Geez, Lois. There goes my succinctness. Just elucidating the various meanings of Democrat, for example, not only within my framework, but also how conservatives would use the word, would take hours. However, I could be sloppy and just say, “a member of a slightly more liberal political party.” 
(wouldn’t that micturate off one of our members? :lol: )
Occam
Reminds me of a Tarzan movie where Tarzan is flying into New York for the first time. He is asking questions about what he is seeing, and although his English is not so good, he gets to the philosophical questions almost immediately, like why would men build a concrete jungle? His companion from the modern world just laughs and says those questions don’t have answers.
Geez, Lois. There goes my succinctness. Just elucidating the various meanings of Democrat, for example, not only within my framework, but also how conservatives would use the word, would take hours. However, I could be sloppy and just say, "a member of a slightly more liberal political party." :) (wouldn't that micturate off one of our members? :lol: ) OccamSome time ago, at a party, my wife mentioned she was a Democrat. She was promptly and loudly labeled "the antichrist" by one of the other guests, a "reborn Christian". It was a very Christian gesture. I try to avoid groups of people like that. No productive conversation or definition of ANY KIND can be held with such mindset.
Here's an exercise for everyone regarding the meanings of words. Imagine yourself accompanied by a person who comes from another country who doesn't understand the subtleties of the English language, but he/she is interested enough to try to make sense of what id being discussed. As an examole, this person asks you what a Democrat is, a Republican, what religion means, etc. How would you answer those questions? This is not a matter of trying to translate the words into the other person's language, but interpreting the meaning. Or would you just tell the person that such questions are too complicated to answer? LoisI don't have to imagine that scenario, Lois. I am that person from another country and I have 4 dog-eared dictionaries laying about. Now I use mostly wiki and the net dictionaries. As a Dutchman I do have an advantage of having been exposed to three other languages in addition to dutch while growing up. If the word itself is pertinent to the conversation, I always look up the definitions associated with that word before I use it. But sometimes it is more difficult to explain the definition and intrinsic meaning of a word or term to an english speaking person, because they have only been exposed to a single meaning during casual conversation in their natural environment. Interestingly, I found that the oldest words in the dictionaries also have the most definitions and more modern words have narrow specific meanings.
“I cannot think of any successful group that assigns a single unambiguous definition to itself, because in point of fact, not everyone in the group will look at it in the same way. To be sure, the group needs enough definition to be inviting, attract members and move forward toward its goals."
I think that there are successful groups that assign a single unambiguous definition. many groups have belief statements. mission statements. summary statements. creeds. at a surface level, i think most people in america would know what a christian was, what a democrat was, etc. having said that I was a member of the united church of christ, a liberal church. and every single “definition” I heard about our denomination and specific church a lot of people liked…some other members would hate. no one could agree on a single defintion. but we grew from 50 people to 400. so there was enough clarity for growth.
to continue example of christian:
There is a very simple definition in most of america for what a christian is: someone who believes in christianity, and has "relationship with jesus.’
having said that…the fact is that the term christian is way more complex, and the current americanized, conversionistic, individualistic model is simply one paradigm.
in may countries, you are either christian or muslim. by birth. has nothing to do with belief. it is cultural.
there is also the flipside of the christian in america if you are not jew,atheist, buddhist, muslim scientoligist…you are considered christian (this is very true in south)
what is a christian?
a) “someone who has accepted jesus”
b) “a member of the christian church’
c) someone who believes in the bible and god and stuff.
d) functional defintions: “you are a christian if you are my kind of christian” example: 4 people meet. they talk, find they are all in church choirs. then they find out one of them is gay and democrat. he leaves. other people say. " that guy is not a christian.” I have heard “a christian will not vote for obama” etc…
e) self-identifying as the definiton “you are a christian if you call yourself one”
f) pedagogical definitions… definitions narrower than most meant to challenge or cause people to join with/agree with this smaller group. “real christians believe in non-violence” “I am a christian. I actually follow the words of jesus…so I care about the poor”
g) any member of western society who vaguely believes the following are real :heaven/hell. angels/demons, god/jesus, bible is true.
h) litteral meaning "little christ’ or "little anointed’ someone who imitates the behavior of jesus (this begs question of how he behaved…another whole thread!)
the idea of assigning an unambiguous meaning was bit bold.
my suggestion would be to create a working defintion.
frankly, I have no idea what a religious humanist is?
it is someone who devoutly but in secular fashion treats secular humanism like a religion/church?
is it someone who is religious (christian, jew, etc) that also claims a strong tie to humanism?
is it someone who is spiritual-ish or open to spiritualty, but not a part of formal religion, who along with their spirtuality has strong humanist beliefs?
I actually don’t know.
frankly, I have no idea what a religious humanist is? it is someone who devoutly but in secular fashion treats secular humanism like a religion/church? is it someone who is religious (christian, jew, etc) that also claims a strong tie to humanism? is it someone who is spiritual-ish or open to spiritualty, but not a part of formal religion, who along with their spirtuality has strong humanist beliefs? I actually don't know.You've managed to hit the nail squarely on the head, Pete. Placlair chased this topic through multiiple threads, but never managed to successfully explain what he meant by a religious humanist either. That's why I finally bailed out on the topic.
I believe this was the thread with his last post. The “Religion v Science” thread was more of the beginning, at least of the most recent round of him trying to explain himself. It’s in the “Religion and Secularism” section. I started it with a statement about the virtues of scientific community and he immediately launched into a demand that I quit bullying religion. If you can find any worthwhile in there, that’d be awesome.
I posted this a number of years ago, but it’s been lost in the dusty archives so I’ll do it again.
Many years ago, when was active in the local Unitarian church, I went to a national General Assembly. In the hall where they had a wide variety of booths, there was one titled “Religious Humanism”. I stopped and asked how that worked. One guy explained that history reported people some of whom were theists and and others were atheists, who were vicious and cruel. Conversely some people of both bents were altruistic, respected and helped others.
He said the latter were humanists according to his definition. He saw that philosophy as separate from one’s belief or disbelief in a god. As such, he felt there could be atheist humanists and religious humanists, and he happened to be a religious humanist.
Occam
I posted this a number of years ago, but it's been lost in the dusty archives so I'll do it again. Many years ago, when was active in the local Unitarian church, I went to a national General Assembly. In the hall where they had a wide variety of booths, there was one titled "Religious Humanism". I stopped and asked how that worked. One guy explained that history reported people some of whom were theists and and others were atheists, who were vicious and cruel. Conversely some people of both bents were altruistic, respected and helped others. He said the latter were humanists according to his definition. He saw that philosophy as separate from one's belief or disbelief in a god. As such, he felt there could be atheist humanists and religious humanists, and he happened to be a religious humanist. OccamMost Unitarians describe themselves as religious Humanists. A long time ago this became a point of contention between the American Humanist Association and Paul Kurtz of CFI. Kurtz objected to religious Humanism. It led to a rift between Kurtz and the American Humanist Association that has never been resolved. The Skeptical Inquirer was originally a publication of the AHA and Kurtz was its editor. He managed to wrest it away from the AHA and started a freethought movement of his own, which led to the establishment of CFI. Lois
Until someone comes up with the perfect set of rules to live by, we’re stuck with these definitions that boil down to “we’re the good ones”. Some do a better job of defining “good” than others, and of the actual lists of humanists values that I’ve seen, they are better than anything else. They also have a better track record. I have yet to hear of a humanist fundamentalist group bombing anything or picketing something sacred. All of the other groups tend to say they believe in those humanist values, plus they have a sacred book, or a charismatic leader, or a mythology, or certain rituals, or something special that makes them better at expressing or teaching those core values. To that I say, fine whatever, which usually posses them off and shows that they apparently need go review the core values again.
Quoting Lois:
Most Unitarians describe themselves as religious Humanists.That’s probably true now that the Universalist mafia has taken over the denomination, but I was surprised at my first contact with a local Unitarian church in 1969 when I found that the minister and about sixty percent of the members were atheists; thirty percent were agnostics; the rest were either wiccans or didn’t declare (felt they’d be excommunicated if they admitted theism). I’ve noticed that since I’ve left most of the other long time members (atheists) have left or died off.
The AHA saw the theism/atheism dichotomy as separate from the “self-centered screw everyone else”/humanist dichotomy. As such, they felt that Unitarians were basically humanists and could include anyone who accepted that, no matter what their theistic beliefs were. Kurtz was a brilliant, egotistical, power hungry jerk who wanted to force his narrow views in everyone else. Note that even after he formed CFI and ran it for a few years, he was quietly forced out of power and put in the position of “elder stateman”.
Occam
Quoting Lois:Unitarian Churches are all different. Some are more humanistic than others. I was sorry to see some Unitarian churches taking a theistic path, especially welcoming Wiccans into their congregations. Most have an atheist or humanst faction, however. I have always found Unitarians too church-like in their approach for my taste, but they have provided a place for free thinkers to gather--especially in areas where there are very few such venues. LoisMost Unitarians describe themselves as religious Humanists.That's probably true now that the Universalist mafia has taken over the denomination, but I was surprised at my first contact with a local Unitarian church in 1969 when I found that the minister and about sixty percent of the members were atheists; thirty percent were agnostics; the rest were either wiccans or didn't declare (felt they'd be excommunicated if they admitted theism). I've noticed that since I've left most of the other long time members (atheists) have left or died off. The AHA saw the theism/atheism dichotomy as separate from the "self-centered screw everyone else"/humanist dichotomy. As such, they felt that Unitarians were basically humanists and could include anyone who accepted that, no matter what their theistic beliefs were. Kurtz was a brilliant, egotistical, power hungry jerk who wanted to force his narrow views in everyone else. Note that even after he formed CFI and ran it for a few years, he was quietly forced out of power and put in the position of "elder stateman". Occam
You’re right, Lois. I was very fortunate that the one close to me was essentially entirely atheistic/humanistic. The only relationship it had to religion was the sign out front that called it a church. The reason was to assure that member donations could be listed on their income taxes as deductions.
Never any hymns - rather, folk songs. Never any prayers - rather comment period where people could insult the minister for his pre-feminist attitudes, etc. Very early acceptance of gays, and even a transgender person as church secretary.
At first, they had other U. ministers for summer sermons, but they were usually religious so we switched to having AHA speakers, local college instructors, politicians, etc. to avoid them wasting our time with theology.
Occam