SECULAR, what is it? And is it bad? WhyWhynot?

[BibleStudent100]

11 hours ago, missmuffet said:

Secularists do not believe that mankind can have a set of permanent values such as are taught in the Bible.

So true and well stated!  I really hate the "wisdom" that is spewed in our culture:

"Follow your heart"

"Find your inner truth"

"Be true to yourself"

etc.

This is all the propaganda that emanates from Satan and the view he promotes: secularism.

[Jayne]

Ya'll need to go back and read the OP.

He didn't ask about secular humanism or secularism.  He didn't ask about situational ethics.

He asked why is the word secular associated with being bad.

Secular, all by itself, means not religious.  Just because something is not of a religious purpose does not make it bad.

Singing "Happy Birthday" to someone is not religious.  Is that bad?  Paul has a secular job in the Bible.  He was a tentmaker.  Was that bad?

 

 

[Tristen]

20 hours ago, Jayne said:

Ya'll need to go back and read the OP.

He didn't ask about secular humanism or secularism.  He didn't ask about situational ethics.

He asked why is the word secular associated with being bad.

Secular, all by itself, means not religious.  Just because something is not of a religious purpose does not make it bad.

Singing "Happy Birthday" to someone is not religious.  Is that bad?  Paul has a secular job in the Bible.  He was a tentmaker.  Was that bad?

 

 

 

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.

[Neighbor]

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

still definitely religious.

Hi, Hmmm, okay then is being religious a good thing, a bad thing?  Or perhaps is it nothing at all but  just emotion being acted out?

May worship be secular, or secular activity be worship - if it is done to the glory of God? The good example of Paul earning his own keep so  that he may not be judged as seeking gain from his testimony of Jesus as example. Secular, yes I think so; but against Godly living or without Godly  principle behind it? No, don't think so anyway.

[Michael37]

36 minutes ago, Neighbor said:

Hi, Hmmm, okay then is being religious a good thing, a bad thing?  Or perhaps is it nothing at all but  just emotion being acted out?

May worship be secular, or secular activity be worship - if it is done to the glory of God? The good example of Paul earning his own keep so  that he may not be judged as seeking gain from his testimony of Jesus as example. Secular, yes I think so; but against Godly living or without Godly  principle behind it? No, don't think so anyway.

If someone wants a word to mean something different from its original or current meaning they have to work to make it so.

Wicked ay!

[Neighbor]

1 hour ago, Michael37 said:

If someone wants a word to mean something different from its original or current meaning they have to work to make it so.

Wicked ay!

Ehyuhp, yuhp.

Though maybe not nearly as much work as it might have once been when all had capacity to handle more than 240 character messages and thoughts at a time.

Happy birthday, and thanks for your consistent excellent efforts for the cause at WCF. Even when we  may conclude differently it is always with  good rationale on your part.

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, Neighbor said:

Hi, Hmmm, okay then is being religious a good thing, a bad thing?

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.

 

1 hour ago, Neighbor said:

May worship be secular

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.

 

1 hour ago, Neighbor said:

or secular activity be worship - if it is done to the glory of God? The good example of Paul earning his own keep so  that he may not be judged as seeking gain from his testimony of Jesus as example. Secular, yes I think so

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.

 

2 hours ago, Neighbor said:

but against Godly living or without Godly  principle behind it? No, don't think so anyway

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.

 

 

[Neighbor]

Hi, I guess a review of Matthew 23 (In it's entirety) provides some excellent context.

[Jayne]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

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.

Irrational?  Meaningless?  Logically Absurd? 

Well, you'll have to take that up with Daniel Webster and a whole lot of other people who compiled dictionaries and lexicons.  I didn't make that definition up.  They did. 

And I don't think that defining something by what it is "not" is necessarily in error.

Good gravy!

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, Jayne said:

Irrational?  Meaningless?  Logically Absurd? 

Well, you'll have to take that up with Daniel Webster

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.

 

9 hours ago, Jayne said:

And I don't think that defining something by what it is "not" is necessarily in error.

OK - I provided arguments demonstrating why such a definition is both meaningless and useless. I will be happy to fairly consider your counter-arguments.