Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!think!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!speter
From: speter@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Peter Osgood)
Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion
Subject: Re: Banning books, religion etc...
Message-ID: <1079@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 2-Sep-86 10:22:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.1079
Posted: Tue Sep  2 10:22:19 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 04:43:21 EDT
References: <1637@ames.UUCP> <180@BMS-AT.UUCP>
Reply-To: speter@trillian.UUCP (Peter Osgood)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 27
Xref: linus net.religion:10674 talk.religion:38

>In article <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes:
>>In article <1637@ames.UUCP>, barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
>
>A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to
>improve the human race without God.

Who says so?  Are they necessarily mutually exclusive or is it just that
you are totally prejudiced against the idea that a real Christian could 
be a humanist as well??

>An existentialist does (should?) not accept Humanism because he knows
>that any supposed 'improvement' is illusory.

Okay, before we go any further, a humanist according to Webster's New
World dictionary is "a student of human nature and human affairs 2. a
follower of Humanism."  Humanism: "2.  . . . specificly a modern,
non-theistic, rationalist movement that holds man is capable of 
self-fulfillment."

Even by definition, a humanist does not necessarily leave God out.  It
is simply a statement of belief.  But this does not explain why you
believe a trancendentalist would reject humanism.

I do not necessarily ascribe to Humanism, but I would like you to explain
yourself further.  Simply rejecting an idea without good reason is bad.

				---peter osgood---