# Worldview Chart



## JM

Following the link for more info.


----------



## JM

Under Cosmic Humanism...it looks like Ethical Relativism is a repeat of whats listed under Secular Humanism and Darwinian/Punctuated Evolution is a repeat of what you find in the Marxism section...is this correct? 

Cosmic Humanism
Ethical Relativism 
Since the Humanist rejects the existence of God, human beings get to decide on standards and values. Humanists believe that science, reason, and historical experience are sufficient guides for figuring out what is right or wrong in any situation. These standards will not always be the same, as each person has a different background and reasoning. Therefore, the standards and values – ethics – are relative. The Humanist Manifesto II states, "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing not theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."

Darwinian/Punctuated Evolution 
Marxism-Leninism also depends on the theories of evolution and spontaneous generation. Karl Marx made it very clear that the origin of the species contained the scientific basis for his views on the class struggle. However, Marxist dialectical materialism called for something more than just the gradual progress of natural selection. The dialectic needs a theory with clashes and leaps. This is satisfied with punctuated equilibrium, which says that each species stayed the same for long periods of time (equilibrium) and evolution happened through occasional ruptures or leaps (punctuations) from one species to another.​ 
I have a very old edition of "Understanding the Times," it lacks the Cosmic Humanism section.

Thanks.

j


----------



## JM

Found this, I think it corrects the chart:
Ethics: Cosmic Humanism’s ethical perspective is based on its theological pantheism and philosophical monism. If each person is God, then all final authority resides within, and individuals must seek the freedom to act in harmony with their inner truth. MacLaine states, “Free will is simply the enactment of the realization you are God, a realization that you are divine: free will is making everything accessible to you.” The sacred nature of individual autonomy is the only ethical absolute promoted by the New Age movement. 

Biology: Cosmic Humanists embrace evolutionary theory because evolution provides the best mechanism for ushering in a New Age. While a standard creationist view of biology seems to contradict the concept that man will eventually progress toward a heaven on earth (especially in light of the Laws of Thermodynamics), evolution provides just such a framework. Cosmic Humanists need reassurance that progress will occur because of their belief that mankind is moving upward toward an age of higher consciousness. The “science” of evolution provides the guarantee that all humanity will one day achieve this consciousness.​


----------



## LawrenceU

Good ol' David Nobel. If you don't have an updated copy of Understanding the Times it is well worth getting one.


----------



## Confessor

The one thing I don't like about Summit (which might have been an aberration) is something I found in my notes that I had written about a year after attending a two-week Summit conference. I saw in my notes that I had written "massa perditiona" (sp.) by Augustine's name, and "filia Dei" (sp.) by Pelagius's name. I then wrote in "lump of sin" and "child of God."

Was Summit seriously promoting Pelagius over Augustine? I know they spoke of free will at the conference.

Unfortunately, I was not Reformed at the time I attended the conference (nor interested in theology in the least); otherwise I would have been able to respond immediately.

Otherwise, yeah, Noebel rules.


----------



## AThornquist

I still can't figure out which column I fit best into....


----------



## Confessor

AThornquist said:


> I still can't figure out which column I fit best into....


----------



## py3ak

I would imagine that they are trying to be descriptive. But we must be careful not to turn the columns into prescriptive models and think that someone can't be a Christian while holding to, for instance, differing economic theories.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

py3ak said:


> I would imagine that they are trying to be descriptive. But we must be careful not to turn the columns into prescriptive models and think that someone can't be a Christian while holding to, for instance, differing economic theories.



Right.


----------



## LawrenceU

I can't imagine Summit promoting Pelegius. Many of the instructors are reformed,


----------



## Confessor

I had written in my notes "Augustine - massa perditiona (lump of sin); Pelagius - filium Dei (child of God)"

Deduce what you will. Perhaps I was a full-blown Pelagian and didn't know it at the time.


----------



## Grymir

You also have to know what Augustine and Pelagius wrote. For Pelagius a Child of God isn't what we think of as a child of God. Also the same applies to Augustine, his lump of sin is what we are.


----------



## Confessor

Grymir said:


> You also have to know what Augustine and Pelagius wrote. For Pelagius a Child of God isn't what we think of as a child of God. Also the same applies to Augustine, his lump of sin is what we are.



What I was trying to say is that it seemed as if whoever the speaker was at that time was trying to cast Pelagius in a positive light and Augustine in a negative light, e.g. using the word "lump" as a translation of "massa."


----------

