Tristen

Just to wrap-up my thoughts on the matter with regards to the OP: I think the reason for the negative connotation of "secular" among Christians is because we realize that "secular" represents the counter-perspective (or counter-paradigm) to the "religious" perspective (including the "religious" perspective of Christian belief). Therefore, even though "secular" and "religious" occasionally arrive at the same conclusions, they more often arrive at conflicting conclusions. More specifically, "secular" conclusions often conflict with what God has taught Christians about reality - and therefore represents an intrinsically deceptive motivation/perspective.

Lol. Since you inflicted one last strike before deciding shut things down, I feel I am permitted to respond. The question is about how we are interpreting "not religious". - You are interpreting "not religious" to mean anything and everything that is not overtly associated with religion. I have demonstrated through logic and reason why that is not a useful definition. - My position: The term "religious" pertains to an idea, a paradigm, a conception, an ideological perspective - i.e. that of association with a supernatural belief. Therefore, "not religious" refers to the counter-perspective to that of the "religious" perspective. "Religious" or "secular" ideas can be applied to anything, but the things themselves are not intrinsically either "religious" nor "secular" - as I have also demonstrated through rational argument.

I am happy to hear definitions from any source, but if a provided definition does not conform to logic, then the definition has no practical usefulness. The purpose of a definition is to tell us what a word means - not to tell us what a word doesn't mean. In reality, you are appealing to the most simplistic, and illogical, interpretation of the definitions. The definitions don't disagree with me - even though any fail to clarify the required nuance to make the definition meaningful. Is a rock religious or secular? According to your definition, the rock is secular. But what if the rock is being used in a religious landmark, or a place for religious sacrifices - is the rock religious or secular? But then, what if the rock is being used to ascribe a date to the geological layer, or in a photograph demonstrating the beauty of nature? Is the rock secular or religious? The answer: the rock itself is neither secular nor religious. Secularity or religiosity are ascribed to the rock based on the intention of the user. Until that intention is attributed, the rock is just a rock - independent of any secular or religious affiliation. That is, the common "not religious" definition of "secular" refers to the ideas/concepts/beliefs that are juxtaposed against (or in direct contrast to) religious ideas/concepts/beliefs. It is oversimplistic to interpret "secular" as anything and everything we don't associate with religion. Or else I could be just as obtuse. Since God created everything, everything is "religious". And now we have 2 useless definitions. Are we not having a conversation? The issue is not about me having, or not having, "care for that definition". I have demonstrated why the definition you propose defies logic. You have rendered the word to be both meaningless and logically useless. It is perfectly fine to try and explain an idea using juxtaposition, but that is not a definition. Consider that, "Not soft like a marshmallow" could also mean "soft" like a kitten, or flexible like rubber, or bright like the sun, or green like a leaf, or hot like fire, or gentle, or cool, or wet etc. All these logically fulfil the definition of "Not soft like a marshmallow". The definition of "hard" (as it pertains to a physical property) is rigid, firm, solid etc. It is telling that Merriam-Webster defines secular alongside the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/what-do-secular-atheist-agnostic-mean In that, there is a recognition that secularism represents a parallel ideology to atheism and agnosticism.

I don't have to "take that up" with anyone. I just have to provide rational arguments and supporting examples in the context in which I am engaging (i.e. in this thread where we are discussion the definition). Your argument here is an Appeal to Authority (a.k.a. an Appeal to Expertise). This type of argument is recognized as a logic fallacy because experts/authorities can be wrong for many reasons. It therefore is illogical to conclude an expert is correct, just because they are an expert. Presumably, an expert will have a better-informed argument, however, logically speaking, it is the argument that matters - and not the credential. It is therefore not technically rational to conclude oneself correct merely because an expert (or authority) agrees with them. The reasoning itself must be presented, examined, scrutinized, argued, defended etc. OK - I provided arguments demonstrating why such a definition is both meaningless and useless. I will be happy to fairly consider your counter-arguments.

In short, Yes - depending on one's perspective. As Christians, we consider concepts that are contrary to the Christian faith to be "bad" ideas - regardless of whether or not they are "religious". Likewise, concepts that align with the Christian faith (e.g. love, kindness, human rights etc.) are generally respected by Christians - regardless of whether or not they are religiously motivated. I would also note (as an aside - but worthy of mention) that some Christians conflate the term "religious" with 'legalistic'. Legalism is contrary to the Biblical concept of grace - and therefore "bad" from a Christian perspective. In the general sense that "worship" means prioritizing something above all else, I can see how "worship" of nature, or self, might be considered "secular". Otherwise, I'm not really sure how this would work. I disagree that working to earn a living is "secular". For the reasons stated in my previous post, I don't think "secular" can sensibly be defined as 'anything not directly associated with religion'. That definition does not survive rational scrutiny. If something "is done to the glory of God", how can it be considered "secular"? Paul was self-evidently motivated by his "religious" beliefs. Furthermore, we are admonished; "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10). How then can "earning his own keep" be exclusively designated as "secular"? Working for a living is neither "secular" nor "religious". It is rather the paradigm of the worker that is either "secular" or "religious" - not the activity itself. This is another reason defining "secular" to mean 'anything non-religious' is not very useful. Sometimes "secular" ideas and Christian ideas agree. Therefore, something being "secular" is not necessarily "bad". However, the root idea of secularism is an explicit motive to exclude "religious" influence - including that of the Christian God. As such, we more often arrive at contrary conclusions about reality.

We cannot rationally define an entity by what it is not. To generalize the definition of "secular" to 'anything that is not religious' is somewhat meaningless. When asking for a definition, we are asking what something 'is', and not what the thing 'is not'. Are rocks and apples "secular"? Is scratching yourself, or picking your nose, "secular"? Is the sky and moon "secular"? Is getting out of bed, brushing your teeth, putting on socks etc. "secular"? By this definition, secular can mean just about anything - and therefore, practically speaking, nothing in particular. To simply define "secular" as 'not religious' is therefore approaches logical absurdity. To be "secular" is to belong to a naturalistic ideology that explicitly excludes any consideration of religious faith. In the context of ideas, "secular" is often considered in a negative light by Christians when it acts as proxy for the promotion of non-religious faiths (i.e. the atheistic/agnostic world views). Secularism falsely, deceptively claims to be neutral and unbiased (and therefore the superior, natural, intellectual default position) - whilst in reality, giving explicit preference to non-religious ideas over religious ideas. I think "singing happy birthday" is a poor example. - To sing "happy birthday" to someone is to proclaim a blessing on that person. That has underlying "religious" connotations. - To sing "happy birthday" to someone is to celebrate the life and value of an individual - which is an extension of the Christian idea that all individuals are created by God, in His likeness - and therefore have inherent individual value. - Singing "happy birthday" to someone is kind, loving and encouraging - i.e. explicit Christian values. - Like singing "happy birthday", Christmas carols and hymns also explicitly celebrate the birth and life of a particular "religious" Figure. Singing "happy birthday" might therefore be considered a reflection and extension of this "religious" practice. - Some people claim singing "happy birthday" is originally a pagan ritual. I don't put much stock in that position, but if true, though not Christian, still definitely religious.

Hi Kat, I think you are fixated on the wrong question. It is true that Christians debate whether or not salvation can be lost. However, you can decide for yourself right now that, 'no matter what', it's you and Jesus till the end. If you sin, which we all do, you will immediately turn back to God "that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16). If ever you feel down, or estranged from God, you will not trust in your feelings, but in His Word and in His love for you. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. John 18:9 that the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, “Of those whom You gave Me I have lost none.” Romans 8:37-39 37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 2 Corinthians 1:9 Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead Whether or not Christians can lose their salvation, you can determine right now within yourself, "Jesus, I'm holding on to you forever".

Secularism is an ideological paradigm that disregards any influence or recognition of religious belief. A secularist considers all religious beliefs to hold the same validity - which is to say, religious beliefs are typically considered to be equally invalid. A position is "secular" if it is formulated within the paradigm of secularism - in accordance with the presuppositions of secularism. Secularism operates under the self-superior guise of being intellectually unbiased (in its equal disregard for all religious ideas). However, in actuality, secularism demonstrates a preference for (and therefore promotes) non-religious faith perspectives such as atheism (naturalism/materialism/universalism etc.) and agnosticism. A "secular" position is not necessarily anti-god nor anti-religion - however, the conflicting presuppositions used to underpin each respective ideology often generates contrary (or antagonistic) conclusions. Even though secularists merely represent one set of faiths among many, they tend (by confirmation bias) to view themselves to hold the intellectual default position.

My response assumes we are discussing public schools. Obviously, religious studies are an expectation of private religious schools. That is, you send your child to a Christian school because you want your child to learn in a context that encourages Christian beliefs and values. I don't think "making" a teacher teach something against their conscience is a "good idea". I would likewise be reluctant to force students to hear religious teachings that go against the student's conscience. As a matter of religious freedom, there would have to be an 'opt-out' option for parents who don't want their children to hear about other beliefs. In the same manner that we are irritated when schools subject our children to secular/woke/Marxist ideologies without our permission, the parents of our students must also have a say about whether or not they want their children to be subjected to our beliefs. More generally speaking, I think a course that fairly investigates and examines a range of religious beliefs is an excellent "idea". I, and many others, have come to Christ, partially through noting the truly exceptional nature of Christianity - when compared against other beliefs. I think there is also objective educational merit in investigating the religious motives behind the actions of historical figures.

You asked a question on a public forum, and I gave you my sincere response supported by informed and thorough reasoning.

This is a response to the OP only - as I haven't had a chance to read through the other responses. I am a "fundamentalist" according to the traditional definition of adhering to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, the term "fundamentalism" has been corrupted by the world due to its more recent association with Islam; and thereby religious violence. Which is just to say, we need to be aware of this distinction when speaking to people outside of informed Christianity - as to how they are hearing the word "fundamentalist". I think your list is good, however, I would tweak it in the following ways: I would generalize this to, "We believe in the Divine authority of our scriptures" or "The Bible is God's Word". Diving too deeply into the weeds brings us into areas that are less fundamental, and more open to question and debate. For example, if you say, "The Bible is literally true", does that mean we take every word of scripture literally? The Bible employs many grammatical devices to get God's message across. E.g. Jesus is not "literally" a "lamb", nor a "lion", nor a door or gate. These are easily recognizable grammatical devices that have clear symbolic meaning in their own contexts. Doctrinally, Christians consider the Bible to be "inerrant" only in the autographic texts (i.e. the originals). We subsequently believe that God has preserved all essential doctrine through the copying process. This makes allowances for doctrinally-insignificant discrepancies between Bible manuscripts and translations. But in terms of "fundamentalism", we only need to make the point that the Bible is God's Word - carrying God's Divine authority. The implications of this belief are a different level of doctrine. I would separate these into two distinct, "fundamental" doctrines. I would place the "Deity of Christ" before the "Virgin Birth" of Christ - as that is the order of events. I would additionally qualify the doctrine as "The Eternal Deity of Christ" - to further distinguish the doctrine from the non-Christian belief that Jesus ascended into godhood subsequent to His birth. Yep - the Vicarious Sacrifice of Christ on a cross. However, I would consider the 'grace only' issue to be a different level of doctrine and discussion. to "fundamentalism". Yes. The fact that Jesus' "resurrection" was in His physical body is a very important distinction from the various non-Christian versions of His "resurrection". I would consider these to be implications of the Divine Authority of Scripture - rather than "fundamental" doctrines in their own right. With the above-stated caveats, yes.

In my opinion, Trump would have been much better-off talking about the more typical issues facing voters - such as "the excessive danger of crime from the gang illegals that are most everywhere now, from rural woods, to cities, to the suburbs" - and not the crazy 'cat lady' example. Speak about things all voters can relate to. Then when the other side mocks (as is inevitable), they will be mocking the everyday experiences of voters. Always an eminently sensible strategy. :) Unless otherwise instructed ;) Amen.

I think your assessment is fair - however, I don't know that "it was divine intervention". I wouldn't base my vote on that presupposition. The argument, "What about the other guy getting shot" is specious, however, an argument could be made that, if God is specifically protecting you, then the harm doesn't touch you - not even your ear. Unfortunately, Trump still seems determined to raise silly issues that are of no consequence to voters. He could easily win-over many non-committed voters if he'd stick to policy. This is arguably what lost him the presidency in 2020.

So, Trump sometimes says things that are silly or ill-informed. That has always been his weakness - i.e. that he lacks the filters that stop the rest of us saying what is on our minds - and therefore voices his thoughts prior to proper consideration. OK - but does that weakness hold more weight than his actual presidential record? It is that unrestricted honesty that endears him to many of us - providing a stark contrast against the strategic (often deceptive) spin and rhetoric we are usually subjected to by the political class. And have you heard some of the nonsensical gibberish that has fallen out of Harris' mouth when she has not been practiced and scripted. Trump speaks with clear articulation, but occasionally says silly things. When speaking publicly, Harris often fails to construct coherent sentences. Did the Father not "give a hoot about" Jesus on the cross? God acts in accordance with His own purposes, and in accordance with the faith and prayers of His children. I don't know if God intervened to save Trump from the bullet. It is, however, rationally conceivable, that God can decide to physically save one person from a bullet, and not save another person from a bullet, whilst loving both equally.

If I were American, I would vote for Trump. I think a Trump presidency will temporarily mitigate the current slide towards the collapse of western civilization (including the loss of its associated freedoms) - whereas a Harris presidency will continue the acceleration of that slide away from Christian values. Trump as President is a known entity. We know he will genuinely try to fix the US economy and get back control of the US border. By contrast, Harris has demonstrated little interest (or competency) in tackling inflation nor dealing with the border problems. Neither has she shown any intention of seriously defending, nor explaining, her policies or track record. The recent debate was a farce.

One cannot "force" Christian "beliefs on others". The "others" are either convinced (and therefore believe), or they are not convinced. Perhaps you can intimidate or manipulate the "others" to pretend to be convinced - but what is the point of that?

The deity of Christ is overtly espoused in John, chapter 1. "John 1:1-14" explicitly equates Jesus (Who "became flesh" and "dwelt among us") with "the Word" that "was God" "in the beginning" - i.e. the One Who "made" "all things". Your proposal here is not an established, accepted, agreed-upon Christian doctrine. Christians consider scripture to be inerrant in the autographic texts only. Specific translations (including the KJV) do not qualify for this standard. Your conclusion here is self-evidently untrue. The complexity of our God is indicated in this very passage, with "the Word" being, at the same time ("In the beginning"), both "God" and "with God". And in verse 14 we find that that the very same "Word became flesh and dwelt among us" and was "beheld" by John and his contemporaries. There is no question from reading John, chapter 1, that "the Word" Who "was God" "In the beginning", is "Jesus Christ", the "the only Begotten of the Father"; Who was baptized by John. Christians only believe in one God. Christianity is explicitly monotheistic. The "Trinity" doctrine may be difficult to understand, but when properly understood, does not compromise the monotheistic nature of Christianity. Actually, John 1 very, very clearly identifies "the Word" as "Jesus Christ", "the only Begotten of the Father"; Who "became flesh and dwelt among us". Nevertheless, you are the one dancing around the information that is clearly stated in the passage. Who/What is "them". It does not say, "the words". God placed His words in the mouths of every prophet, and on every manuscript of scripture. John 1 is talking about something different. "The Word" in John 1 is a singular, personal designation. "He" (i.e. "the Word") did not only become "flesh", but also "dwelt among us" and was "beheld" by John's contemporaries and was baptized by John the Baptist. Your interpretation is therefore biased and invalid.

Mathematically speaking, "PI" actually does "=3". It is not precise, but it is 100% correct. When it comes to irrational numbers, the required precision is pragmatically dependent on the need of the user. That is, any user of "PI" has to choose how many decimal places they need to round "PI" down to. One could always be more precise by implementing more decimal places - or less precise by using fewer decimal places. Therefore, rounded to the nearest whole integer, "PI=3".

Both Christian faith and "science" have both subjective and objective elements. Any suggestion otherwise raises a False Dichotomy.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all conversation template. Different ages, circumstances, personalities etc. will all influence how the conversation goes. If available, I would seek professional help from a child-psychologist/therapist/counsellor to guide me through the conversation. I have some ideas, but I don't think it would be wise or prudent for me to speculate about what the conversation might look like more generally. I agree with your response to the above comment (in its context from @Rick-Parker) that there is no reason to "ask her what she wants to do". With regards to "consent", none of our "wishes" "count" when our wish is to commit murder. I understand that you "hate abortion", but on balance, I still wonder if you have considered the full ramifications of so-called "abortions" - i.e. that they each represent the intentional slaughter of a living human who is innocent of any crime - just like any other murder; except that in the case of an "abortion", the human suffering this death is younger, less developed, and therefore more vulnerable (and in need of our protection) than other cases of murder. Rape is indescribably detestable. The rape of a child even more-so (because we recognize younger humans as being more innocent and vulnerable). Likewise, murder is evil. And the murder of children even more-so (for the same reason as above). The unborn baby is deserving of the same rights of protection as the newborn, and the infant, and the toddler, child and teenager. These are all simply stages of human development. By convention (again, for the reasons stated above), humans at earlier stages of development warrant more protection than older humans. My position does not minimize the rape. I am, however, proposing that there is a pathway through this awful situation, without having to consider the murder of an unborn baby.

Yes - I get it. Rape is a monstrous, eminently despicable event - whose trauma is only compounded by a resulting pregnancy. I fully understand the torturous depth of the evil perpetrated on the victim - and the resulting psychological turmoil. The fact that you think you need to spell-out the scenario indicates that you think I am underplaying the rape aspect of the issue. That is not a fair assumption on your part. However, I would posit that you are the one who has not fully considered how truly evil it is to murder a baby - born or unborn (since there is no objective moral difference). Furthermore, I don't have to "convince" anyone of anything. As the parent, I am choosing for my "10-year-old daughter"- in our family we do not murder babies. There is no "abortion" choice to be considered. The remaining question to be considered is: "Given that we are having a baby, how do we move forward in a manner that is best for young mother and her unborn child?". You appear to be of the opinion that there is no possible positive outcome in choosing to keep the baby. I 100% disagree. A young girl can be counselled into recovery from a rape - and subsequently raise her child in a loving environment (or alternatively, the family could choose to adopt-out the child after the birth).

Of course. Being against "abortion" in no way minimizes the atrocity of rape. To assume such is not fair-minded. As a matter of logical, moral consistency, it simply does not track that murdering an unborn child is a valid solution to the rape of the mother. That is simply compounding evil with evil. At that young age, children look to parents to calibrate their responses. And as such, the correct response from the parents could serve to guide the child into a fuller mental/emotional/psychological recovery - i.e. to overcome the mental impacts of the rape - such that it is not an enduring, defining event in the child's life and psyche. Regarding being "forced" - parents make decisions for their children at those young ages. And children look to their parents to do so. Whereas your initial characterization paints the issue as some adult/government organization personally bullying the child. I don't think that is fair.

I’d expect that “abortion” due to rape would be a much lower percentage of “abortions”, than 5%. Nevertheless, the fact that we can point to extreme and difficult examples doesn’t modify the immorality of murdering a child. It simply amplifies the heinous, selfish, evil nature of rape. Stemming from the torturous nature of the rape itself, would be the potential mental anguish of having to carry the rapist’s child for 9 months, alongside the additional complication that the newborn is also the child of the rape victim - i.e. there would be complications associated with the mother being conflicted - bonding with her own child despite the role of the father. There are also a range of potential, long-lasting medical (physical) complications associated with carrying a child and giving birth – i.e. perpetual reminders of the rape. I have several thoughts: I'd firstly suggest that no-one is "forcing" the "little child" to do anything. I think that is an emotive mischaracterization of the situation. Parents make decisions for their children at those ages. The children are not considered emotionally mature enough to comprehend the implications of what has happened/is happening to them. If the child's guardians are careful, they can mitigate the damage caused to the child arising from the awful situation. That is, given the right treatment and approach, a child will more easily recover from such a trauma, then would an adult. A child could be nursed and comforted through the situation, or otherwise be further traumatized - depending on how her parents react. - Which is to say that, what is being proposed is a prohibition on the parent of a child rape victim organizing the murder of their unborn grandchild. That is, an alternate solution to murdering the baby might be to guide the young mother through the process of carrying the child to term in a supportive manner - allowing the baby to live and the mother to heal. As previously stated, the rare extreme argument is not a valid basis for reaching moral conclusions. In this rare circumstance, children are entirely reliant on their parent's emotional support for proper mental calibration - and will follow their parent's lead. Furthermore, generally speaking, it is fortunate that their are biological age limitations on who can get pregnant - which means the circumstance of younger girls getting pregnant is very rare. I haven't looked into it, but I'd also wonder if carrying a pregnancy at such a young age might fall into the category of placing the life of the young mother in imminent peril. And thus, the emotive appeal to a "child rape" is unnecessary.

This is not a premise stated explicitly in scripture. It may be true, and there are valid arguments from scripture supporting this position. But there are also arguments against. And since this premise is not directly stated in scripture, we cannot make such important decisions on the basis of this premise being true - especially if those decisions are otherwise contrary to scripture (such as prohibitions on murder). I personally make allowances for occasions when the mother's life is in serious jeopardy. It is important that in such circumstances, we recognize that we are choosing between two sacred human lives. I would also suggest that a husband has a covenant obligation to protect and prioritize the life of his wife. A husband's obligation to his wife supersedes his obligation to the unborn child. No. We do not murder children because the father is a rapist. Even recognizing the truly vile nature of rape, and the ongoing effects on the mother of having to carry the child, there is no moral justification for killing the child. It is morally the same as deciding to kill a 1-year-old for the same reason - the unborn child is simply at an earlier stage of development (and if anything, more vulnerable and more innocent). Furthermore, the mere suggestion that we should consider murdering a child of rape indicates that one has not properly considered the human value and dignity of the child. As it would be otherwise, self-evidently, morally reprehensible to suggest an innocent child be killed because of the actions of an adult - in any context. The phrase "will be endangered" is a bit weak and far too vague for my liking. If the unborn child places the mother's life in immediate peril, then it may be necessary to make the awful decision to choose to save one life at the cost of the other. For much of the pregnancy, the death of the mother would result in the death of the child regardless. Either way, it is important to recognize that a human life is being lost.

So, proven anecdotally? Nice.