Challenge: Ecumenism/Interfaith cooperation leads to Secular Humanism

[evangelicalhumanist]

This is an open challenge, to anyone wishing to take it up. As it is our first foray into formal debate, I think we should all note that this may not -- someday in the future -- be held up as a model for how these things ought to be conducted.

I would like to argue the affirmative of the following:

Resolved: Successful ecumenism and interfaith cooperation must of necessity lead to increased secularism and humanism.

(I rather suspect the debater taking the oppose position would need to argue that ecumenism and interfaith cooperation would lead to more religiosity, and increased focus on God and matters of the spirit. But that is merely my opinion. My worth opponent is of course entitled to take whatever tack desired.)

Because I am the challenger, I leave it to anyone who might wish to accept the challenge to suggest the terms, although it is a complex topic, so I think a minimum of 3 rounds would be needed, and sufficient time in between posts to answer -- say on the order of at least 3 or 4 days.

I will not be offended if nobody wishes to take up this challenge, so please don't feel pushed. This is just an opening gambit, and I am sure that we will get the formal debate forum going eventually, even if this particular topic doesn't get debated.

Allen

[Nick_A]

EH

Resolved: Successful ecumenism and interfaith cooperation must of necessity lead to increased secularism and humanism.

It would have to be reworded a little to make it meaningful for me.

I don't believe successful ecumenism is possible at the exoteric level. So the first part of the question would have to read "The appearance of successful ecumenism." Since we've pretty well documented the dominance of politics over morality, I don't see how anything but the appearance of successful ecumenism is possible as long as politics rules the day and its dominance forces a change in appearance. Ecumenism I believe is only possible at the transcendent level of the great traditions..

So the phrase "The appearance of successful ecumenism and interfaith cooperation must of necessity lead to increased secularism and humanism" is true since the hypocrisy it is based on leads us to turn in circles normal for the exoteric level leading to more secularism and fine speeches followed by abominations. So for me to debate the value of interfaith and humanism, the question becomes if their ideals are possible without the objective benefits of religion. From this perspective I would support the following contention and deny the possible actualization of the goals of interfaith and secularism as impossible for the human condition that has become the collective being of Man or "The Great Beast." As we are, I believe we need help from above. You would of course deny the following:

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

So if you want to debate Simone, I'll take her side.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

So if you want to debate Simone, I'll take her side.

Sorry, but I don't think such a debate would be worthwhile. Debates only work well when we represent ourselves, not others.

[Nick_A]

Are you saying that Simone's words do not represent my thought? How presumptious can one be?

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Are you saying that Simone's words do not represent my thought? How presumptious can one be?

Simone has stopped writing. She is dead. Your thought and hers, while they may have similiarities, are not the same, as you are alive in a vastly different world than the one that she knew.

You offered that I could "debate Simone," and you could "take her side." It is certainly not presumptuous of me to assert that no person can ever speak fully for another.

A debate should be between two people capable of defending their own argument against whatever comes at it. Simone could not possibly have forseen and answered every argument that I'm likely to make, so you couldn't take her side on those in any case.

And also, I am perfectly capable of reading, and have read some of Simone's work. I take a great deal of issue with much of what she had to say, and find some of it plainly silly, but if I am interested in commenting on those words, her words, I am perfectly capable of doing that in the usual way: citation and comment. But I can't debate her, as I don't believe in ghosts.

[Nick_A]

EH

Taking her side doesn't mean following her arguments. She is taking the side of religion that is essential to Christianity and any other of the great traditions including Plato that have recognized Man as "Asleep." The point is that sleeping humanity is incapable of other than what exists now so all the platitudes are meaningless. This revelation is not only Simone's but she does express it well.

You have to show why anything could be any different for Man remaining as he is. A man and women cannot even stay married much less a society become able to function on humanistic values. This is why Communism cannot work. It is in defiance of fallen human nature.

Men can be discussing all sort of platitudes but as soon as the cute blonde strolls by and shakes here behind, it is every man for himself.

The values you are professing are simply not wanted on the exoteric level. See what people spend their entertainment dollars on and you'll see what is wanted. This is normal for sleeping humanity in a free society.

So debate whoever you want. I have no interest in this anymore..

People support genocide denial through benign neglect and yet think us capable of anything other than what we are. Uh huh, pass the scotch.

[Lightkeeper]

I'd like to see a debate on whether or not man is fallen. I think you can do this from your point of view Nick, using the Bible and other sources as your back up.

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

This is an open challenge, to anyone wishing to take it up. As it is our first foray into formal debate, I think we should all note that this may not -- someday in the future -- be held up as a model for how these things ought to be conducted.

I would like to argue the affirmative of the following:

Resolved: Successful ecumenism and interfaith cooperation must of necessity lead to increased secularism and humanism.

Are you still interested in this debate? I have extensive experience with ecumenical communities and more than a nodding acquaintance with inter-faith dialogue. I think this would prove an interesting conversation.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by gluadys

Are you still interested in this debate? I have extensive experience with ecumenical communities and more than a nodding acquaintance with inter-faith dialogue. I think this would prove an interesting conversation.

Yes, I would still be interested. I would need a bit of time, perhaps 5 or 7 days, to get ready.

Any thoughts on how you would like to structure such a debate?

[gluadys]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

Yes, I would still be interested. I would need a bit of time, perhaps 5 or 7 days, to get ready.

Any thoughts on how you would like to structure such a debate?

The less structure the better as far as I am concerned. Also, I would prefer using our personal opinions and experiences to being heavily into academic sociology that necessitates a lot of links to external sources.

What I would like to see in an opening post is some definition of terminology and what you would consider to be indicators of increased secularism and humanism.

I would do likewise with key terms in my response.

Take it for three rounds and then summary concluding statements. We might even decide that two rounds is sufficient. I wouldn't go beyond three rounds without inviting additional input from other posters.