Well, good morning to everyone. Welcome to our visitors. And we are rapidly approaching the end of the summer as it turns out. I sure thought I'd have more time to talk about apologetics, but time gets away. So we've got today and then we'll have one more week before the end of the month. Then we'll be back in Genesis after that to start the month of September. So what we're going to do for today then is talk about humanism. And I'm kind of sticking with the theme we've had for the last several weeks of dealing with something with an ISM on the end of it. And what we'll see as we look at humanism today is that it's actually going to incorporate a lot of what we've been talking about for the last few weeks. And it will be an opportunity for you to kind of test your skills a little bit as we go through some of these points of humanism. It will be an opportunity for you to help critique it and say, how do we answer these kinds of statements? So we'll do that as we go through. Let's start with a word of prayer. Praise the heavenly Father, thank you for the time that you give us each week. We pray that you would attend to us with your spirit today. Give us gracious and willing hearts to defend your word and defend your truth and to be ambassadors for Christ in a lost and dying world. We pray these things in Christ's name. Amen. So, humanism. We'll start as is customary for us with a definition. Humanism is a system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. Values, capacities, and worth. Humanism ends up making man the measure of all things. And what's another word for this? Anthrocentrism? I don't think we've got room for that one. But that is true, right? The word I'm fishing for there is autonomy. Autonomy. And what's, just for fun here, what is the etymology of the word autonomy? Auto meaning self and nomos referring to law. So for example when we look at the book of Deuteronomy, what does that mean? Deutero meaning second and nomos meaning law, the second law or the restatement of the law. So making man the measure of all things means we get to make the rules for ourselves. And isn't that kind of what we've been trying to do ever since shortly after creation? God states the rules in terms of the law that he writes on our hearts, and in terms of the law that he reveals to us through his word, both spoken and written, through the ages. And our reaction to that is to say, okay, I'll think about that and then I'll decide for myself whether I want to listen to that or whether I want to do something else. And we put ourselves in the place of judging God's word rather than allowing ourselves to be judged by God's word. Now one of the things that makes humanism attractive is the idea that You know, it kind of has these built-in values. And we sound like we're trying to do what's best for the human race. But as we begin to unpack this, we're going to see some inconsistencies. And then we should also be questioning, as we go along, what then is the basis for what's being said here? And something I'll point you to, notice how often we see things stated like should or need or must. Anytime you see an imperative like should or must, that should raise a red flag. We should ask ourselves, where is that coming from? Now, when God says you shall, you must, We understand that he has the authority to do that. But whenever we see man making up shoulds and musts and can's and cannot's, that's an opportunity for us to question. Because there has to be some authority behind that. So humanism puts man at the center, man gets to make the rules. And as we've been learning through the course of the summer, whenever man starts making up his own philosophy, we can expect for it to be inconsistent. There are going to be contradictions within it. We can also expect it to be arbitrary at many points. So we can be looking for those kinds of things. Humanism is atheistic. That should be no big surprise. Atheistic. Nevertheless, it is a self-described religion. So one of the things that you hear very commonly in the media is kind of this idea that, well, you religious people have your ideas and we non-religious people have our ideas. And we try to separate into two groups, those who are religious and those who are not religious. Well, the irony is that humanism is very self-consciously religious. It doesn't try to hide that. It acknowledges that denying the existence of God and making up philosophy out of nothing, so to speak, is in fact a religion in and of itself. Even though there's not a God that's worshipped, it's still a religion. Now, the humanist worldview is stated or summarized in two manifestos. The first Humanist Manifesto was first released in 1933. The second one came out in 1973. So in your notes here, when it says HM1, that's referring to the first Humanist Manifesto, HM2 referring to the second. The first one is the shorter of the two, the second one is a bit longer and expands in several areas. They're generally consistent in what they state. But there are two different documents and I think it's also helpful to think in terms of some historical context. What was going on in the 1930s when the first Humanist Manifesto was written? You know, we're kind of in that in-between period between World War I and World War II. And then what was happening in the late 60s and early 70s when the second one was written? and that's the 60s, we had the sexual revolution, and no-fault divorce came along, and Roe v. Wade came along, and so on. Those are the kinds of things that were happening in that time period. So here's what the First Humanist Manifesto has to say. and I include this statement because it points to the fact that it's calling itself a religion. It says, to establish such a religion as humanism, a religion which is a dynamic force, is a major necessity of the present. So what we're going to see as we look at this is that the idea of humanism is that it's establishing itself as kind of a new religion and it's very dismissively getting rid of all the traditional religion. Now humanism is strongly opposed to all traditional religious belief and practice. The irony is that humanists affirm the right to religious liberty. And in fact they affirm a number of rights that we would easily identify with. And then what is the irony? So let me ask this question, where did our founders assume that our rights come from? From the Creator. If you're a humanist, where do you have to assume rights come from? From people or from some human institution. So if rights come from the government, why should that be a concern? Turn on the TV. Yeah, they can be given or they can be taken. What do we see if we turn on the TV? Here's another question, kind of a contemporary question. How is the idea of rights being abused in ways that our founders would have cringed at? Most of them extend the word right to entitlement. I have a right to do this, therefore I am entitled to it and you have to support it. Yeah, even more so, if we think in rights, and we think in the original idea of rights as being something that are given by God, the role of government is to protect the rights. In other words, if I have a right to free speech or freedom of worship, for example, then the government's role is to make sure that those rights are not infringed upon, to make sure that I have the ability to exercise those rights. And yet, in the way that that word is being used often today when we talk about rights, it's a right to get something, to be given something by the government. And that's not the way rights were originally understood. In the Second Humanist Manifesto, does it abbreviate or change that original assertion that it's a religion? I don't think so. Let me see if I can quickly answer that question. I don't want to derail things. I'm just curious, because it sounds like the language was borrowed in 1933. It's part of some fringe liberal theology. Whereas in 1973, it would have strayed away from that. I'm not seeing that offhand, a specific affirmation. Hang on one second. That quote that you've got on the second manifesto, it's number three. No deity will save us. If it's a nod to theism, it's pretty flimsy. I don't see it offhand. What I do see is repeated references to traditional religion. It's as if to say that the religion that got us to this point is not going to get us from this point forward. So it's somewhat implicit. But I don't see it stated explicitly as it was in the first humanist manifesto. Yeah. And so again, the argument that you have your religion and we have whatever science or rationality, whatever, that really doesn't wash. The point is that whatever you believe, that's your religion. It doesn't have to have a God in order to be a religion. And in fact, there are recognized world religions that don't have a God per se. So what's different about humanism or some other philosophy? Really not. Well, there is none, but essentially they are trying to separate themselves from religion, I think the core statement in that is that they are free from God, even that oppression, as they see it. I think that's why they equate religion with God, and they don't want to be. I think you'll see that as we look at some of these statements that are made in Humanist Manifestos. They affirm religious liberty even though they're saying that all of those old religions really need to be done away with. Listen to what they say in their own words. In our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not pass the test of scientific evidence. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural realm. And I've had to do a little bit of editing with those statements to make them clear. I have not changed the meaning of the statements, but I've made it easier to take a short statement and put it in your notes. So basically they're saying, from a scientific standpoint, there's no proof to believe that any of that stuff is true. Notice how that's not a refutation, that's just a dismissal. That's a hand-waving kind of thing, just waving your hand and saying, no, that stuff just, it doesn't watch. It comes back to where you're starting from, what you're assuming, sure. I'm pointing that out just to help you to be aware of that device when you're having a conversation with someone. Don't let someone just dismiss and say, Christianity is just a myth, you know, or science has disproved it. That's not an argument. That's just an attempt to to dodge the weight of the evidence, I think. So we see that repeatedly. Take a look at the next one. We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of, quote, new thought. Next, we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. No deity will save us. We must save ourselves. So there is your soteriology of humanism. There is no salvation in God or through Christ. Salvation is whatever we accomplish for ourselves. Next, certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows in order to function effectively in the modern world. And that sounds like a lot of gobbledygook. What do you think they are saying there? I don't think they know. Oh, I think they know. I think there is a pretty clear message there. The way that I interpret that is that they are saying we have to destroy traditional religion. It's outmoded and we have to get rid of it. Elaborate on that a little bit. So we see kind of the metamorphosis of the traditional faith into something that is more appealing to the modern mind. We're breathing the air of this in society today. Yes, and something we need to be very cautious that we're not doing. I'm inclined to say that one of the more important elements of the Reformation was simple reformanda. You don't hear that one very often, but it's the idea that we are always reforming. It wasn't an event that took place a few hundred years ago, but something that we always have to be on guard against because Satan is always trying to undermine the true faith. And so we have to be on guard against that creeping kind of compromise that tends to come in. This is stated a little more bluntly in the next outtake here. Traditional religions do a disservice to the human species. And this next one... We can agree with that. Look at the next statement and take these two together. Traditional religions are surely not the only obstacles to human progress. So what Jim is saying is true, and we would agree with that part, but what is it that they're getting at when they make these kinds of statements? Probably. Religion cramps our style. Well, ask yourself the question, are they really concerned about the eternal destiny of the human race when they make those kinds of statements? That's what we're saying we're concerned about when we see all these false religions. But from the humanist standpoint, when they say that, what do they mean? It's temporary. So, feedback on what Jim's saying, you've got people starving in a society where cows are revered. Yeah, and perhaps we could agree with the humanists that that's a bad thing. Maybe. Well, you also have to look at, consider, what is your definition of human progress? That's a good point. Well and again when you look at the humanistic framework, well let me hold on to that thought for just a second because the idea of progress is going to come into play in just a couple more points. Now if we get rid of religion, then we shouldn't be too surprised to see rationalism step in to fill the void. And the humanists say reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. So going back to that reliance on reason, our ability to think our way out of our present problems. Again, what's the problem of relying on reason alone? Say that again? Yes, and it's not just the heart that is affected by the fall, but it's the mind that's affected by the fall. So, we think we're wise, but We're actually not very wise. We're not as smart as we think we are. And certainly when it comes to the issues of, you know, even if we're just looking at the human race from a sociological standpoint, how are we going to solve the problems that we see when we look at the human race? And the idea that we can solve the problems by rationalism or rationality is really foolishness. We know that it's a sin problem, it's not an intellectual problem. So our intellect is not going to get us out of that problem. Also, as you might expect, humanism relies heavily on science and technology. Should you say pseudoscience? Yeah. Yeah, again, science in the sense of naturalism that we've been discussing. Because obviously it's an atheistic view of science. They say that religion must formulate its hopes and plans in light of the scientific spirit and method. What is that telling us? Once again, man-centered. Remember we've made the point several times about the question of authority. When we put science and scripture next to each other, which one is authoritative? Scripture is authoritative. Scripture governs how we understand and how we do science. But what does the humanist want to do? Reject anything that cannot be empirically proven and repeated in an experiment. True, not only that, but what we're getting at here is that the idea is that science becomes authoritative, that whatever religious beliefs you have are now subject to scientific investigation and scientific approval. Well, maybe you can stray away from that, because as your last lesson said, that's not even a requirement anymore. It's whatever the prevailing theory is, and it doesn't have to be based on scientific proof, investigation, Even the scientific method has been corrupted when we look closely at what it's trying to do here in the U.S. Next statement says, we need to extend the uses of the scientific method to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values. I worked while in World War II. Well, and one of the funny things is that, you know, as the first Humanist Manifesto was being written, we were seeing the rise of Nazism leading up to World War II. And just to kind of give you a little context here, let me read part of the preface of the second Humanist Manifesto. They say, it is 40 years since Humanist Manifesto I appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism all present a different and difficult social outlook." Well, that's a bit of an understatement, isn't it? In other words, say again, Ron? That's what they're describing. They're describing it in very vivid terms. They don't recognize it as such. But basically what they're saying is that the Pollyanna view that they tried to take 40 years earlier has basically been crushed by the reality of the events that took place in the world in the years that followed that. So, that just shows, for example, how it's not prepared to deal with the real condition of man's heart. So JR, do the humanists give any explanation why such things would happen? Not explicitly, not on the manifestos. Would you say they have? Yeah, and you'll be tickled when we get to the point of, you know, what is it that they really want to do? What is it that they really want to accomplish? In light of what we learned from the first Humanist Manifesto to the second, what they say in the second Humanist Manifesto becomes absurd. We'll get to that. Third point here under science and technology. Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. So again the idea is that in that context of saying that we have to save ourselves, what's going to be part of the key to accomplishing that? The scientific progress and new technology, those kinds of things are going to help us out. In other words, it gets down to the idea of saying that things are different now than they were 1,000 years ago, or 2,000 years ago, or 5,000 years ago, and yet, biblically, we're in exactly the same condition. We're in the same spiritual condition and technology, all technology does is give us a new way to explore the depths of our own depravity. Next item, humanism relies on evolution to explain the origins of mankind. You knew that had to be the case, didn't you? Quote, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. Well, what kind of science affirms that statement? Bogus. Bogus? The lack of scientific proof of a God. Remember where science starts. When we talk about naturalism, science starts with the assumption that there is no God. Therefore, we have to come up with a quote, natural explanation for everything. A natural explanation for origins, a natural explanation for species. And so evolution fits that framework. It's the only thing that fits, isn't it? transitional life forms in the fossil world. Yeah, we talked about the difficulties of that belief. Now they're making the statement here that science affirms that the human species and its emergence from natural evolutionary forces, but when we talked about evolution, what evidence did we find that supports evolution? You can take certain facts and observations from nature and squeeze them into that evolutionary framework, but they don't really fit very well. But again, if you're starting from a naturalistic view of the world, that's really the only explanation you can come up with. That's all you're left with, because any supernatural explanation is excluded before you even start the scientific process. Next, let's look at the spiritual nature of man. Humanism denies the spiritual nature of man. They say that holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected. We're just biological machines. There's no soul. There's no spirit. Furthermore, quote, science discredits such historic concepts as the separable soul. There's no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. What do you think the Apostle Paul would have to say about that? He would say, see the tomb? See it's empty? He'd also say, if there is no resurrection, then where are you getting more than all that? Yeah, he provides the refutation of the Christian doctrine right there. And that's one of the things that's so interesting about the Christian faith is that it's so honest about those kinds of things. It says, if what we're saying is not true, then this is what we're left with. We're still in our sins, there's no life after death, and basically party till you die. That's all we've got left if Christianity is not true. Now it's interesting to note these kind of things. Look at how they're saying this. Science discredits the historic concept of the separable soul. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. Should we be asking how do you show that in some kind of a scientific way? How exactly does science tell us that? Next section, in the absence of a moral standard, ethics is consequently relativistic. And they have a lot of interesting stuff to say about this. They say we affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Well, that gets right down to it, doesn't it? That's right where we started. Autonomy. Every man's a law unto himself. It's based on your own experience. And it's also based on situations. Notice how it affirms the idea of what's referred to as situational ethics. The idea that there's not necessarily one right and wrong thing to do, but it depends on what your situation is. Today it might be the right thing to do, tomorrow it might be the wrong thing to do. There are no absolutes. I find myself asking, as an armchair philosopher, why do we even call that ethics? It's nothing. The expression of the word ethics is absolutely meaningless if that's our view because Ethics and morality are ways of describing right conduct. In other words, it assumes that there is something called right and wrong, and being ethical or being moral is being conformed to what is right. But if ethics is relative, if there are no absolutes, then we just need to get rid of words like that because they are meaningless. Utilitarianism. Yeah, and that's one of the popular ethical philosophies is utilitarianism. It says we consider the possible choices that we can make and look at how that's going to affect people down the line and whatever gives us the best outcome, the most good for the most people, that's what we do. That's where abortion comes from. That's where the idea of euthanasia comes from. That's where all that comes from. It's the greater good we're looking at, not the right of the individual. Exactly. And so that's one of the things we need to be wary of. It's a collectivist kind of system. And that's what humanism is. And it should give you chills when you see words like something that we're doing for the common good. What's notably, well, there's inconsistency, I'll put it this way, in the way that the manifestos are written. There's not an emphasis on individual rights. And that's true in those ethical systems as well, like utilitarianism. They're collectivist systems. And then you end up in a place where you can justify the means on the basis of the ends. You can say, well, we're going to get a good result out of this, so we're going to do evil in order to get a good result. And what did Paul say about that? Shall we do evil that good may result? No. Of course not. Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False theologies cannot cope with existing moral realities. Well, what are the pressing needs today that didn't exist a thousand years ago or five thousand years ago? Overpopulation. Don't you think one of the driving forces, whether it's abortion of homosexuality is this assumption that we're overpopulated. We've got to get a grip on the growth of the human species or we're going to overrun the planet. So a lot of these things are tied to that assumption Yeah, and that's part of the warp and the woof of especially the Second Humanist Manifesto and remember this was written in the context very shortly after Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb came out. So keep that in mind as well. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. And the next one, we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Now what do you think they are going with that? Take a wild guess. And specifically what kind of sin are we getting out here? Take a look at the next one. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered evil. And then I added a note there for you that says they have a section titled the individual in the second humanist manifesto. About 60% of that section is devoted to the topic of sexual freedom. Does that kind of give you an indication of where the priorities are? If they rewrote it today, they might say something like that. But this was the early 70s. So we were slightly more restrained in regards to homosexuality at that time. Next statement, the right to birth control, abortion and divorce should be recognized. Using that expression as a right. I mean, if you're a religious organization, you've got to provide contraceptive medical coverage. Period. That is just unbelievably oppressive. It just tramples on your first amendment. why there isn't a huge outrage over that. But the Catholic Church is the only one standing against it. Well, there are Geneva Colleges. Geneva Colleges, and along with three other at least. We can just find out. And there are some evangelicals that are. Where's the rest of Protestant Christianity in America? Did this get mentioned at all at General Assembly? Yes, and our conservative, you know, it's a long story. Conservative Presbyterian, we've got the documents, the documents are clear in what they say, we don't need to respond to it. And I'm going, wait a second, for such a time as this? Backing up, you know, sure, others may have joined the bandwagon, as I speak, But the Catholic Church was the first to stand and stand strong. As far as I know. I mean, many years. And we didn't see, back in the 60s, the Greenwich versus Connecticut ruling, which the court separated marriage from family. And a lot of the problems we now face legally are because of that. That particular issue should be an issue that cuts across the entire culture. A microcosm of that was the statements that Dan Cathy made a few weeks ago that caused such a fear about Chick-fil-A. And those that showed up on Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, many of them were saying, well, we're not here because we agree with Dan Cathey, we're here in support of his right to say that. And it should be that kind of thing. We should recognize that if the government has the ability to coerce us to act against our conscience, that that's a danger for all of us and not just for the church. You going to say something, Don? Not surprisingly, in addition to birth control, abortion, and divorce, civil liberty also includes the recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. And the government's right to... Yeah, if you let that camel's nose in the sand... Terminate. That's the down-and-out of this. Doesn't the health care law now require end-of-life counseling to be given every five years? Just don't call it a death penalty. Yeah, in effect we're building into our system a way to encourage some of you older folks to just kind of go on your way, so to speak. What is the argument that gets used there? What is the expression that comes into play in that conversation? Not that one, but the quality of life argument. Yeah, the greater good. So again, there are inconsistencies here in the way that they are saying some of these things. A couple more points in this part of the discussion. People are more important than decalogues, rules, prescriptions and regulations. So again, the idea that we're self-consciously rejecting those kinds of moral codes that we've relied on for so long. Quote, we are concerned for the welfare of all who are neglected or ignored by society. And this is one of the ironies of the Second Humanist Manifesto. They went to great lengths to talk about how important it is that we care for those who cannot care for themselves. Except the unborn. and the elderly. The ones that need care. They cannot care for themselves. There's a caveat though. That's where they're going with it. They're going to the race in the poverty stream. That's where they're going with that. It's not what we would consider those who can't care for themselves. They have a caveat claim. They state it this way, individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including, wherever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income. We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts, the mentally retarded, abandoned or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts, for all who are neglected or ignored by society. Practicing humanists should make it their vocation to humanize personal relations. Well, this was written in 1973, so if they update it, they'll probably include the flat screen TV and the cell phone. But what's the irony of that? You know, on one hand, they're affirming the same kinds of things that we would affirm based on the principle that life is precious because humans are made in the image of God. And yet, on the other hand, they're saying these things that really undermine that. And if you embrace something like assisted suicide, it's a very small step to active termination, for lack of a better term. They affirm euthanasia. How can you affirm euthanasia and at the same time say that we should care for those who can't care for themselves? Which way do you think that's going to end up going, by the way? Where's utilitarianism going to take us? The greater good, so to speak. We strive for the good life here and now. Who does that sound like? Moving along, humanism is an ally of socialism. Again that shouldn't be a big surprise as we are connecting the dots here of some of the things that are being said. They say a socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. Translate that for me. Yeah, if you got something, we're going to take it away from you and give it to somebody who doesn't have anything. Give it to someone who we think doesn't have it. As we're going through this, we should be asking ourselves now, who is the we they're referring to? Can I add something on that? Sure. I think, I'm not a socialist by any means, but I believe that a lot of socialist ideas and theories came from, I mean, they predate Karl Marx from quite a date, and a lot of them are actually very religious Christians. And the whole original idea, in the early 19th century, a lot of Christian movements were socialist. Like the Pledge of Allegiance, the writer of that was a Christian socialist who even had his own parish. And his brother even wrote books on socialist communities. And God Be Trust, when it was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, wasn't even added until the 1950s by Eisenhower because of the Red Scare, because of communism and it was atheistic. So I think that It ties into this conversation a little bit with humanism, but I think some of the ideas, like humanism as far as a movement, I think some of the original ideas and probably people who wanted human rights and pushed for those things, many of them were very devout Christians. And I think sometimes people like atheists, and they're trying to turn it around and try to get acceptance into them, You know, they're trying to make a platform or something so that it can incorporate more other people. And some people in that intellectual world sometimes try to turn that around and use it as a weapon against Christians, even though I think that a lot of the big movements for intellectual ideas on having legal measures for human rights and things like that have been putting a lot of progress in the name, and a lot of people are contributing, and we're very in favor of Christians. All throughout history, in the first place, religions have copied God, the ones you've got. You know, Christianity, OK, with different accounts of the flood, different accounts of everything. You know, they, plus religions, I want to say, have always copied true Christianity. before it was Christianity and Old Testament as well. But the problem we get into is what you consider to be devout Christians. I mean, what we would all probably consider to be devout Christians that were socialists in their thinking. That's not to say that those thought processes are correct or in line with Christianity. And in fact, that's how Satan works, is that he wedges in slowly, like the proverbial frog in the boiling water. I think one of the best books on that is J. Gershwin's Ancient Christianity. He wrote that in 1923. And he said, this is biblical Christianity. This is social gospel. And it was really contrasting to what was going on in society at that time. Yes, it is a Christian label, but it has nothing to do with grand gospel of redemption. What is that called? Christian angelism. What is it? And liberalism. What I'm also saying is some of the movers behind the scenes that they're trying to create human rights. And I'm not saying you and I don't understand enough about the actual philosophy of who are the leaders of, they call themselves the humanist movement, but as far as a humanist philosophy, like more of just a moral philosophy, I think there's been a lot of Christians that have contributed to it, they've just never taken credit for the Christianity that they're doing. They work towards, and they try to be the example and create, I don't know. No words escape me, but you definitely bring up good points. You know, post-millennialism really thought they could usher in. There was a lot of optimism in the 19th century about the human race and what was possible. And post-millennialism believed that we were going to improve and the Lord would return when the bride had made herself ready And that had a huge social implication. World War I just dashed it. World War I just, post-millennialism, it was discredited almost. There are some in our denomination that are post-middle still. But I think, piggybacking on what you're saying, there were Christians who had a particular theological view of the second coming that brought this social community. I don't want to call it communism, because that would give you, but. Does that dovetail with Reconstructionism? Or is that even further along? Well, Reconstructionism is a new post-millennial perspective. I just can't stomach it. I just don't see it. It's not hard to see how you could come up with a social or communal kind of doctrine from the Christian faith, but it's not designed that way. What is the first line of defense in terms of how we care for others? Family. Starts with family, and then where does it go from there? Church. Church. You mean where it should go? I'm asking Biblically, what does the Bible say? And how does Paul put it? It takes a village. That was not the Apostle Paul. Paul said if you will not care for the members of your own household, then you have denied the faith and you are worse than an unbeliever. That's a pretty strong statement. And he's putting that in the context of what? Describing who are the true widows. Who are the ones that should receive help from the church? And he's saying, those who can be helped by their own family should not be relying on the resources of the church. The resources of the church should be devoted to those who are truly widows who have absolutely no one else that they can turn to for help. So, for example, when the President uses the reference to Genesis when he says, I am my brother's keeper, he is using that as a what? He is misusing it as a way to support this idea of spreading the wealth around. I am going to take from you and give it to somebody else. That was never scripturally the role of the state. And that's the difference. It's not the state's responsibility to do that. It's our responsibility first individually and then as the body of Christ to do that. They also never ever quote he who does not work shall not eat. And I like that verse. Look at what they say about poverty. World poverty must cease. Hence, extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis. We've got to level the playing field. It reminds me of LBJ's philosophy. Effectively, the great society was to make everybody to get rid of poverty. So we started the war on poverty in the 60s. How are we doing by the way? They're doing pretty good. Yeah, they have everything they want. Well, and part of what's happened is that we keep redefining what's poverty, don't we? That's one of the things that happens, but I digress. Well, and the whole communist concept of, you know, and evolutionist concept of survival of the fittest, How does that? Yeah. It's not just me? Those are the kinds of questions we should be raising, right? It's inconsistent to say that we should care for those who can't care for themselves. From an evolutionary framework, we should be saying, hey, survival of the fittest. If you're not able to survive, if you're not able to take care of yourself, then you're just a drag on the ecology. You're probably not going to survive. It's inconsistent until it's a statement of theory, until it's somebody in my family, until it's my grandma, or it's my mother, or whatever, you know what I'm saying? Well, not necessarily. It depends on how you feel about your mother. I don't like her, so... She's old! What are we going to say? Alright, so where is all this going? Humanism promotes one world government. Humanism promotes one world government. The ultimate goal should be the fulfillment of the potential for growth in each human personality. Only a shared world and global measures will suffice. We deplore the division of humankind. We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. The best option is to move toward the building of a world community. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. And then, what more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become a citizen of a world community? We believe that humankind has the potential intelligence, goodwill, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead. Well, at least they tell you what their assumptions are. How do those assumptions stand up to reality? That we have the intelligence, the goodwill, and the cooperative skill to make that happen. Two words. French Revolution. All of us. Syria. All of them. It's just not going to happen. It's a Pollyanna view of depravity of men, or a denial, really, of the doctrine of depravity. The only way... You think that people are given to the scientific method and empiricism? You look back at human history and say, it doesn't work. Yeah, there's absolutely nothing in the history of civilization, going back as far as we can go, that would support this idea that we'll be able to get along. Education and understanding. Yeah, look at the next section. In order to achieve a one world order, armed conflict must cease. Now how are we going to do that? If we could just outlaw war then we would solve that problem. This rural community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. Now the irony of that is what? What is the only way that a one world government could possibly be instituted? By force. By force. It would have to be a totalitarian effort to make that happen. And yet, on the other hand, they're saying, oh no, we're just going to hold hands, we're going to sing happy songs, we're going to learn, you know, the education there, we're going to work on the arts of negotiation and compromise. And then we'll all be able to live together without any national borders, without any national identity, and so on. We keep doing that over and over again with Iran. It doesn't even work on a local scale, does it? It doesn't. Notice this statement. Building a world community commits us to some hard choices. I kind of wonder what hard choices they're referring to there. That's the Rodney King philosophy. Yeah, why can't we just get along? They're just going to keep bringing me or one of my ambassadors to the bargaining table and I'm just going to ignore them. It's just utterly stupid. You can see that worldview in the way that we're dealing with some very dangerous enemies. About 15 years ago, Marvin Alasky wrote The Tragedy of American Compassion. And he traces the historical decline of the church's role in society. And he really defined, by the Great Depression, that nobody had the means, but the government stepped into that void as the great provider. Whereas prior to that, it was Christian churches that established hospitals and schools. But come 1929, that was the turning point. And so you can see where we've gone since then. And the only way to describe where we're going is fiscal disaster. As Margaret Thatcher observed, eventually you run out of other people's money. Socialism may work for a little while, but it doesn't work in the long term. Here's another element that comes into play, and again this shouldn't surprise you, humanism also places a priority on environmentalism. Don't complain about the size of the space, you've got plenty of room to write that out there. Ecological damage, resource depletion and excessive population growth must be checked by international accord. So there's that point that Jim raised a little while ago about population control. This idea, and what are the options? If that's a problem, then what are the options for dealing with it? Genocide, euthanasia, sterilization, birth control, one child policies like China, and wind power. If we all just had a windmill in our backyard, we wouldn't need to use oil. But again, remember we talked about this idea and how I avoided the use of the expression fossil fuels. Because, especially in the early 70s, again, the context of this, this was at the same time when they were talking about the peak oil theory, we're running out, and of course, the oil crisis of the early 70s, along the lines of the gas pumps and so on, put it in that context, the assumption is that we're running out of these kinds of energy. And yet, as time goes by, as 40 years have gone by now, we see that we've got hundreds of years of energy, and that's just what we know about today. We know we're close to running out. So what are some, well we don't have a lot of time here, what are some obvious inconsistencies here? We have population control, then you don't have a population after a while. Yeah, how can we say that we're concerned about human welfare and human potential and everyone reaching their you know, ultimate potential as human beings in terms of art and science and all of these kinds of things, and yet at the same time we're trying to suppress the growth of the population. Which is not able to support the retirees who are wanting to retire early in socialized countries, and yet their population growths are negative. I think that might be geological, I mean geographical, because America, I think that it's our common, we're not worried about population growth as much, but I think if we were China, we had 1.3 million people. That's also why Europe cares a lot, because they have 500 million people in an area the size of, what, the east coast of the United States, maybe cut off in Missouri. They've had two devastating wars. And I think that's part of the reason why they worry about population so much, and they're so concerned about it. And like Japan, they're very, they're obsessive about it, but they have nowhere else to go. And America, we have a lot of resources, and that's why I think we enjoy a very good life here. And I think we should keep it, but I mean, we would have some of the same concerns if we had a billion people. The point that Tammy makes, that's really what I would call the real population bomb. Because the problem is that the demographics are getting turned upside down because of very low birth rates over the last two or three generations. So you look at Europe, Europe is imploding, native Europeans are dying out, or soon will be, and they're being replaced by immigrants. You look at Japan, Japan was supposed to take over the world economically, with their emphasis on abortion and birth control. Where are they now, demographically? Well, they're paying people to have babies in Japan. Because this demographic pyramid has been turned upside down, that the younger generation is not large enough to support the aging generation. And when that older generation dies off instead of population growth, what are we going to have? So that part of rational thinking failed. By forecasting what will happen 50 and 100 years in the future. Yeah. The unintended consequences. And that's part of the problem with this idea of rationalism, of trying to use our mind to reason these things. And we look at the consequences and say, oh, well, here's what we think the consequences will be, so we're going to do this, and then we end up with a whole different set of consequences that we never anticipated. And then, how do you fix that? Even if you provide incentives for younger people to start having more children, it's still a problem that's going to take generations to fix, even if we did something starting right away. The philosophy of humanism really ties together a lot of the subjects we've been talking about in individual pieces during the course of the summer. And I think as we've gone through those, that should help you have a clear framework of, you know, what's really the underlying beliefs behind this, and where is it going? You know, humanism tells you where it's going. They want to go to one world government. Biblically, at one time we had one world, didn't we? Up until Genesis 11, and then at that point, what happened? God confused the languages so that what? So that people would be dispersed all over the earth, so that they would be dispersed into different groups or different nations. And trying to put that all back together again is not only anti-biblical, but it's actually a little scary. It sounds kind of apocalyptic. So anyway, that should help give you a better picture of humanism as a belief and help you see kind of how that, how people, or where people are getting these ideas. Last questions or thoughts? Do you know when we'll next meet? Two weeks. Remember, Tim Strawbridge will be here next week to talk to us during the Sunday school hour, so we'll be back in class in two weeks. Alright, let's play. Bobby, thank you again that you provided us the truth in your word, that it's knowable, that it's consistent, that it's gracious, that you do not withhold the truth from us, but you give us your law so that we know how we are to live in the world that you've designed. And we ask that you would assist us as we defend your truth in a world that's very confused and lost. and that you would make our efforts effectual by the power of the Holy Spirit. We pray these things in Christ's name. Amen.