Creedal Christian god= Para Brahman?

[ZealouslyStriving]

I recently watched a video by an Indian guy who talks about Hindu sites and statues and things. At the end of the video he talked about Para Brahman and it struck me how similar the description is to the creedal Christian concept of God. Maybe creedal Christianity is really an offshoot of Hinduism?

"Para Brahman or Param Brahman (Sanskrit: परब्रह्म, romanized: parabrahma) in Hindu philosophy is the "Supreme Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described as the formlessness (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond.[1] Para Brahman is conceptualised in diverse ways. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, the Para Brahman is a synonym of nirguna brahman, i.e., the attribute-less Absolute.."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para_Brahman

"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible..."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith#:~:text=God hath all life%2C glory,foundation of all being%2C of

 

 

Edited April 25, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving
Something went terribly wrong first time.

[Nofear]

Given the history of it, I personally doubt it. Granted it's a complex mess of history and maybe it's possible, but again, I personally doubt it. Coincidence of similar thinking seems more likely to me. There's another thread going on right now that is arguing for/against the possibility of coincidences.
 

 

[ksfisher]

16 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Maybe creedal Christianity is really an offshoot of Hinduism?

And not Judaism?

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

And not Judaism?

Does/Have ever Jews prayed to/sought intervention with God through anyone but haShem/Adonai?

The original Creedalists© (Catholics) to this day pray to/seek intervention with God through various "Saints" who have their own fields of expertise, another parallel to polytheistic religion kept alive through Hinduism. Seems Protestants are similar to Hare Krishna like groups that have just chosen which god is greatest and limited their prayers/devotions to him/it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Now, I'm not saying they purposely did it, but maybe the same spirit that inspired uninspired polytheism had a hand in creedal discussions and decisions.

[telnetd]

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I recently watched a video by an Indian guy who talks about Hindu sites and statues and things. At the end of the video he talked about Para Brahman and it struck me how similar the description is to the creedal Christian concept of God. Maybe creedal Christianity is really an offshoot of Hinduism?

There are several heresies in the Hindu religion about Jesus Christ.  One
of them is the cult of Prajapati (those who see Prajapati as Christ).

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not commit any sin and if the Prajapati of 
the Vedas is also sinless, it will be a positive evidence that the Prajapati 
is Christ. So, the advocates of the heresy tried their level best to make the 
Prajapati sinless. They took some portions from the vedas or Upanishads and 
gave Prajapati a clean sheet. However, the truth is just opposite. For example, 
see Itareya Brahmana:3.2.9.

Here the Prajapati is seen taking his own daughter as his wife, and on seeing 
this, the other gods objected. They tried to prevent Prajapati from committing 
such a sin, but he did not agree with them. So the gods got angry and tried to 
kill Prajapati, but they could not. So, they got united together and created 
Rudra. He succeeded in killing Prajapati.

Now the question that arises is this: Can this Prajapati, who was killed by the 
gods for committing incest with his own daughter, be considered as the type of 
Jesus Christ? Has his death got anything to do with our Lord's sacrifice? How 
can anybody stoop so low as to propagate that such a god is Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God? However, the devil, the father of lies and the classic deceiver, 
comes to the rescue of his people. He made them say that there are so many 
Prajapaties in the Vedas and the one who committed incest with his daughter is 
not the Purusha Prajapati, the creator of the universe. But this argument also 
does not hold water since the next few verses of the same Brahmana states clearly 
that this is Purusha Prajapati who created man. The Brahmana says that the woman 
could not hold the semen of the Prajapati since the quantity was great. So it 
fell down and became a lake. From this, man came into existence. Is it not the 
real Prajapati?

In addition to it, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad provides us with further details 
of the sin of Prajapati. See: 1. 4. 2 - 4. When Prajapati was alone, he got 
afraid. He divided his body into two. One half became a man and the other half 
a woman. From their union, human beings came into existence. When woman disliked 
Prajapati, she ran away and took the form of a cow. The Prajapati became an ox 
and united with her. The cows were created in this way. The woman later took the 
forms of every kind of animal, bird, etc and the Prajapati also changed accordingly. 
All the living things came into existence in this way. 

Is this Prajapati and Jesus one and the same?   No.

[manol]

42 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The original Creedalists© (Catholics) to this day pray to/seek intervention with God through various "Saints" who have their own fields of expertise...

The Catholic concept of advanced spirits on the other side wanting to help people on this side, and actively doing so, has always made sense to me.  And no, they're not putting other gods before God, any more than going to one's Bishop is putting other gods before God. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, manol said:

The Catholic concept of advanced spirits on the other side wanting to help people on this side, and actively doing so, has always made sense to me.  And no, they're not putting other gods before God, any more than going to one's Bishop is putting other gods before God. 

I understand that is why I was careful with my language. 

But the fact remains that these people whom they petition to intervene for them are similar to polytheistic gods who have their different areas of expertise. And we have never been advised to pray to/seek the intervention of the dead anywhere in scripture, in fact it seems quite the opposite- we intervene for them by providing ordinances they may have missed out on.

[Smiley McGee]

18 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

And we have never been advised to pray to/seek the intervention of the dead anywhere in scripture, in fact it seems quite the opposite- we intervene for them by providing ordinances they may have missed out on.

One response I've heard to this idea is that religious people often seek the counsel and prayers of people they view as having special access to God. LDSs are uncomfortable with the idea of praying to saints but see no issue with asking the Brethren to include them in their prayers, or they may seek out those in authority for special help on a difficult matter. That a person is dead makes no difference. Your request of or reliance on a priesthood leader is no different than asking a saint for a little help. 

Edited April 26, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

One response I've heard to this idea is that religious people often seek the counsel and prayers of people they view as having special access to God. LDSs are uncomfortable with the idea of praying to saints but see no issue with asking the Brethren to include them in their prayers, or they may seek out those in authority for special help on a difficult matter. That a person is dead makes no difference. Your request of or reliance on a priesthood leader is no different than asking a saint for a little help. 

I think the only difference is whether or not the request is considered a prayer (because we don't pray to anyone but God).  Otherwise, you are right.  There isn't much difference between a Catholic asking Mary to petition God on their behalf than a Latter-day Saint asking their bishop to petition God on their behalf (other than if the Catholic is praying to Mary)

[Smiley McGee]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the only difference is whether or not the request is considered a prayer (because we don't pray to anyone but God).

What's the difference between prayer and a conversation? Does being commanded to pray to God preclude trying to pray to anyone else?

[ZealouslyStriving]

I guess the central question- going back to my original post- is it possible that the polytheistic backgrounds of early Christian converts was a major factor in the arrival at the Trinitarian concept of God. Did Roman/Greek polytheism include an equivalent to Para Brahman?

[Saint Bonaventure]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the only difference is whether or not the request is considered a prayer (because we don't pray to anyone but God).  Otherwise, you are right.  There isn't much difference between a Catholic asking Mary to petition God on their behalf than a Latter-day Saint asking their bishop to petition God on their behalf (other than if the Catholic is praying to Mary)

This is moving in the right direction, in terms of how Catholics look at this. Catholics consider prayer in one sense to be communication with a Saint in heaven, and this is thought of as being done in praise (dulia) or veneration (hyperdulia, for Mary). Prayer that is done in worship (latria) is reserved only for God. 

If you've ever tried to communicate with departed love one, and said or thought something like, "Grandma, if you're there, please know I love you and hope you are watching out for me," then you've engaged in something comparable to dulia.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

And not Judaism?

@ZealouslyStriving

Hit it!

It's like seeing only the carrots in the stew !   There was a whole lot of possible connections going on in that period.  We see a mixture of three different philosophies making up Early Christian philosophy.- Judaism of course, mixed with Greek Platonism which evolved from Indian philosophy.

It's well known that Parmenides, a "pre-socratic" Greek philosopher had connections with Indian philosophy- I am not sure by travel or simply studying fragments that would be influential-  I have never studied the alleged history.

Parmenides then influenced Plato.  Pythagoras also fits in there as well, who of course theorized about mathematics and his Theorem is an illustration of the notion that there is an ideal abstract world of the intellect, superior to the muddy real world, which actually defines "true" reality, as illustrated by his theorem.   Reality is "actually", for him, an ideal mathematical realm that defines what we SEE as "reality", as his theorem defines triangles.

Plato then develops that idea into his realm of Forms, an abstract superior real that defines everything.  

And what is "God"?  (Not "who"! That of course is ruled out)  God is the Form of Goodness- An Ideal Form which defines all we call "good"

So God is THE Ideal FORM which defines all Goodness.  Arguably then due to Indian influences in Greek philosophy.

And then of course we know that Plotinus and others carried the Greek concepts of Plato into early Christianity, causing what we LDS see as an "Apostasy",  which overcomes eventually the traditional Judaic notion of an anthropomorphic God, and we are his children.

Then of course Joseph the prophet restores that notion into a Christianity which had adopted the abstract and transcendent God, essentially as defined by Plato and yes, Indian philosophy.

EDIT: Added this reference to Parmenides 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/

Edit 2:

https://www.academia.edu/473335/Parmenides_road_to_India

Quote

 

Summary Parmenides‘ philosophy is unique in the history of ideas in Europe, but it has a striking parallel in India, from about the same age. The unchanging Absolute, called ‗Being‘ or ‗Existent‘ś the depreciation of everyday objects as mere ‗names‘ś and the construction of the empirical world out of elements called ‗forms‘ are all found in the first text of the Sadvidy ā (ChƗndogya Upaniṣad VI. 1-7). Comparing details and taking into consideration other old Indian material this paper tries to prove that convergence of thought or parallel development is out of the question – there must have been actual contact. Also it suggests that the most probable scenario is that Parmenides travelled to India, learned the language and some important philosophical texts, and brought them back to Greece

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2024 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

18 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I recently watched a video by an Indian guy who talks about Hindu sites and statues and things. At the end of the video he talked about Para Brahman and it struck me how similar the description is to the creedal Christian concept of God. Maybe creedal Christianity is really an offshoot of Hinduism?

"Para Brahman or Param Brahman (Sanskrit: परब्रह्म, romanized: parabrahma) in Hindu philosophy is the "Supreme Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described as the formlessness (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond.[1] Para Brahman is conceptualised in diverse ways. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, the Para Brahman is a synonym of nirguna brahman, i.e., the attribute-less Absolute.."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para_Brahman

"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible..."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith#:~:text=God hath all life%2C glory,foundation of all being%2C of

 

 

This is an intriguing topic, and I appreciate why it is of frequent interest. I'm in the odd position of wanting more discussion of the topic, and at the same time discovering that many folks just don't have a foundation in place. A fantastic starting place is Yale Historian Jaroslav Pelikan's The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), which is part of a five-volume treatment that traces the development of Christian doctrine from the 1st Century to the 20th Century. Here's an excerpt from his chapter that discusses the relationship between Christian thought and pagan thought: 

Quote

 

One doctrinal element in the pagan attack was the claim that the Christians taught absurd myths. The theogonies of Hesiod and the tales of Homer had gradually been allegorized and spiritualized by the leaders of classical thought, who “ennobled what is base,” until they were able to speak of “the divine” (neuter) and of “being” in language that only rarely betrayed the ancestry of their ideas in classical Greek and Roman mythology. This process of refinement and spiritualization, in which Socrates and others had been martyred for their criticism of the mythical picture of the gods, had largely accomplished its purpose by the time of the conflict between pagan thought and Christian doctrine. And just when the leaders of pagan thought had emancipated their picture of the divine from the crude anthropomorphism of the mythological tradition, the Christians came on the scene with a message about one who was called “Son of God.” It is not surprising, when “the most learned and serious classes … are always, in fact, the most irreverent toward your gods,” that these classes should also have been the ones who vehemently resisted this message, which seemed to be a relapse into “a physical meaning of a gross kind,”* the very thing from which, after such a hard struggle, they had been rescued. Therefore they made fun of such biblical narratives as those dealing with the virgin birth and the resurrection. In Theophilus’s defense of Christianity, the assertion that God had a Son was not meant “as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten of intercourse [with women].”* These and other parallels between the Christian and the pagan criticisms of ancient mythology were intended to show that, even in speaking of Jesus as the Son of God, “we tell no incredible tales when we explain the doctrines about Jesus.”

Sometimes the pagan attacks struck at the very heart of the Christian gospel. Despite the ambiguity that seems to be present in the fathers of the second and third centuries on the questions of justification, grace, and forgiveness, they did have to deal with these questions in the attacks of their pagan opponents. Celsus was the spokesman for much of paganism when he attacked the gospel of forgiveness as cheap grace: “Those who summon people to the other mysteries make this preliminary proclamation: ‘Who has pure hands and a wise tongue.’ … But let us hear what folk these Christians call. ‘Whoever is a sinner,’ they say, ‘whoever is unwise, whoever is a child, and, in a word, whoever is a wretch, the kingdom of God will receive him.’ ” Julian expressed a similar judgment about the promise of forgiveness in baptism. Such attacks prompted even some fathers whose doctrine of grace was not very profound to see that if “you compare the other deities and Christ with respect to the benefits of health [or salvation] given by them,” it would be recognized that “aid is brought by the gods to the good and that the misfortunes of evil men are ignored,” while, by contrast, “Christ gave assistance in equal measure to the good and the evil.” More perhaps than they themselves could recognize, these spokesmen for Christianity pointed to the distinctive character of the Christian message as a promise of health and rescue based not upon worthiness but upon need; here as elsewhere, the pagan critics of Christianity seem sometimes to have been more profound in their identification of this distinctive character than were the defenders of Christianity.

In the same way, the pagan critics acknowledged the distinctiveness of Jesus Christ in a manner that was sometimes more trenchant than the theology of the Christian apologists and that thus called forth a more profound statement of Christian doctrine than would have appeared without the challenge. It was not only the story of the resurrection of Christ that drew the fire of pagan critics as a fable or the report of a hysterical woman, but the significance attached to the resurrection by Christian theology. Nowhere is that significance more unequivocally expressed than in the polemic of some Christian theologians against the pagan doctrine of the immortal soul. “The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die.” In these words Tatian voiced the doctrine that life after death was not an accomplishment of man, much less his assured possession, but a gift from God in the resurrection of Christ.* Even when the apocalyptic vision had been eclipsed and the immortality of the soul had become a standard element in Christian teaching, this stress on the divine initiative in the achievement of life everlasting continued to act as a check on the more drastic implications of these changes. In these and other ways the attacks of pagan authors on the Christian message left their mark on the church’s doctrines long after their external challenge had lost its effectiveness.

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600), vol. 1, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 1975), 28–30.

 

I can share PDFs with those who are interested. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

This is moving in the right direction, in terms of how Catholics look at this. Catholics consider prayer in one sense to be communication with a Saint in heaven, and this is thought of as being done in praise (dulia) or veneration (hyperdulia, for Mary). Prayer that is done in worship (latria) is reserved only for God. 

If you've ever tried to communicate with departed love one, and said or thought something like, "Grandma, if you're there, please know I love you and hope you are watching out for me," then you've engaged in something comparable to dulia.  

The difference of course between your description and what Catholics believe is that what you exclude is the assumption that grandma, as a saint, would have a better path to God than we do. 

We want saints to "intercede" for us with God, suggesting that their prayers are somehow "better" than ours.

Our view is that we don't need intercessors.

Edited April 26, 2024 by mfbukowski

[manol]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think the only difference is whether or not the request is considered a prayer (because we don't pray to anyone but God).  Otherwise, you are right.  There isn't much difference between a Catholic asking Mary to petition God on their behalf than a Latter-day Saint asking their bishop to petition God on their behalf (other than if the Catholic is praying to Mary)

I'm neither Catholic nor former Catholic so I'm glad to see that representatives of both groups (@Saint Bonaventure and @mfbukowski) have joined the conversation. Apparently there are different Latin words that refer to different types of prayer, whereas in English we have only the one word.  

My understanding of "how it works" is this:  In order to communicate with someone on the other side, we have to "tune in" to a spiritual energy "radio station" that they are also tuned in to.  As perceived through the density imposed by the veil, that "radio station" is at or near the same end of the dial as "prayer".  So when we go into the spiritual energy of prayer, or into a prayerful state, we are opening up (or opening up to) those lines of communication.  Imo attention and intention also play a role, just as they do with communications typed out on keyboards or conveyed by sound vibrational patterns down here. 

Edited April 26, 2024 by manol

[Saint Bonaventure]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The difference of course between your description and what Catholics believe is that what you exclude is the assumption that grandma, as a saint, would have a better path to God than we do. 

We want saints to "intercede" for us with God, suggesting that their prayers are somehow "better" than ours.

Our view is that we don't need intercessors.

With apologies, I can't make heads or tails of what you've written here. 

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I recently watched a video by an Indian guy who talks about Hindu sites and statues and things. At the end of the video he talked about Para Brahman and it struck me how similar the description is to the creedal Christian concept of God. Maybe creedal Christianity is really an offshoot of Hinduism?

"Para Brahman or Param Brahman (Sanskrit: परब्रह्म, romanized: parabrahma) in Hindu philosophy is the "Supreme Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described as the formlessness (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond.[1] Para Brahman is conceptualised in diverse ways. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, the Para Brahman is a synonym of nirguna brahman, i.e., the attribute-less Absolute.."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para_Brahman

"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible..."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith#:~:text=God hath all life%2C glory,foundation of all being%2C of

 

 

Oh, I don't know. It seems to be me that these claims of "ineffability" are just ways to describe that which we cannot understand. That goes for the true nature of God, in all forms of Christianity. And other belief systems as well.

The Nicene Creed simply describes a God who simply cannot be described, or for that matter, understood.

Example from Taoism: "'The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao' is a quote from Lao Tzu. It means that the Tao that can be expressed in words is not the eternal Tao, and the name that can be uttered is not its eternal name. The Tao is inherently elusive and beyond explanation because it exists beyond the realm of sensory perception3. It is formless and beyond defining."

Example from quantum mechanics: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman

And it's all true: in our mortal condition we are completely incapable of understanding God. 

But we can understand Him a little bit. That is what we must hold onto.

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

What's the difference between prayer and a conversation? Does being commanded to pray to God preclude trying to pray to anyone else?

That's the general doctrine as taught by the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

A few years ago some women were being vocal about praying to Heavenly Mother and in response we had a special saturday session of general conference where Elder Renlund said this--

"The Savior taught His disciples, “Always pray unto the Father in my name.” We follow this pattern and direct our worship to our Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ and do not pray to Heavenly Mother."

We are even instructed that we should not pray to Jesus directly--

"While Latter-day Saints do worship Jesus Christ as explained here, they do not pray to Him. That is reserved for only God the Father."

While Catholics have different latin terms to describe prayers to those other than God the Father, in our doctrine there is no differentiation caused by the purpose of prayer.  It is always a means of worship and reserved exclusively for the relationship between our Heavenly Father and His children. 

[DonBradley]

21 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I recently watched a video by an Indian guy who talks about Hindu sites and statues and things. At the end of the video he talked about Para Brahman and it struck me how similar the description is to the creedal Christian concept of God. Maybe creedal Christianity is really an offshoot of Hinduism?

"Para Brahman or Param Brahman (Sanskrit: परब्रह्म, romanized: parabrahma) in Hindu philosophy is the "Supreme Brahman" that which is beyond all descriptions and conceptualisations. It is described as the formlessness (in the sense that it is devoid of Maya) that eternally pervades everything, everywhere in the universe and whatever is beyond.[1] Para Brahman is conceptualised in diverse ways. In the Advaita Vedanta tradition, the Para Brahman is a synonym of nirguna brahman, i.e., the attribute-less Absolute.."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Para_Brahman

"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible..."

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith#:~:text=God hath all life%2C glory,foundation of all being%2C of

 

 

Various religious cultures have arrived at a common conception of God/Ultimate Reality.

Check out David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

Don

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, manol said:

The Catholic concept of advanced spirits on the other side wanting to help people on this side, and actively doing so, has always made sense to me.  And no, they're not putting other gods before God, any more than going to one's Bishop is putting other gods before God. 

But taking this analogy to another level, why take it to the Bishop when you can take it to the Prophet/Pope just as easily, to follow the analogy. 

Or better yet, straight to God himself?

Of course we do not worship the prophet, but Catholics don't worship saints either.

I just don't see the need for a mediary.  And Jesus is one of our brothers in the LDS paradigm- why not just call on your Brother who IS also Jehovah?

If you think you need a mediary, go to the Son of the Boss who might actually BE "the boss" himself.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, DonBradley said:

Various religious cultures have arrived at a common conception of God/Ultimate Reality.

Check out David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss.

Don

And today's secularism is actually also in this camp as well, when you hear a movie star or celebrity, or anyone talk about "the universe" in a spiritual way.

It is secular Pantheism actually.

IMO we need to jump on this connection and show them that atheistic pantheism is as "God" is extremely close to our concept of the "Light of Christ"- as I see it, the intelligence of Christ, the God or "Ideal Human" - pervading the universe.

THAT as I see it is the big issue we need to pursue to influence more people who are now members of "secular religions" and understand how the Light of Christ/"Universe can appear to be different terms for the same central concept- that there is "Something Bigger than US" out there!

Humanism itself is in fact a "secular religion which parallels our beliefs in so many ways IF we see God as the IDEAL HUMAN.

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/#:~:text=Humanism is an approach to,human nature and experience alone.&text=Humanism is%3A A joyous alternative,and life in a hereafter.

Quote

 

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.
– American Humanist Association

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.
– The Humanist Magazine

Humanism is a democratic and ethical lifestance 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 ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.
– Humanists International

Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.
– The Bristol Humanist Group

 

We can easily see the parallels here between LDS Humanism and what is stated above, and perhaps that kind of a title is warranted.

1- It is "rational" when seen through the lenses of Phenomenology and Neo Pragmatism which places human experience as "reality" - opposed to a dualistic realm of the abstract mind consisting of opposition of Ideas vs Matter (Mind vs Matter).   Religious experience then as shown by William James, then becomes as "real" as any other phenomenon.

2- LDS doctrine also eschews "SUPER-naturalism" for naturalism, with its immanent God, and the doctrine found in D&C that Spirit and Matter are one.

3- We certainly believe that each person must find his or her own way- as found clearly in Moroni 10.  We ask God- an exalted human- to guide us and are encouraged to do so.

And so the list grows, beyond the capacity of this simple post.

But I am convinced that we could open up our worlds to understand how easily we can see the similarities between what is perceived to be atheistic humanism, and our theistic humanism.

When God is Human, humanism becomes theology! 

Check this out as a description of the Light of Christ by Oprah Winfrey: 

https://www.google.com/search?q=oprah+winfrey+on+the+universe&rlz=1CATATK_enUS825US825&oq=oprah+winfrey+on+the+universe&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l2.30318j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:0c523ac8,vid:22bSDShY9LI,st:0

 

 

Edited April 26, 2024 by mfbukowski

[manol]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I just don't see the need for a mediary. 

Okay. 

But if that's what works for someone, is there anything wrong with it?

[ZealouslyStriving]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

When God is Human, humanism becomes theology! 

I really like this! 

To be the best humanists we need to follow to ultimate human.