic should be a required course in elementary school; or at least an annual tutorial on logical fallacies, like we got with recycling.)

Here again they attempt to intertwine two separate concepts in order to prove a point, which to use their argument would be nice but it would not be truth. The essence of truth was challenged during the Age of Enlightenment and carried over from there to the time we currently live in. The perception of truth today is not what is actual but what it means to each person allowing the reasoning of each individual to generate its own concept of truth and while that might be nice it still does not make it the truth. If you don’t believe me then go take their car or move into their house and see what the response would be. The truth all of a sudden becomes relevant and their entire argument goes out the window. The main objective again is to create an idea in their own thought process which works for them because that is what they determine truth to be so by generating an act that would be deemed unworthy of them they would in fact see that what they claim to be logical is actually illogical. The fallacy of their argument is that they consider their thinking to be logical when in fact they talk circles around the argument. In order to be accepted by others it must cause them to rationalize thought and in most cases with Christians we do not understand how to rationalize or generate an argument that would cause them rethink their arguments. The other thing is that we must realize it is not us that has to convince them it is God that calls them we simply plant the seed, water or reap the labor of others however if we are to provide an answer we had better be doing our homework and be ready to give an answer that is both logical and sound doctrine. To argue scriptures with someone who does not believe in God or the bible to be His word is illogical. The other illogical approach is to attempt to use science to convince them that they are wrong and the reason that neither of these approaches work is that they both revert to the truth and since they feel truth is a matter of perception you must then determine where their perception lies.
In the discourse above their perception of the truth is ever changing and follows no logical path. Therefore we must assume that they have some idea of relevance to truth and then need to establish their stand regarding the subject and then refute it logically. Since any quotes or directions from scripture would quickly be disavowed we would have to attempt to do so from a worldly viewpoint. During the age of Enlightenment men pushed the boundaries of reasoning by generating questions that would expand the concepts of mans intellect. The purpose in doing so I believe was Satan’s influence on man to once again convince Him that he did not need God and that intellectually he could be a god and this is the mind that we are working with or against so to convince them that they are wrong is the last thing that should be on your mind regardless of the anger that you might be feeling. Remember this, it is our fault that man looks upon us the way that they do. It is because God’s chosen people have determined to blaspheme His name by our manner of living that they have begun to see Christianity as not working. We allowed the legalism of the Old Testament into the age of grace of the New and completely dismantled the “Way” that so mightily changed the people around it. When our children messed up we sent them away instead of lovingly supporting them. We condemned rather than forgave wrong doing because it affected us and this is what the world has seen from us for so long and it is no different than how they act and yet we claim to be children of God and followers of Jesus Christ so if it doesn’t work for us why should they fall into the same mindless trap that we are in because right now they can live the same way we do and they don’t have to worry about guilt or following any rules and all they do is look in our pious faces and see that there is no joy there. So if you are thinking about attempting to debate with any of them or if you have a child or grandchild that has turned their back on their beliefs then you had better be willing to surrender all that you are to Jesus Christ. You had better be ready to back it up with a godly example and if that means taking money out of your 401k to help them then you had better do it because at the moment in their eyes that is your god. You had better be willing to forgive them as God forgave you and regardless of what people say about forgetting it you had better do it because it is ultimately your fault that they are where they are and if that creates guilt on your part imagine what it might feel like if your standing on the right hand of Jesus and that child or grandchild is standing on the left. Then you had better get on your knees and begin praying. Pray for the wisdom and the boldness to speak. Pray for the words to say and be sure that you are prepared to give an answer. Begin a daily relationship with your Savior not just a passing acquaintance with Him but one that causes you to spend hours in His word because He is the creator of logic and He is the Truth and His Word is filled with examples of that Truth and provides the location of evidence. Then when you have done all of that research some more, look at the arguments that they are making and then pray about them and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and then pray some more that He would be working in the heart of the individual or in the heart of anyone else that may hear or see the debate because if He isn’t calling that person there is someone else that He is calling. Just look at the message of Stephen. The longest message recorded in the New Testament and not one person came to salvation during or after it. We read of no great addition to this beautiful message but the message had a purpose and that purpose was found at the end of the message in the form of a man holding the coats of those who stoned him and later we find that man on the road to Damascus is blinded and accused, then we see his name being changed and the ministry that he performed as the Apostle Paul so don’t worry if you do not see any fruit let God worry about that you just be obedient.
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts.[1][2] It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems. Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and as such views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial. (Wikipedia)

First off to be able to properly debate anyone in this regards you must be knowledgeable with what you are debating. Notice the definition listed above and we will break down each section separately so that you can see how each one of these things were purposely introduced to us and the affect that they have on us.
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people
Notice that humanism is considered ethical philosophies. They are not a form of written propaganda but philosophies; a manner of thinking that allows each individual to determine what works for them. Take a look at the second part; that affirm the dignity and worth of all people. Remember when they first began to institute the whole everyone is a winner agenda? They no longer gave grades because they didn’t want anyone to feel left out or unimportant. This whole concept carried over into early sports where they simply played for a period of time and no score was kept. The reason was to generate a whole generation that would believe in this philosophy in order to control the minds of that generation and we all blindly followed their new manner of teaching. The problem with this concept is that it disallows their own belief in survival of the fittest but what it does do is to remove truth from action. If convinced that life does not begin at conception then it is not a moral issue to eliminate that fetus if it is deemed unwanted or if there is anything physically or mentally wrong with the child. The other area it denies itself is that it also allows for the euthanasia of the elderly due to their condition based upon their future production for society as a whole.
based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts
Their entire basis of rationality is completely unjustified by their remarks and again denies their claim of being for the good of all people. By inserting illogical conclusions into rational thought we will inherently make the wrong decision based upon our concept of the truth. If it is in fact an invasion of privacy as quoted in Roe vs Wade that we chose to allow abortion does that make it right? When appealing to the universal qualities of man particularly rationality one cannot insure that the outcome will be for the good of all men. It then becomes necessary to interject outside influences into thought that would promote an idea or concept to sway the outcome of the decision.
Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and as such views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered.
Once again we have illogical concepts that deny the very claim that they attempt to make in justifying their refusal to accept the truths provided in scripture. The very claim that man is good and does not need restrictions set upon him is disproven in their assumption that he can chose for himself what is good when you add the new knowledge and information that is discovered. If man is capable of deciding what is right or wrong then what need would there be for new knowledge or information to change his perspective of what is moral?
In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.
If we therefore endorse universal morality based upon the commonality of the human condition we are in reality foregoing the self-determination and placing the dependence on action without reason. However because it is widely accepted we will be encouraged to believe in the illogical. The denial of logic using this manner of reasoning creates the potential for a completely socialistic society and will call for the extermination or persecution of any and all who do not fit into their collective reasoning. In reference to the belief without reason, if one is convinced that that any thought outside of the realm of thought of the world as a whole is without reason. The evidence within these claims alone point to the inability for man to determine right from wrong or good from evil. What it does suggest is that there is no evil, that all things are good in the proper perspective given the commonality of the human condition.
Religion
Humanism rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in human affairs. Humanism has had an impact on some religions which have in recent times adapted a more humane stance than their original versions. Humanism is generally compatible with atheism[4] and agnosticism[5] but being atheist or agnostic does not make one a Humanist. Although the words "ignostic" (American) or "indifferentist" (British, including OED) are sometimes applied to Humanism, on the grounds that Humanism is an ethical process, not a dogma about the existence or otherwise of gods, many Humanists are deeply concerned about the impact of religion and belief in a god or gods on society and their own freedoms. Agnosticism or atheism on their own do not necessarily entail Humanism; many different and sometimes incompatible philosophies happen to be atheistic in nature. There is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere, and not all are humanistic.
As Humanism encompasses intellectual currents running through a wide variety of philosophical thought, it allows it to fulfill or supplant the role of religions, and in particular, to be embraced as a complete life stance. For more on this, see Humanism (life stance). In a number of countries, for the purpose of laws that give rights to "religions", the secular life stance has become legally recognized as equivalent to a "religion" for this purpose.[6] In the United States, the Supreme Court recognized that Humanism is equivalent to a religion in the limited sense of authorizing Humanists to conduct ceremonies commonly carried out by officers of religious bodies. The relevant passage is in a footnote to Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). It is often alleged by fundamentalist critics of Humanism that the Supreme Court "declared Humanism to be a religion," however the Court's statement, a mere footnote at most, clearly does not in fact do so; it simply asserts an equivalency of Humanists' right to act in ways usual to a religion, such as ceremonial recognition of life's landmarks.
While denying religion it allows itself to become a religion in order to further its own expanse. The purpose in doing so is to unite itself with those who have become discouraged in their beliefs and allows its agendas to be carried into places where they would not have been able to go before. In aligning itself with certain religions it infiltrates to remove the very essence of the truth. The denial of the truth however does not confirm the nonexistence of the Truth.
Knowledge
According to Humanism, it is up to humans to find the truth, as opposed to seeking it through revelation, mysticism, tradition, or anything else that is incompatible with the application of logic to the observable evidence. In demanding that humans avoid blindly accepting unsupported beliefs, it supports scientific skepticism and the scientific method, rejecting authoritarianism and extreme skepticism, and rendering faith an unacceptable basis for action. Likewise, Humanism asserts that knowledge of right and wrong is based on the best understanding of one's individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental truth or an arbitrarily local source.
In their search for truth they continually deny all evidence for the truth and by claiming logic they deny the very Creator of logic. They again deny their claims by demanding all people believe their own message and avoid blindly accepting unsupported beliefs. Every statement they make erases their claim of good for all men and extends their own agendas. Their claim of tolerance is limited only to those who readily accept their concepts of truths denying tolerance of those who disagree with them.
Optimism
Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that all people can live up to the Humanist ideals without help. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to one's potential is hard work and requires the assistance of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species, also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings and the planet as a whole. The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world a better place for those who come after.
Hopefully you are getting an idea regarding the difficulty of the task that is before us. Their idea of help is imposing their ideals upon all of man regardless of their own desires. It is a belief of illogical conclusions because they can’t even make up their minds where they will stand. It is a belief that regardless of its claims does not consider what is good for others but what is good for themselves as individuals. It does not encourage rational decision based on evidence as they claim but the blind following of the ideas of the few by the many. It is not a new belief but one that has been around since the beginning of time and it is the belief that has caused the very wars and riots that they claim Christianity is responsible for. It infiltrated the Garden of Eden in the form of a serpent deceiving Eve. It affected Cain when God was displeased with his sacrifice. It defined the world during the days of Noah in that all men did what was right in their own eyes. It was the very essence of the Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyle and infected the heart of Lot’s wife because she could not but look back. It plagued the hearts of the Israelites during the years in the desert wandering and invaded them once they received the promise. It almost destroyed the heart of David when he saw Bathsheba across the roof at the window. It typified the Pharisees and other religious leaders while Christ was on the earth. They were not following the tradition of the scriptures but traditions of their own that benefited them. On and on you can go and if you truly look at the Truth in light of God’s word you will see that humanism has been at the root of everything. It is the ingredient that claims that man does not need God and can achieve godhood on his own. It is what separates the races because it fuels hatred of those who do not agree with it. It generates intolerance of those who are opposed to its concepts and while claiming to be for the furtherance of the good of the people it has no problem exterminating the weak in body or mind for the survival of the fittest; when the Truth that they claim to seek is only found in the very book that they deny and that is that the strong sacrifice of themselves for the weak. It is why they must deny the Truth of Jesus and His resurrection because as the Son of God, as God Himself, He being strong provided the ultimate sacrifice, His self and this denies the self-centeredness of their core values and proves that the survival of the species is not based on the protection of the strongest but in the preservation of the weakest.
History
Contemporary humanism can be traced back through the Renaissance to its ancient Greek roots. The term humanism was coined in 1808, based on the 15th century Italian term umanista, meaning "student of human affairs or human nature," as coined by Ludovico Ariosto.[8] The evolution of the meaning of the word humanism is fully explored in Nicolas Walter's Humanism – What's in the Word.[9]
Greek humanism
Main article: Greek philosophy
Sixth century BCE pantheists Thales of Miletus and Xenophanes of Colophon prepared the way for later Greek humanist thought. Thales is credited with creating the maxim "Know thyself", and Xenophanes refused to recognize the gods of his time and reserved the divine for the principle of unity in the universe. Later Anaxagoras, often described as the "first freethinker", contributed to the development of science as a method of understanding the universe. These Ionian Greeks were the first thinkers to recognize that nature is available to be studied separately from any alleged supernatural realm. Pericles, a pupil of Anaxagoras, influenced the development of democracy, freedom of thought, and the exposure of superstitions. Although little of their work survives, Protagoras and Democritus both espoused agnosticism and a spiritual morality not based on the supernatural. The historian Thucydides is noted for his scientific and rational approach to history.[10] In the third century BCE, Epicurus became known for his concise phrasing of the problem of evil, lack of belief in the afterlife, and human-centered approaches to achieving eudaimonia. He was also the first Greek philosopher to admit women to his school as a rule.
Renaissance humanism
Main article: Renaissance humanism
Renaissance humanism was a movement that affected the cultural, political, social, and literary landscape of Europe. Beginning in Florence in the last decades of the 14th century, Renaissance humanism revived the study of Latin and Greek, with the resultant revival of the study of science, philosophy, art and poetry of classical antiquity. The revival was based on interpretations of Roman and Greek texts, whose emphasis upon art and the senses marked a great change from the contemplation on the Biblical values of humility, introspection, and meekness.
The main initial focus of Renaissance humanism was on the linguistic and academic curricula, with little tension between humanism and Christianity as such. Writers such as Francesco Petrarch in Italy, Rodolphus Agricola in Germany, and Sir Thomas More in England, are notable for their studies of latin or greek classics and the application of such knowledge to the church. Several Popes, such as Nicholas V, Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Leo X were notable humanists,[11] and many more members of the clergy. However apart from the linguistic, literary, and artistic influences of the classics on the Renaissance period, there was also growing influence from pagan and secular philosophies. As humanists increasingly opposed the strict Catholic orthodoxy of Scholastic philosophy, some began to intermingle pagan virtues with Christian virtues, and revive religious ideas from the late-classical Greek world, and some risked being declared heretics for distancing themselves from the church.[12] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy describes the secularistic flavor of classical writings as having tremendous impact on Renaissance scholars:
Here, one felt no weight of the supernatural pressing on the human mind, demanding homage and allegiance. Humanity—with all its distinct capabilities, talents, worries, problems, possibilities—was the center of interest. It has been said that medieval thinkers philosophized on their knees, but, bolstered by the new studies, they dared to stand up and to rise to full stature.[13]
Renaissance humanism's divergence from orthodox Christianity was in two broad directions. Firstly there was the secular world-view of writers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Francesco Guicciardini, the agnosticism and skepticism of Francis Bacon and Michel Montaigne, and the anti-clerical satire of François Rabelais[14]. Secondly there was Renaissance Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism, which through humanists like Giordano Bruno, Marsilio Ficino, Campanella and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola introduced new and wide-ranging ideas of supernatural forces, and sometimes came close to constituting a new religion itself. Of these two directions, the first has had great continuing influence, while the second proved largely an intellectual dead-end, leading to the fringe movements of Theosophy and New Age thinking; however it was not obvious at the time that this would be the case.
Though many humanists continued to use their scholarship in the service of the church, by the mid-sixteenth century, the sharply confrontational religious atmosphere following the Protestant reformation resulted in the Counter-Reformation that sought to silence all such challenges to Catholic theology,[15] with similar efforts among the Protestant churches. Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus, known as the "Prince of the Humanists," had contributed Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament to the church. Nonetheless, his writings were listed on the Index of Prohibited Books after his death.
Renaissance humanist thought was also a crucial ingredient of the history of science in the Renaissance, so that human-centric philosophy evolved to include not only the literary works of the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, but empirical observations and experimentation in the observable universe, which laid the groundwork for scientific inquiry in the Age of Enlightenment and into modernity.[16]
Modern era
The use of the word "humanism" in English to indicate a philosophy opposed to Christian orthodoxy dates to its first use in 1812, when it was used to indicate "mere humanity," rather than the divine nature, of Christ.[17] Subsequently, the Humanistic Religious Association was formed as one of the earliest forerunners of contemporary chartered humanist organizations in 1853 in London. This early group was democratically organized, with male and female members participating in the election of the leadership and promoted knowledge of the sciences, philosophy, and the arts.[18]
In February 1877, the word was used, apparently for the first time in America, to describe Felix Adler, pejoratively. Adler, however, did not embrace the term, and instead coined the name "Ethical Culture" for his new movement – a movement which still exists in the now Humanist-affiliated New York Society for Ethical Culture.[citation needed]. In 2008, Ethical Culture Leaders wrote "Today, the historic identification, Ethical Culture, and the modern description, Ethical Humanism, are used interchangeably."[19]
Active in the early 1920s, F.C.S. Schiller considered his work to be tied to the Humanist movement. Schiller himself was influenced by the pragmatism of William James. In 1929 Charles Francis Potter founded the First Humanist Society of New York whose advisory board included Julian Huxley, John Dewey, Albert Einstein and Thomas Mann. Potter was a minister from the Unitarian tradition and in 1930 he and his wife, Clara Cook Potter, published Humanism: A New Religion. Throughout the 1930s Potter was a well-known advocate of women’s rights, access to birth control, "civil divorce laws", and an end to capital punishment.[20]
Raymond B. Bragg, the associate editor of The New Humanist, sought to consolidate the input of L. M. Birkhead, Charles Francis Potter, and several members of the Western Unitarian Conference.
Bragg asked Roy Wood Sellars to draft a document based on this information which resulted in the publication of the Humanist Manifesto in 1933. The Manifesto and Potter's book became the cornerstones of modern humanism. Both of these sources envision humanism as a religion.[citation needed]
In 1941 the American Humanist Association was organized. Noted members of The AHA included Isaac Asimov, who was the president from 1985 until his death in 1992, and writer Kurt Vonnegut, who followed as honorary president until his death in 2007. Robert Buckman was the head of the association in Canada, and is now an honorary president.[citation needed]
After World War II, three prominent humanists became the first directors of major divisions of the United Nations: Julian Huxley of UNESCO, Brock Chisholm of the World Health Organization, and John Boyd-Orr of the Food and Agricultural Organization.[21]
Humanism (life stance)
Main article: Humanism (life stance)
Humanism (capital 'H', no adjective such as "secular")[22] is a comprehensive life stance that upholds human reason, ethics, and justice, and rejects supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition.
The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world union of more than one hundred Humanist, rationalist, secular, ethical culture, and freethought organizations in more than 40 countries. The Happy Human is the official symbol of the IHEU as well as being regarded as a universally recognised symbol for those that call themselves Humanists (as opposed to "humanists"). In 2002 the IHEU General Assembly unanimously adopted the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 which represents the official defining statement of World Humanism.[23]
All member organisations of the IHEU are required by IHEU bylaw 5.1[24] to accept the IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism:
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.
Other forms of humanism
Humanism is also sometimes used to describe humanities scholars (particularly scholars of the Greco-Roman classics). As mentioned above, it is sometimes used to mean humanitarianism. There is also a school of humanistic psychology, and an educational method.[citation needed]
Educational humanism
Humanism, as a current in education, began to dominate U.S. school systems in the 17th century. It held that the studies that develop human intellect are those that make humans "most truly human". The practical basis for this was faculty psychology, or the belief in distinct intellectual faculties, such as the analytical, the mathematical, the linguistic, etc. Strengthening one faculty was believed to benefit other faculties as well (transfer of training). A key player in the late 19th-century educational humanism was U.S. Commissioner of Education W.T. Harris, whose "Five Windows of the Soul" (mathematics, geography, history, grammar, and literature/art) were believed especially appropriate for "development of the faculties". Educational humanists believe that "the best studies, for the best kids" are "the best studies" for all kids.[citation needed] While humanism as an educational current was widely supplanted in the United States by the innovations of the early 20th century, it still holds out in some preparatory schools and some high school disciplines (especially in literature).[

In providing all of the information above I hope that you have been able to see how they were able to shape not only the minds of our children but ours as well. The core value center of humanism has been so engrained into our minds that it shuts out the light of the Holy Spirit. This is why much of the message has not been received over the years especially concerning finances. When you truly study the Old Testament with an open mind and surrender your preconceived notions you will see the plan that God had set out for us. The Israelites were told that if while gleaning their fields they missed any of the crops that they were not to go back and pick it up but were to leave it for strangers and the poor. This was commanded to show the difference between Gods chosen people and the humanistic nations. This difference was so that they would see the God of Israel as God and draw other men to Him. The New Testament practice of selling what they owned and providing it to the poor was not a communal living practice but was moving them back to the original idea God had in mind at Creation. It was not a humanistic look at things but a God’s truth look at what is supposed to set us apart from the rest of the world and look at what it did, it caused them to live at peace with all men. God added to the church daily and they turned the world upside down because the focus wasn’t on themselves but on God first and others second. This is why they manipulate the Word so much because it reveals the truth and if we were to ever truly grasp the truth then we too would turn the world upside down and as the Pharisee’s sought to kill Christ because He turned so many away from them, they will seek to do the same to us. Look at all this in context of what is happening and what we know to transpire during the tribulation and then look at it again. If the humanistic mindset is not too engrained into your thinking you will have to see the harmony of the scriptures between Old and New Testament. If the Holy Spirit has not been so grieved that you are unable to hear His truth, you will begin to understand the cries of Paul not to be so taken with these wolves in sheep’s clothing who are able to sway you from the truth. And perhaps if you are not so hard hearted you might see the complete mess we have allowed to happen while we were asleep at the wheel and maybe you will begin to understand why so many of our children deny the very existence of God, maybe you will see that our treasure is not our earnings but the very souls of those first in our families, (Jerusalem) our neighbors, (Judea) our communities, (Samaria) and then the entire world. Maybe, just maybe, you may begin to understand what Paul meant when he said by ‘my example’ for he did not but preach the gospel but lived the gospel. If we are going to debate these issues we have to do so not just in words but in deeds. They need to see Jesus in us with a pure heart before they will hear us or the Holy Spirit. I firmly believe that we do not have much time left and I also believe that there will be many who come to Christ during the tribulation based upon scripture and if we do not reach them now it will make it easier for them to recognize the truth when they saw examples of it. The only truth they will have is what we leave behind until the two prophets arrive on the scene.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.