Comment by baldfat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by baldfat | Hacker News Reader

TL/DR I love Philosophy and Theology and the Modern Humanist has taken over a word and changed it to the point that the study of Humanism will be slanted by this modern view. No one should re-define a word so drastically.

> For him, “humanism” was a word parallel to “theism”. It just altered the object worshiped, substituting humanity for God. He called it the “religion of humanity” and devised ritual forms for it that were close to traditional Christian ones.

Historical Humanism has been replaced by a modern definition that has no connection to the past. I went on a 5 day discussion on Reddit with the president of the American Humanism Association about this one thing.

Historically all the Reformation was founded by Humanist Philosophy. The founders of Humanism actually were translator of the Bible, but now for some strange reason Atheist/Agnostics want the term to reassemble them and it really frustrated me.

Humanist were Theologians and Philosophers and now Humanism is try to mean Atheist/Agnostic and that is not accurate to the Humanism movement.

To me it is dangerous to take over a term that has centuries of history and then simplify it to mean Humans over God.

Christian used to mean "Follower of an obscure Jewish apocalyptic heresy." Christians used to believe the world would end before the Christ's original followers had all died. ("Christ" used to be a title, too, not a name. His name was Joshua, son of Joseph.) What does it mean now?

Frankly, the redefinition of "Humanism" is barely a semantic shift compared to that.

> Christians used to believe the world would end before the Christ's original followers had all died.

I am guessing you heard this in a college class or some academic. Warning non-theological academics are incredibly lazy in terms of research and will take 30 seconds to form an opinion with no reference to anything else. Heck I had a "World Renowned" speciallist explain that the New Testament was written 100 to 200 years later and that their was no evidence of even Pontious Pilot. I raised my hand and explained that he read 1700's liberal theology started from Hermann Samuel Reimarus in the "Search for the Historical Jesus." TO bad archiology had proved all the points false and I was willing to talk with him after class. After 5 minutes of mockery I raised my hand and said you really don't want to hear about facts right now do you? His reply, "F___ No." I then sent an email later on and he actually sent me an apology, but the harm is done with false research. It just spreads bad academics and then this stops the ability for people to talk to each other on a level playing field.

This was due to Paul's writing that he thought the parousia (Return of Christ) would happen before he died.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 We tell you this directly from the Lord: We who are still living when the Lord returns will not meet him ahead of those who have died

Later on he wrote it this way.

2 Corinthians 1:8 Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord.

Paul was beheaded years before the next book of the New Testament was even written.

That's interesting, but this is actually what I had in mind:

http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-28.htm Matthew 16:28

> Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

http://biblehub.com/mark/9-1.htm Mark 9:1

> And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

I'm sure that can be interpreted many ways, but the meaning seems pretty clear: Jesus himself supposedly said in a sermon that there were people listening to him who would not die before he came back.

Even better, perhaps, is Matthew 24:34 (also in other gospels, of course):

http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-34.htm

> Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

It's always possible to interpret things. However, that is, if anything, even clearer than the above, and interpreting it some other way seems more like a method of getting out of a failed prophecy than legitimate textual analysis.

Have you seen what's been done to the political word "liberal"? That's not a crack at any current adherents to any particular definition of the word, because even here in the US it's been through several phases, and if one also adds in its international usage, it requires half a bachelor's in political history to understand how all the usages ever related to each other. Words move, for better or worse; the past is a foreign country.

Or even the word socialism

That one is easy! Anything not 'Merican or not in a state of anarchy. Keep the rich rich and the poor poorer (Especially their education). Also don't tax the Rich to much since that would be redistribution of the Rich so tax the crap of the middle-class.

Words are defined by their use, not by what you want them to mean; use changes over time, and words have multiple meanings. The historical meaning is still there, it's simply not the only one anymore.

> Historical Humanism has been replaced by a modern definition that has no connection to the past.

Yes, it has, so accept that and move on. The word has taken on a new meaning, to a new group of people who are now the primary reason the word is used and thus rightfully what the word means to most people today.

Future people may yet lay claim to an evolved application of the word, in additional contexts (e.g. interstellar).

Just go with Atheist or Agnostic why does it need another word?

'Modern' Humanism is a belief system, whereas atheism is a particular stance on the singular issue of existence of gods.

Because they aren't even close to the same thing. It's not another word, it's an entirely different word describing an entirely different thing, a set of beliefs, something that atheism is not.

That is not what the American Humanist Society states. That is ALSO my point. http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism

Incorrect. Just because humanists are atheists, doesn't mean atheists are humanists. You've failed to understand the difference. Humanism is a belief system some atheists follow, all atheists are not humanists. Being an atheist doesn't make one a humanist, surely you can understand that distinction?

Knowing someone is an atheist doesn't tell you what they believe, it tells you what they don't believe; knowing they're a humanist tells you exactly what they do believe. Humanists are a sub-category of atheists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com