| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2010 01:59:24 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ya, I found that Franklin quote on my own. But it goes back, once again, to what is meant by the term. |
I quoted from the freakin' dictionary.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You fail to show any signs of a belief in a God that made the world then stepped back. |
Again, visit the dictionary. Belief in a "god of nature" and materialism + rejection of the supernatural and miracles = God that made the world then stepped back. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 02:08:40 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ya, I found that Franklin quote on my own. But it goes back, once again, to what is meant by the term. |
I quoted from the freakin' dictionary.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You fail to show any signs of a belief in a God that made the world then stepped back. |
Again, visit the dictionary. Belief in a "god of nature" and materialism + rejection of the supernatural and miracles = God that made the world then stepped back. |
Sigh. Was your dictionary from 1775? How many times have I said our modern concept of deism was not the same as that of our founding fathers despite the word being the same? I added some quotes from Franklin to my post above. I'll repeat them here:
I would refer you to The Faiths of the Founding Fathers. Don't worry, it's a scholarly book not a religious one. In it, Franklin, for example is described as "among those deists who remained open to the possibility of Divine intervention or special providence in human affairs. As he wrote in an essay in the 1730s, God "sometimes interferes by His particular providence and sets aside the effects which would otherwise have been produced by...causes." (page 55)
It looks like I found a quote I had been searching for where Franklin dodges the divinity issue, "I have...some doubts as to his Divinity, tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, & think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble." Still he felt that Jesus had established the best system of morals and religion in the history of the world.
May I ask you what part of that bolded quote would be consistent with your definition?
It appears you can read the entire book on Google Books. I suggest you peruse the chapters on The Founding Fathers and deism then adjust your view.
EDIT: whoops. Looks like you can't read the whole book after all. Still, large portions are available.
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 02:15:30. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 10:12:56 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sigh. Was your dictionary from 1775? |
Wouldn't that be the dictionary Franklin would have been most likely to use? |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 10:24:35 AM · #104 |
I'm going to post this again as I think it was lost under a DrAchoo 5 paragraph post.
You can't dismiss the Masonic influence among the founding fathers.
9 out of 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, including Ben Franklin (a Grand Master) and John Hancock.
13 out of 39 signers of the US Constitution
33 out of 74 of Washington's generals.
These are conservative numbers, some put the number of Masons that signed of the Contstitution closer to 20
One could argue that being a Free Mason had more influence on them than being a Christian. From what I understand, being a Mason requires that you believe in God. However, I doubt many of the modern Christain faiths would be comfortable with the rituals and inclusion of non-Christain faiths that are part of the Masons.
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 10:25:28. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:02:57 AM · #105 |
| I missed your post David. Yes, I think Freemasonry probably did have an important role in our foundation (I've seen National Treasure!). I also agree that while it was Christian in name, it did have some beliefs which would, again, make the modern Evangelical upset. As far as making a judgement on whether one made more influence to the exclusion of the other? I don't think I can say. I would probably be more diplomatic and say they both played a role (or even share influences among all three topics we are speaking about including American deism). |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:06:27 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
One could argue that being a Free Mason had more influence on them than being a Christian. From what I understand, being a Mason requires that you believe in God. However, I doubt many of the modern Christain faiths would be comfortable with the rituals and inclusion of non-Christain faiths that are part of the Masons. |
Freemasons themselves are generally Christian, more specifically Protestant. The Catholic church, historically, perceives Freemasonry as anti-Catholic, and there's some validity in that, but it is not anti-Christian. In fact, there are numerous bodies and rites of Freemasonry that require a specific statement of Christian faith to join.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:18:16 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
One could argue that being a Free Mason had more influence on them than being a Christian. From what I understand, being a Mason requires that you believe in God. However, I doubt many of the modern Christain faiths would be comfortable with the rituals and inclusion of non-Christain faiths that are part of the Masons. |
Freemasons themselves are generally Christian, more specifically Protestant. The Catholic church, historically, perceives Freemasonry as anti-Catholic, and there's some validity in that, but it is not anti-Christian. In fact, there are numerous bodies and rites of Freemasonry that require a specific statement of Christian faith to join.
R. |
I agree it was anti-Catholic, but they also welcomed Jews, Deists and Unitarians. Again, I'm no expert, but I understand that the only religious requirement was a belief in God, not necessarily Christian.
On the anti-Catholic front, I find it ironic that when public schools first came about in the US it was largely an anti-Catholic measure. The Protestants looked to the government to create schools that were not overly influenced by one religion. That situation as certainly turned around. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:42:51 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I missed your post David. Yes, I think Freemasonry probably did have an important role in our foundation (I've seen National Treasure!). |
Did you also read The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown? ;-)
Read that one and, if you buy into any of it, deny the influence of Freemansons on our government. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 11:47:42 AM · #109 |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 12:05:14 PM · #110 |
LOL. Dan Brown? I'm still reeling from The Da Vinci Code!
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 12:05:45. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 12:29:09 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Worst book ever. |
I wasn't crazy about it either. Seemed like it was written for Tom Hanks.
But the historical Masonic references are based on fact, at least according to the critics.
Currently I'm reading Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth. Most excellent. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 12:30:20 PM · #112 |
| David, you are smart enough not to get your facts from pulp fiction. Please tell me you are that smart! :) |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 12:45:07 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
David, you are smart enough not to get your facts from pulp fiction. Please tell me you are that smart! :) |
Hehe, yeah, but what I read can intitate further research. I rarely take anything at face value.
One thing that caught my attention while reading the Lost Symbol was the Apotheosis of Washington painting inside the dome in the rotunda of the US Capitol buulding. I didn't know it existed before reading the book.
Wiki link
Still haven't quite figured out what was up with that rather disturbing painting so prominantly displayed in our nation's capitol. George Washington being transformed into a god? Really?
Link to photo of the painting
Now, if it was Ronald Reagan, I'd understand, but George Washington? ;-) |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 12:54:20 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
George Washington being transformed into a god? Really? |
And surrounded by the Olympians. Take that, my-country-was-founded-on-Christian-and-certainly-not-pagan-values-ites. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 01:10:14 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
George Washington being transformed into a god? Really? |
And surrounded by the Olympians. Take that, my-country-was-founded-on-Christian-and-certainly-not-pagan-values-ites. |
Don't worry, we all know it was really founded on the cult of Mithras... ;P |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 01:12:13 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
David, you are smart enough not to get your facts from pulp fiction. Please tell me you are that smart! :) |
What's Quentin Tarantino got to do with this?
R.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 01:12:30 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
David, you are smart enough not to get your facts from pulp fiction. Please tell me you are that smart! :) |
But, but, the bible is pulp fiction! It's just, you know, older pulp fiction.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 01:17:13 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
David, you are smart enough not to get your facts from pulp fiction. Please tell me you are that smart! :) |
But, but, the bible is pulp fiction! It's just, you know, older pulp fiction. |
Yup, written on papyrus, the original pulp of pulps :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2010 01:32:45 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Again, visit the dictionary. Belief in a "god of nature" and materialism + rejection of the supernatural and miracles = God that made the world then stepped back. |
Sigh. Was your dictionary from 1775? How many times have I said our modern concept of deism was not the same as that of our founding fathers despite the word being the same? |
No, I don't think Dictionary.com was around then. However, the Merriam-Webster, Cambridge and Oxford English dictionaries all share the same basic definition: "belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind." That is what the term meant in colonial times, and it's in perfect accord with Jefferson, Franklin and many contemporaries who believed in a creator and the moral teachings of Jesus as an ordinary human, but not in the supernatural stories claimed by most Christians. As much as you'd like to pretend deism had a different definition back then that holds any resemblance to modern Christianity, it just ain't so. If anything, the terms Christian and Unitarian, as they considered themselves, were different from current understanding and CLEARLY incompatible with notions of virgin birth, walking on water or resurrection (all of which were stripped out of the bible as myths by Jefferson himself):
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson
There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.- Thomas Paine
"Adams was educated at Harvard when the influence of deism was growing there, and used deistic terms in his speeches and writing. He believed in the essential goodness of the creation, but did not believe that God intervened in the affairs of individuals, and, being a Unitarian, his beliefs excluded the divinity of Christ."
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."- Benjamin Franklin
Your own book reference does nothing to help your cause- "After examining primary reports and documentation, Holmes finds that none of the men most responsible for the creation of the American government would even qualify as "orthodox Christians" for their own era, much less according to the standards of conservative evangelical Christians today. Most were either Deists or "Christian Deists," a form of Deism which is heavily informed by Christianity rather than the other way around. If they themselves didn't personally adopt orthodox Christian doctrines, it's hardly reasonable to think that they intended the American government to promote or endorse those doctrines."
The early American revolutionaries weren't the last to hold this view... "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."- Abraham Lincoln |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 01:47:28 PM · #120 |
Once again, you completely ignore the obvious Shannon. The "intellectual movement" being referred to by the dictionary with that specific dogma was in FRANCE.
You completely ignore the quotes. If these founding fathers do not believe in an interventionist God, why do they write that such interventions can happen? It makes no sense. You keep giving quotes that do not counter what I am saying and when you give quotes that use the word "deism", unless you make clear the definition intended could just as easily support my position.
It is at points such as this I would appreciate some intellectual honesty from the peanut gallery. Louis is reading. K10 is reading. Others are reading. Why must I toil at making Shannon see the error of his ways? Are the others here only to watch the spectacle? or do they care at all about intellectual honesty?
A repeat of two Franklin quotes. How can it be any clearer that he does not believe in a non-interventionist God?
"Here is my creed. I believe in One God, the Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render Him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion."
God "sometimes interferes by His particular providence and sets aside the effects which would otherwise have been produced by...causes."
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 13:51:01. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 01:49:41 PM · #121 |
| You're wrong. He's right. Exit left. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 01:50:40 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by Louis:
You're wrong. He's right. Exit left. |
Are you just making jokes, or are you serious? I can't tell. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to let you at those quotes and explain them to me. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 01:54:38 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is at points such as this I would appreciate some intellectual honesty from the peanut gallery. Louis is reading. K10 is reading. Others are reading. Why must I toil at making Shannon see the error of his ways? Are the others here only to watch the spectacle? or do they care at all about intellectual honesty? |
My 2 cents: who cares what the founders thought? I always get frustrated when people fall back on framer's intent. They lived over 200 years ago and times have changed. They didn't allow themselves to be bound by the philosophies that were dominant in the 16th century, so why should we be bound by 18th century philosphy? Their true genius was in the creation of a document that could live and evolve through the changing times.
Otherwise, I agree with Louis :-p |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 02:00:20 PM · #124 |
| People only care because of a desperate need to validate already held views by way of historic precedent, and there is no firmer precedent in cases like this than the original one. Thus, radicals like Beck et. al. will abscond not only America's founders and reframe whatever their intentions werer to fit their own twisted views, but they will rape and pillage the legacy of the likes of Martin Luther King for the same purpose. What's so new about all this? Morons are morons. |
|
|
|
08/27/2010 02:01:12 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
My 2 cents: who cares what the founders thought? I always get frustrated when people fall back on framer's intent. They lived over 200 years ago and times have changed. They didn't allow themselves to be bound by the philosophies that were dominant in the 16th century, so why should we be bound by 18th century philosphy? Their true genius was in the creation of a document that could live and evolve through the changing times.
|
+1 for that statement.
Even if the founders were mostly Christian, and the US was founded on Christian principles, the nation is a piss poor representation of those principles today.
Message edited by author 2010-08-27 14:01:23. |
|
