Buffman

fromtheright

<a href="http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm" target="_blank">http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm</a>

I'm sure it's in another thread but would someone please list for me the traits of the Deist God?

Smarter and lazier? Sort of like Ben Franklin's god. Invent things to make life easier. Invent the earth than turn it over to mortals as caretakers and only return when the mortals mess it up, kill them, breed some new ones, invent Google, type in "Deism," and then go back on vacation.

<a href="http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm" target="_blank">http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm</a>

PS:

He came back and participated in the Godless March. He was the bewhiskered guy giving the finger the the Christians standing on the curbs and yelling, "I never really liked that kid."

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

fromtheright

Buffman,

Why would a bunch of Deists appeal to the Supreme Judge of the World in the DoI? And why would they place a "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence"? I don't see the "sit back and have a smoke" God of Deism offering much protection.

fromtheright

Buffman,

"There are religions that are very false and very absurd..."

"Religious peoples are therefore naturally strong in precisely the spot where democratic peoples are weak; this makes very visible how important it is that men keep to their religion when becoming equal."

"While I was in America, a witness called at assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York) declared that he did not believe in the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to allow him to be sworn in, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all possible confidence in his testimony. Newspapers reported the fact without comment."

Are these the comments of someone who would support the separation of Church-State? Not hardly!


Do you deny that there are false and absurd religions? I would think that would be one of the first assertions of a Non-Supernaturalist. And I'm not sure how either of the other two observations has any bearing on CSS. Except, if the observation about religious people is correct, are religious people in a society imcompatible with CSS? As to the last, it appears to be simply an observation that he made. In any case, he may very well not support the strict separation, the type of wall, that you and your friends here do.

Radorth

My answer comes from YOUR cite:

(De Toqueville)

You guys can try to focus all attention on two or three founder's ambivalent beliefs, but you are left with at least 50 others, which I have not yet quoted as I think even the "deists" take a position quite contrary to you own.

It is quite clear they could tell a baby from dirty bathwater, while the baby is invisible to you. In spite of a few founders disgust with the church, (not unlike my own) we don't ever find them insulting Jesus himself, or even individual Christians. Doing so in the name of "free thought" would be entirely repugnant to them.

Rad

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

IMO calling Franklin a "deist" is revisionist history as bad as any. Stretching the definition to include someone who plainly believes in a busy God, an afterlife and a final judgement is just disingenuous.

Rad

Buffman

fromtheright

Why would a bunch of Deists appeal to the Supreme Judge of the World in the DoI? And why would they place a "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence"? I don't see the "sit back and have a smoke" God of Deism offering much protection.

Perfectly good point. One that atheists and freethinkers make every day. However, when you are attempting to bring one group of Christians together to fight and kill another group of Christians, where is the logic? You use whatever you think will work. This particular group of Deists weren't dummies. They played the religious fervor card.

They knew, just like our 1954 Congress knew about "under God," that Christian Americans would believe that the Creator God/divine Providence God/Supreme Judge God were all the same God, their "personal" Christian God.

Buffman

fromtheright

Do you deny that there are false and absurd religions? I would think that would be one of the first assertions of a Non-Supernaturalist.

(SIGH) This is a French Catholic, who visited the U.S. for nine months in 1831/32, speaking about the Protestant religions of that day in the part of his book published in 1840.

Whether I personally agree with his statement has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. However, I will gladly admit that I believe that superstitious beliefs are absurd.

If you don't understand why I elected to include those two other remarks in my post, I can only hope that you would read the whole chapter I cited before concluding that they have no relationship to C-SS...especially for minorities like atheists.

Radorth

Huh? Perhaps you can rephrase/explain, as you make it sound like they were simply manipulating people. Are you suggesting Franklin's call for prayer to an attentive God was not sincere?

Rad

Buffman

Radorth

My answer comes from YOUR cite:

It tells me nothing concerning your knowledge about the author.


You guys...

Exactly which "guys" are those?

... can try to focus all attention on two or three founder's ambivalent beliefs, but you are left with at least 50 others, which I have not yet quoted as I think even the "deists" take a position quite contrary to you own.

You are the one that posted the questionable quotes as "evidence" to prove your contentions. All I did was expose your quotes for what they really were. Thank you for helping me to make my point about the propaganda campaign being used by some fundamentalist Christians. Obviously you did not do the degree of research that you claim that you do or you would not have used those quotes as support. All you accomplished was to place yourself in the David Barton camp whether you trust him or not. There are many other outstanding Christian scholars you could have quoted, so why did you use this group of quotes as "evidence?" If I could find all the errors, why couldn't you? (Perhaps I was right. You have your mind already made up. Christians never lie or attempt to deceive people. Why don't you spend some time reading the topic I just posted about our "National Security State." It was written by Christians. Are they lying or deceiving people? I don't think so. I think they are being the true Christian majority in this country...and it's about time they started speaking out publicly.)

It is quite clear they could tell a baby from dirty bathwater, while the baby is invisible to you. In spite of a few founders disgust with the church, (not unlike my own) we don't ever find them insulting Jesus himself, or even individual Christians. Doing so in the name of "free thought" would be entirely repugnant to them.

You just don't listen; or you just don't get it. Ethics/Morality are not the sole possession of certain Christian denominations. The people who lived before, and during, the years that the Founding/Framing Fathers did never heard of Evolution or any of the other scientific advances that we take for granted today. You must study their words and actions in relation to their times and environment, not ours. The Enlightenment had barely begun. Religious superstition and tribal myths had been around for the entire history of humanity until then.

Deists did not discriminate. They were disgusted with all organized religions. Haven't you read Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason?" I feel that he states the Deist's case better than most. I simply believe in one less god than he did. (By the way, do you know what role he played in America's search for Independence and the Revolutionary War?)

Apparently you did not read my post very closely. I have no problem with acknowledging that all, but a small, though critical, handful of Founding/Framing Fathers were believers in Christianity. What other choices did they have and still be able to run for office?---You are certainly entitled to what you believe would be repugnant to our Founders. However, if they had had the information/knowledge that we have today about scientific methodology, I would like to believe that they would not support your views of our universe.

IMO calling Franklin a "deist" is revisionist history as bad as any. Stretching the definition to include someone who plainly believes in a busy God, an afterlife and a final judgement is just disingenuous.

Didn't you read all the information I made available? Ben Franklin, in his youth, declared himself a Deist. From that point on, he became an extremely clever and competent politician/statesman. What his personal beliefs were about religion. at the time of his death, is based primarily on his public statements and writings. He wanted to get along with all religious and non-religious believers. However, I make no equivocations about it. He verbalized the importance of morality, but could hardly be identified as a moral man, in Christian dogma terms, himself. So when you make claims about what is, or is not, revisionist history, I am hard pressed to find anything of import in your statements. Obviously you, and all of us, need to do a good deal more careful and accurate study before we run around making claims for which we have little support.

Buffman

Radforth

Huh? Perhaps you can rephrase/explain, as you make it sound like they were simply manipulating people. Are you suggesting Franklin's call for prayer to an attentive God was not sincere?

Please! Please! Please! Do your homework before you make these kinds of posts or I will simply have to ignore you.

This issue has been covered many times before. You have just jumped from the drafting and signing of the DoI in 1776 to the Debates in the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

1. Have you ever read those CC debates?

2. Why do "you" think that Franklin's call for prayer was not heeded by all these Christian delegates?

When you can honestly answer those questions, maybe we will have something worthy of the used band width. Thank you.

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>