Fred Flintstonensis

Where my stepdaughter works there is this great old OED from the late 1800s. I looked up deism and I should have written it down. In fact, I will and post it here later.

It describes the deist movement. It describes this one fellow as the father of English Deism. It traces the origins of deism and describes the 'different flavors' of deism. The primary definition that it provides says that deists believed in a natural, not a supernatural god. They believed in an afterlife and a final judgment but believed that god was not currently meddling in human affairs.

It also said that many considered themselves to be Christians, but were seeking a rational version of christianity. Like Jefferson's version, without the miracles and obvious myth.

This rendering is consistent with my own readings (Diderot, Voltaire, Paine, Jefferson).

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Fred Flintstonensis ]</p>

Butters

Fred,
Yes we noticed, he was asked to do so several times. He will not answer the question of this thread either. His only goal is to post selected quotes of the founding fathers in an effort to show that they were Christians. I think he believes that if they were Christians, that they really couldn't have meant for this country to have religious freedom, I mean REALLY what kind of Christian would put up with that? I'm sure he has some theory how Satan inserted all that freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and other nonsense into the constitution.
But it is worse than that. In some of his recent posts he has made it clear that he disagrees with the founders anyway. He derides democracy as a necessary evil in todays world. It supports Christianity, but not nearly as much as he would like. He longs for the days of Theocracy. His views (what little he reveals) are simply un-American, un-patriotic, and fall short of being identical to Oshma Bin Ladan's only to the extent that Rad has not yet called for violent action. It is EXACTLY people like him that the Founders were afraid of, they had experenced life under the rule of people like him and wanted to protect us all from such madmen.

scombrid

This is pretty consistent with what I learned about the founder’s beliefs in US History and World History in Catholic high school. Funny the Christian sect that was responsible for my primary education shared this atheist’s views on the founders and their intents with regard to the Bill of Rights. Of course we all know that Catholics aren’t True Christians™ so I was probably just subject to Satan’s lies by those idolaters. Of course we never labored under the misconception that ALL or even a majority were deists. We were taught the there were plenty of raving fundies in the mix that were trying to usurp power for their sects and were actively discriminating against others when given the opportunity. It seems that the founders, deists and Christians alike, could at least agree to protect everybody’s beliefs by keeping the government out of religion. They also deliberately designed laws to be plastic so that they could adapt to the times and remain contemporaneous. If the constitution were biblical, laws would be fixed.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…” ie. It was blatantly obvious that in the societies where men weren’t permitted to pursue their ambitions and reap the rewards of their labor, life sucked and society suffered. The bible didn’t tell them this, experience did.

Radorth

"I have lived a long time sir, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-that God governs the affairs of men."

Gee, now you've lost Franklin as a deist, using your own definition. Too bad.

Rad

Radorth

What a ridiculous, simplistic assessment that is. The only question not answered here is how their actions fit with your bogus understanding of their intentions and visions of America. Of course they wanted atheists to have rights, but only so everybody else could. The question here is whether they were willing to promulgate the Gospel at government expense, and how that would have violated the "wall." It did not, in their minds, as long as they were not in any way helping one denomination over another.

Actually they did that too if we count Protestantism and Catholicism. Right?

The answer to your last simplistic, rhetorical question is:

whoever wants to insure the freedom to worship God "in spirit and in truth."

Criminy, who elected Jefferson if not Christians who wanted to keep the "wall" up in order to preserve their own rights? Once again, they did something you can't imagine they would do, but which all but the tendentious "secular activist" realizes they did do.

Rad

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Radorth

BTW, the above definition of a deist is absolutely ridiculous when applied to Washington, who saw "Providence" as busy as a beaver throughout the war and afterwards.

Incredible.

Rad

dangin

Ah yes, "Providence" and "God", I'm still not seeing any reference to Jesus.

Maybe they were talking about Allah.

Butters

Well, it's pretty funny that "secular activists" are fighting to keep the wall up, ensuring further protection for Christians (of all denomanations) remain free to spread whatever "gospel" they wish, while the Falwells, and the Bartons of the world want to tear it down to promote their own "fundamentalist" form of protestant religion. Wake up man! You have nothing to fear from "secularists", you should be joining with them to insure your own freedom,if that's truly what you're after.

Fred Flintstonensis

Radorth,

I said that the primary definition says this-and-such. There were as many types of deists then as there are christians now and they had much less organization. Not only that, if deists are anything like some liberal theists their thoughts on God and Jesus were probably in an almost constant state of flux.

Really, this is not a debate between you and us, it is a debate between you and the founders of this republic. We are watching, deciding who to believe. We are saying,"Gee, is the United States a Christian nation? Well Radorth says it is but the entire 5th Congress and John Adams says it isn't. Hmm... who should we believe." Sorry, but I am going with those early american politicians.

I have read 2 biographies of Washington, 2 of John Adams, 3 of Jefferson and 1 of Paine. I am working on Franklin and Monroe right now. Additionally I have read a book of the collected letters of Jefferson and I have read many letters written by Washington. I don't see how you could have read similar works and come up with such a dramatically different view of the founding generation.

In fact, let's cut the crap: I think that all you know about the founding generation is what you learned from listening Dr. James Kennedy and other imbeciles like him, or worse, you just peruse the multitudinous websites created by the lunatic fringe of revisionist history. You mention Washington's Farewell address as if you know something about it, other than where to wedge your revisionist bullshit.

You said in the other thread that your own studies have revealed that Washington was a Christian. Audacious shitstain! You think your little internet research enabled you to learn more about Washington than his aquaintances? The minister at the church he attended? Two biographers who interviewed his relatives and friends, read his letters and searched his library? All of these people who knew him and said he was a deist know less about Washington than you? Your research on the internet is superior to interviews with his family and friends? Just stop and think of how ridiculous you seem to us! that is why no one listens to you, because you are simply hoping against hope and you know it.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Fred Flintstonensis ]</p>

Radorth

And one of your regulars here was so incredibly ignorant of what John Adams said, that he assumed I was talking about John Quincy Adams, and took it upon himself to add "John Quincy" to my statement. And nobody called him what you would have called me, did they? But that incident merely proved how ignorant some Atheist Automatons really are.

You have virtually all your facts wrong

1. I called Washington "enigmatic." It is only Atheist Automatons who could insist the reticent Washington was a deist. Your own definition above precludes him, since he saw the "invisible hand" at work all through the war. I only said that IN MY OPINION after considerable study, I decided he was a Christian who was simply too humble to take communion, but I'm not dogmatic about it. I don't need him to be one nearly as bad as you need him to be a "deist."

2. I never watched more than a total of five minutes of James Kennedy in my life, and that was while switching channels. I get plenty of quotes and ammo from Library of Congess, and even atheist websites, one of which just confirmed the validity of a quote other atheists claim Franklin never made.

3. As I recall Washington's minister said he did not take communion, not that he was a deist or not a Christian. Who are "all of these people" who said he was a deist? You need to produce some hard evidence for that claim bub.

Nice whack at palm reading though.

Rad

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>