I don't know what happened to the Anti-gay marriage thread???
There isn't censorship around here is there??? Mods? hehe


First let me say Arbiter, I appreciate you replying to many of my points. It is interesting though how you conveniently leave others completely alone. But nonetheless I enjoy conversing with you even despite your little insults here and there. Seriously. Your the type I'd enjoy sitting around the table and philosophically discussing life, the universe and everything with. I have a German friend with whom I used to get into all kinds of philosophical discussions. Now on to the discussion....

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Well if that's the point you were trying to make, then you haven't done a very good job of it. You've provided absolutely no evidence that the religious beliefs or the lack thereof of any of the framers of the Constitution had any effect on their creation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

First LOL, let me say your responses to the first half of the post on christianity and US gov. looks like it could have came right from here http://www.nobeliefs.com
I'm curious if you are a member there? Maybe you are the site admin there! hehe I have been there before. Continuing...

You seem to suggest that a document like the DOI isn't an important document in US history.

The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...sImportance.asp

I think this states it quite nicely. It set forth a theology of natural rights given by a supreme "Creator". The bill of rights were a derivitive of these natural rights or "unalienable rights". The US constitution was inspired by this first document. To what degree we can only speculate.

quote:

No, the letter by Jefferson was written specifically to dispel the misconception that the Constitution and government of the United States had Christian origins.

Ok, after reading it a few more times I will agree with you on this from the context it was written. I do think, Jefferson was trying to make that case in his letter. But I can't entirely agree with it. He was trying to put to sleep an issue that was brewing, the same you and I are debating on here. I don't think he was telling the entire truth in that letter. Here is why. First, Jefferson like any other man held beliefs and a moral or ethical code that came in large part from Christ. So much so that he compiled his own bible of the teachings of Christ. I'm sure you are aware Arbiter. Surely, this proves that Jesus played a major role in Jefferson's personal moral code. Yes, i know he edited out all the other doctrinal stuff but that isn't the point here. He believed in a supreme God and he believed at least the Christ lived and his teachings were the finest ethical code in the world. Heck Arbiter, he sounds like a better christian than half of the christians today!!

." Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative. " http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

When and under what circumstances Jefferson's deistic beliefs came about is unknown but there seems strong evidence that it probably came out of christian theology. He believed in a supreme God or Creator and he supported the teachings of Christ.

quote:

There's no evidence that the "Creator" referred to in the Declaration of Independence was a specific reference to the "Christian God," nor is there any evidence that it was anything more than a rhetorical trick to attempt to make their claims more authoritative. In any case it is utterly irrelevant because the Declaration of Independence isn't one of the formative documents of the United States Government.

Now tell me why he drafted this in to the DOI??
My point is why is "Creator" or a God it in there at all? Trickery doesn't cut it Arbiter. Jefferson believed in God. And where did he get this idea of a God? He got it from the influences in his life from christianity my friend. Yes he was a diest and had different views of the role of God in mans life, but everything has it's origin. One thing shapes another. His was christianity.

Not even Jefferson himself could divorce himself of his own deisistic views when drafting the DOI. The man who basically paved the road for religious freedom in USA couldn't do it. I think it possibly could have been wrote different but maybe it wouldn't have got supported by other christians which would also support my points about politics and religion. Jefferson was inspired with the DOI (possibly from the teachings of Christ who knows?) and the BOR was inspired from natural "unalienable" rights. Even some of the other founding fathers who proclaimed themselves as diests it's likely formulated their beliefs from christianity. True, this is speculation but its not without some merit since deism does support a belief in a supreme God also. Then there were the other strong christians like Washington who influenced many others.

quote:

The author of the document, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist. So I doubt that his ideas about a "Creator" came from the Christian Religion.

You can doubt it but my evidence above I think strongly supports this.

quote:

You really are ignorant, aren't you? You don't have any evidence to support your position, so your words are hollow. Thomas Jefferson clearly and concisely stated that the U.S. Government and laws were not based on Christianity in his letter to Thomas Cooper and the rest of the framers affirmed this belief in the Treaty of Tripoli. Unless you're accusing them of lying, you have no argument.

I don't think they could do otherwise. That isn't the issue. To say that natural rights are God given would have removed all sense of neutrality which would have assumed some kind of authoritative religion.

quote:

Don't be so certain of that. The Problem of Evil is irrefutable logical proof that the Christian God cannot and, hence, does not exist.

No it's not! It's not logical proof of anything! What are you talking about?? Leibniz argument was extremely weak.

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

It's a simple as this Arbiter. I don't agree with the fourth premise. God is morrally perfect but He doesn't desire to eliminate all evil. That is because without evil there could be no oposition. No choice because theres no oposition.
The fact there is evil also suggests that there also is good. Do you not see the evidence of opposition in everything? Extreme evil, extreme good. Satan/God. Opposites in all things. You sound like a kid who thinks 'because God allowed this bad thing to happen to me He must not be real." It's nonsense. In order to have free agency evil must be allowed by God. Jefferson even believed this in Deism. Deism supporting that God lets things happen according to nature and doesn't intervene.

quote:

Ah, but my young friend, you are living proof that without evidence there can be belief. You believe that the U.S. government was based on Christian principles, but you have no evidence to support that proposition. You believe that there is a Christian God, but you have no evidence to support that proposition. All you have are feelings and emotions, but those are not valid tools of cognition. Thus, they do not qualify as evidence. Self-deception and denial is all you need for belief.

You are wrong Arbiter! You don't know what evidence I have because it's personal. You don't know my experiences. Oh so 'feelings are not valid tools of cognition'?? Thats interesting. Hmm.. thats new to me!! So I can't percieve sadness or happiness? what are emotions? obviously they exists right. That is as silly as saying that eyes are not tools for percieving light. What about a feeling in your heart? Ok, an internal pain. Do you think that all perception is external only? Where is your proof? People feel internal pain all the time and sometimes it's even physical. But it's not touched with the hand or fingers. It's internal. what about thought? thought is in that intangible realm but you can percieve that you think can't you? oh thats right silly me! you can't because you don't believe in perception at all! that was that little corner you trapped yourself into last time. Your reasoning is getter worse and worse. You must be able to percieve thought to know you even exist. That was Socrates. But according to Arbiter you can't percieve something intangible therefore Arbiter doesn't exist. Nothing exists. Howz that for logic. Do you see things in a dream Arbiter? If you do then you percieve it but how? it's not with the physical eyes.

quote:

Where is the evidence that the supernatural exists. Moreover, where is the evidence that the supernatural need not follow material laws? You claim to base your beliefs on evidence, but you can provide no valid evidence to support them. What are we to believe but that you are confused and ignorant?

Let me suggest this. Air cannot be seen with the eyes yet it exists. If there is no wind, is there no air? I can listen to scientist who say 'yes there is air which is an invisible gas made of oxygen,,..ect.. But to know it truly exists I have to experiment to prove it to myself. There must be empirical evidence. So I go to a lab and do tests and experiments and I find that indeed there is an invisible gas that exists. Now I can say that I have a knowlege that air exists. If I say to you then air exists you may believe me if you have experiences that would hint of something there maybe a breeze you feel on your skin ie something you percieve. Yet you cannot have a knowlege of it until you experiment and prove it to yourself. Then that is empirical evidence and it is personal to you. Others read that it is true in science books and may believe or not.

quote:

A feeling is a neurological response to a phenomenon which specifies an affirmative or negative relationship between that phenomenon and one's pre-existing beliefs. "Feeling God's presence" is not empirical evidence because it is neither an objective experience nor observable phenomenon. When you believe that you feel God's presence, what objective criteria do you use in order to determine that it is, in fact, "God's presence?" The answer is that you do not use any objective criteria, and your "feeling" of "God's presence" is nothing more than affirmation bias. It's neither experimental, nor sensory, nor objective. Therefore, it is not empirical.

You cannot say that isn't an objective experience and it is most definately observable in that it is indeed percieved. Even stronger than the other 5 senses and it is awareness and knowlege all at once. Tell me how is it that you seem to think of yourself as some philosophical minded person yet you are so close minded? Philosophers are open to all possibilities. You may be well learned but you are more close minded than a child.
How I know something is "God's presence" is dependent on my experience alone due to my own experiment and you will just have to do your own or you won't know.

quote:

If you saw something that might or might not be God, then it would be empirical evidence that that thing exists. However, the interpretation that the object of your perception is in fact God is not empirical.

As I tried to make clear before there are more perceptions than just 5 feel(external), smell, taste, see, hear. Seeing isn't everything in fact your eyes can decieve you. I can't see air yet it exists. I mentioned that the metaphysical doesn't necessarily follow material laws (percievable with the 5 senses ). Matter can exist in more form than is visible by the eyes. As for interpreting...lets go back to the experiment. If the scientists told me prior to my own experiment that if I experience this color of flame it is a kind of gas burning, then I would know upon observing the same things in the conditions that by definition I am witnessing that type of gas burning.

quote:

it is a gross and specious oversimplification to think that if you sense something and think that the observation is of a particular thing, then your sensing it is evidence of that thing's existence.

already explained above. sensing or percieving something is proof of somethings existance. what that something is, known if it meets the criterion of how it was first defined.

quote:

Heh. Then give me the equal and opposite argument to this argument: 1. Everything is blue or something is not blue. You don't have two arguments to rub together.

Your premise is false, so it's not a 'valid' logical argument to begin with. Apples are red. Plus you have no conclusion. In order to counter an argument there first needs to be an valid argument which it isn't. The truth of the premises in logic is what can always be argued. And if the premises are not true and in agreement then the conclusion can't be and the argument is not valid.

quote:

"Feelings" or "intuition" are NOT valid tools of cognition! They will verify your previous belief 99%+ of the time ************ of the veracity of your belief. If that's the tool you're using to seperate good evidence from bad evidence, then it's no surpise to me that you're so ignorant.

I've already suggested that feelings or emotions are valid tools. On what evidence do you choose to support they aren't valid? Thats like saying thought isn't cognitive! I look at different pieces of evidence before making decisions but at some point when presented all the evidence you have to make a choice. That isn't always easy. As I said before, there can be opposing evidences lesser or greater in number but which will you choose as credible in the very end is probably not based on logic or reason imo.

quote:

Which of the five senses did you "feel" God with? None of them. You don't understand what a "feeling" is. It is not a "new" source of information. A feeling can only examine already existing information.

Metaphysics deals with different matter so correct. your 5 senses don't appy here.

quote:

It is for the discussion of opinions, that is, the examination of the strength of the evidence upon which they are based. When individuals such as yourself attempt to avoid providing such evidence, it negates the purpose of discussion.

I have discussions all the time that are meaningful and not based on anything but speculations. It has it's purposes. In fact it could be said that most everything is really speculation. But don't worry, I can present evidence in this forum as surely as anyone and already have.

quote:

Your ideas are most certainly in the realm of nonsense if they are based on "feelings" and a proactive decision to ignore actually valid evidence when presented with it. If you don't want to throw out links, so be it. But then why should anyone take you seriously? You provide neither cogent arguments nor valid evidence? What are your words worth to any of us when you provide nothing of substance?

You are assuming that emotions or intuition have no significance. What if I were to suggest to you that a 'gut feeling' can be your strongest tool in determining truth of evidences presented. You wouldn't believe that i bet. Relax! Jeez! Look, I honestly didn't come in here even wanting to talk about religion. It just happened. I wish I could provide you with tangible evidence unfortunately I can't, but I have suggested how one might obtain that evidence for themselves. that is your choice.

quote:

Rejecting the credibility of someone's references without any cause to do so is most certainly the same thing as ignoring what they say. I respect anyone who can provide sound reasoning backed up with facts. You don't meet that criterion, so I don't respect you. Why should I?

Thats true. That would clearly be ignorant.
But I never said anything about having "no" cause. You are speculating again about what i think. I was merely making a point that premises or references in the argument when rejected as false can't make valid arguments. I didn't mean that to sound ignorant. Each person has their own reasons why they may reject credibility just as you do.

quote:

Your method seems to be to instinctively dismiss things that don't inspire in you a "feeling" of confidence. My method is to corroborate the information accross a variety of sources, examine counter-arguments if any can be found, and analyze the credibility of a source using objective criteria such as how, where, and by whom it was published, the reputation of the author, et cetera.

I admire that. Seriously. Hopefully, then you are open minded to consider the possibilities and examples I have suggested in this conversation also.

quote:

One of these methodologies is conducive to learning new information. The other is conducive to desperately clinging to one's pre-existing belief in the face of contradictory evidence. It's clear which you prefer by your pigheaded refusal to accept the clear and irrefutable statement of the framers themselves that the government of the United States is not based on Christianity. Pigheaded eh? LOL. Well I stand on my statement because I believe it. I've shown strong(ofcourse thats how strong is refutable) evidence to suggest it was based on christianity but also that men's beliefs are not separable from the political systems they create. Using Jefferson as a prime example.

You made this statement:



It's no speculation to say that you're making assumptions about the way I analyze information, it's demonstrable fact.[/QUOTE]

I can't seem to find which part you were quoting me now as the original post is gone! anyway, if I was I appologize.

You remind me of a young child who, having lost at a game, tells everyone how stupid and pointless the game is. You cannot provide any sound arguments or facts, so you just tell everyone how pointless it is to argue since you'll never persuade anyone anyway. It's really quite unbecoming. [/QUOTE]

Hehe, well i never lost so I didn't have to do that. J/K. Well I've put everything in this post that is expedient and now I just ask you to consider it all. peace.

Too much scrolling makes my head hurt. Are you a homo or what?


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Too much scrolling makes my head hurt. Are you a homo or what? [[[smoke]]]

Very funny. Especially because I read it after scrolling past the last half of his post

Edit, thanks for the link to www.nobeliefs.com, looks like a sweet site.

___________________
"You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are." - Colonel Adolphus Busch

Major Johnson - February Progressive Mix

Download Other Mixes

http://www.tarpley.net/bush21.htm

quote:

On the morning of June 29, 1989, pandemonium erupted in the corridors of power in the nation's capital. ``Homosexual Prostitution Probe Ensnares Official of Bush, Reagan,'' screamed the front-page headline of the Washington Times with the kicker ``Call Boys Took Midnight Tour of White House.'' The Times reported, ``A homosexual prostitution ring is under investigation by federal and District authorities and includes among its clients key officials of the Reagan and Bush administrations, military officers, congressional aides and U.S. and foreign businessmen with close ties to Washington's political elite.'' The exposeé centered on the role of one Craig Spence, a Republican powerbroker known for his lavish ``power cocktail'' parties. Spence was well connected. He celebrated Independence Day 1988 by conducting a midnight tour of the White House in the company of two teenage male prostitutes among others in his party. Rumors circulated that a list existed of some 200 Washington prominents who had used the call boy service. The Number Two in charge of personnel affairs at the White House, who was responsible for filling all the top civil service posts in the federal bureaucracy, and Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole's chief of staff, were two individuals publicly identified as patrons of the call boy ring. -cont

Last edited by DaveSZ on Oct-21-2004 at 13:40

Allow me to skip right to the meat of your post:

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover You seem to suggest that a document like the DOI isn't an important document in US history. The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...sImportance.asp I think this states it quite nicely. It set forth a theology of natural rights given by a supreme "Creator". The bill of rights were a derivitive of these natural rights or "unalienable rights". The US constitution was inspired by this first document. To what degree we can only speculate.

It should come as no surprise that the Constitution reflects many of the same values and beliefs as the Declaration of Independence. It was composed by men with similar philosophies and experiences. But in the process of "being inspired" by the legally irrelevant Declaration, the framers of the Constitution had the opportunity to pick and choose the concepts from that document which they wanted to use to shape the new system of government. Many of the ideas, they very consciously and very wisely chose to incorporate into the new government:

• Self-Government
  
• Natural Rights
  
• Equality Under Law
  

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover You seem to suggest that a document like the DOI isn't an important document in US history. The Declaration of Independence is the most important of all American historical documents. It is essentially a partisan document, a justification of the American Revolution presented to the world; but its unique combination of general principles and an abstract theory of government with a detailed enumeration of specific grievances and injustices has given it enduring power as one of the great political documents of the West. After stating its purpose, the opening paragraphs (given here in the form used in the engrossed copy) assert the fundamental American ideal of government, based on the theory of natural rights , which had been held by, among others, John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/se...sImportance.asp I think this states it quite nicely. It set forth a theology of natural rights given by a supreme "Creator". The bill of rights were a derivitive of these natural rights or "unalienable rights". The US constitution was inspired by this first document. To what degree we can only speculate.

Well again, you're attempting to depict Christianity as Jefferson's religion so I feel I'm compelled to respond once again. Yes the DOI invokes the "Creator" in the document. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that the founding fathers were atheist. What we are saying, however, is that the majority were Deist which is not the same as Christian. After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God. So while a reference to the Creator denotes a belief in a God (Deism), it is not indicative of a belief in Christianity.

quote:

Ok, after reading it a few more times I will agree with you on this from the context it was written. I do think, Jefferson was trying to make that case in his letter. But I can't entirely agree with it. He was trying to put to sleep an issue that was brewing, the same you and I are debating on here. I don't think he was telling the entire truth in that letter. Here is why. First, Jefferson like any other man held beliefs and a moral or ethical code that came in large part from Christ. So much so that he compiled his own bible of the teachings of Christ. I'm sure you are aware Arbiter. Surely, this proves that Jesus played a major role in Jefferson's personal moral code. Yes, i know he edited out all the other doctrinal stuff but that isn't the point here. He believed in a supreme God and he believed at least the Christ lived and his teachings were the finest ethical code in the world. Heck Arbiter, he sounds like a better christian than half of the christians today!! ." Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative. " http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

Hehe well it’s good that you referenced the Jefferson Bible because that exemplifies Jefferson’s exclusion of Christianity in his belief in God. I gather you’ve never read the Jefferson Bible? I think you should, it’s quite interesting what Jefferson wrote, and more importantly what he didn’t write. In The Jefferson Bible, there is no reference to Christ fulfilling prophecy, there is no reference to the spirit of the lord being upon him, there is no victory of Christ over the temptations of Satan, there is no annunciation, there is no virgin birth, no angels, etc., etc., etc. In other words, Jefferson looked upon Jesus as a common everyday man … or in his words:

quote:

a man, of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, (and an) enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions of divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../jefferson.html

In case you haven’t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.

quote:

When and under what circumstances Jefferson's deistic beliefs came about is unknown but there seems strong evidence that it probably came out of christian theology. He believed in a supreme God or Creator and he supported the teachings of Christ.

He believed in a God, and he supported the common sense teachings that Christ exhibited. But who doesn’t? Who in their right mind is against teachings of love and respect? Shit, I support the teachings of Christ but that hardly makes me a Christian.

quote:

Now tell me why he drafted this in to the DOI?? My point is why is "Creator" or a God it in there at all? Trickery doesn't cut it Arbiter. Jefferson believed in God. And where did he get this idea of a God? He got it from the influences in his life from christianity my friend. Yes he was a diest and had different views of the role of God in mans life, but everything has it's origin. One thing shapes another. His was christianity. Not even Jefferson himself could divorce himself of his own deisistic views when drafting the DOI. The man who basically paved the road for religious freedom in USA couldn't do it. I think it possibly could have been wrote different but maybe it wouldn't have got supported by other christians which would also support my points about politics and religion. Jefferson was inspired with the DOI (possibly from the teachings of Christ who knows?) and the BOR was inspired from natural "unalienable" rights. Even some of the other founding fathers who proclaimed themselves as diests it's likely formulated their beliefs from christianity. True, this is speculation but its not without some merit since deism does support a belief in a supreme God also. Then there were the other strong christians like Washington who influenced many others.

Bingo, Jefferson is a Deist. That doesn’t make him Christian however. And when one considers the implications of his bible, and his own words:

"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" (Jefferson Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).
The God of the Old Testament -- the God which Christians worship -- Jefferson pronounces "a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust" (Works Vol. iv., p. 325).

Referring to Jesus Christ:
"Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: First, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of Nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and second, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, and the second by exile or death in furea."

"If we could believe that he [Jesus] really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,] father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and the fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he was an impostor" (Works, Vol. iv, p. 325)

Jefferson speaking of the holy trinity in a letter to James Smith:

"The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs"
"The Athanasian paradox that one is three and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." (Works, Vol. iv., p. 360).

Take note of this, this is Jefferson speaking of Christianity directly:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods).
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Notes on Virginia)
In a letter to Adams:

"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."

Jefferson goes on and on and on … I can spend all day taking his personal writings where he quite clearly indicates that he is not a christian. As for your statements about George Washington, I addressed those points in the thread you deleted. If you would like, I can make them again.

___________________
Retro ...

wtf, are you guys doing somebody's homework again?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Too much scrolling makes my head hurt. Are you a homo or what? [[[smoke]]]

ROFL post of the year

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by occrider
Well again, you're attempting to depict Christianity as Jefferson's religion so I feel I'm compelled to respond once again. Yes the DOI invokes the "Creator" in the document. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that the founding fathers were atheist. What we are saying, however, is that the majority were Deist which is not the same as Christian. After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God. So while a reference to the Creator denotes a belief in a God (Deism), it is not indicative of a belief in Christianity.

tecno- nice of you to join this little discussion Occrider. Doesn't suprise me one bit. Let me start off by saying that I am quite aware of what deism is and what deists believe. Arbiter and I have been focusing on Jefferson, since I think we would all agree he was a large influence on US gov. being the drafter of the DOI and having a hand in the development of the US constitution. I've said it more than once that I agree that Jefferson at least considered himself as a deist. What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.

Also, the existance of a God or a Supreme creator I support should not be an assumed thing in a persons life. It is learned or taught and then can become belief based on personal experiences, which over the course of a persons life will strengthen belief. I can become a knowlege when the person recieves 'confirmation'. I'm getting sideracked.

Anyway, Jefferson's inspiration came from probably more than just christianity, but I think it is quite narrow minded to base your entire assumption that Jefferson's beliefs came from deism which presupposes many things. As I stated one thing shapes another. The fact is the many of the colonists were christian and they sought religious freedom by colonizing america. They wanted to worship how they chose. Christianity in it's truest form never suggested it be ruled by a catholic authority. It is about each person having faith and learning for themselves the truth and then being able to worship God how they want to and not any authoritarian church. They were freethinkers yet they came to america with fundamental beliefs systems. Even Jefferson and his deistic peers. This is why I support that christianity shaped the US and inspired many of it's fundamental rights. Jefferson didn't just wake up one morning and he was a deist. You have to look beyond the deist writings of Jefferson and look at where there origins may have come. I don't claim to know positively the mind of Jefferson. There is evidence that men don't just become a deist one morning. Influences shape each person and I believe christianity were the influence of Jeff and most of the founding fathers. That is why I suggested our nation was founded on christianity. This gets taken the wrong way and threatens some because they think this belief is going gradually remove freedom. Well I am all for freedom and believe God blesses and strengthens the US because of it's freedom to chose. Free agency is so important in the sheme of things and a democracy such as ours allows the most.

Hehe well it’s good that you referenced the Jefferson Bible because that exemplifies Jefferson’s exclusion of Christianity in his belief in God. I gather you’ve never read the Jefferson Bible? I think you should, it’s quite interesting what Jefferson wrote, and more importantly what he didn’t write. In The Jefferson Bible, there is no reference to Christ fulfilling prophecy, there is no reference to the spirit of the lord being upon him, there is no victory of Christ over the temptations of Satan, there is no annunciation, there is no virgin birth, no angels, etc., etc., etc. In other words, Jefferson looked upon Jesus as a common everyday man … or in his words:

Just as I already mentioned to arbiter, I know he removed all refereces suggesting metaphysics.


In case you haven’t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.

Hahaha.



He believed in a God, and he supported the common sense teachings that Christ exhibited. But who doesn’t? Who in their right mind is against teachings of love and respect? Shit, I support the teachings of Christ but that hardly makes me a Christian.

Maybe so, but everything has it's influences. I at one point rejected everything I was taught about religion and became agnostic. Thats right Aribter/Occrider. I honestly didn't know either way. I actually opposed religious laws and most authority. This country isn't truly 'free' both of you must agree. There are laws which many coincidentally happen to be similar if not exactly the same as those of the bible. This isn't coincidence. Most of these laws came about by states governing themselves and christian biases were and are strong in the judiciary system. This cannot be overlooked and is another reason why I made a general claim that the US gov. is based on christianity. Whether you like it or not the evidence is everywhere. Is that good or bade? Well it has for the most(excluding the civil war) part kept a nation of people comprising every culture, religion and ethnicity of the world living at peace and living together since it's foundation. That is quite remarkable.


Bingo, Jefferson is a Deist. That doesn’t make him Christian however. And when one considers the implications of his bible, and his own words:

tecno-I already covered this.


Take note of this, this is Jefferson speaking of Christianity directly:
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods).
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Notes on Virginia)
In a letter to Adams:

"It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."

tecno- I understand this.


Jefferson goes on and on and on … I can spend all day taking his personal writings where he quite clearly indicates that he is not a christian. As for your statements about George Washington, I addressed those points in the thread you deleted. If you would like, I can make them again.

tecno- if you wish you can. your choice. I've alreaded stated I know of Jefferson's deistic writings. I don't know how the thread got deleted.

hey technolover, learn how to frame your quotes, it's making a weak arguement appear weak and confusing.

quote:

What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.

acknowledgement of the moral importance of the teachings of jesus does not make a man christian. what would be the western implications of christianity without the mythology of jesus rising from death and ascending into heaven? if we were to study the teachings alone, i could make the arguement that jesus was a buddhist and that modern day christians are slaves to his martyrdom. what's the deal with the cross?

quote:

In case you haven’t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.

and how does this make jefferson a christian? he expressed his desire to escape the pattern of idiocy and hypocricy represented by practicioners of the christian faith. he was given the opportunity to establish a nation with laws capable of sustaining itself without the influence of religious leadership and he did. if he were a devout christian, why is there emphasis on the importance of the seperation of church and state? you might as well argue that franklin would approve of the patriot act.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well again, you're attempting to depict Christianity as Jefferson's religion so I feel I'm compelled to respond once again. Yes the DOI invokes the "Creator" in the document. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that the founding fathers were atheist. What we are saying, however, is that the majority were Deist which is not the same as Christian. After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God. So while a reference to the Creator denotes a belief in a God (Deism), it is not indicative of a belief in Christianity.

tecno- nice of you to join this little discussion Occrider. Doesn't suprise me one bit. Let me start off by saying that I am quite aware of what deism is and what deists believe. Arbiter and I have been focusing on Jefferson, since I think we would all agree he was a large influence on US gov. being the drafter of the DOI and having a hand in the development of the US constitution. I've said it more than once that I agree that Jefferson at least considered himself as a deist. What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.

Also, the existance of a God or a Supreme creator I support should not be an assumed thing in a persons life. It is learned or taught and then can become belief based on personal experiences, which over the course of a persons life will strengthen belief. I can become a knowlege when the person recieves 'confirmation'. I'm getting sideracked.

Anyway, Jefferson's inspiration came from probably more than just christianity, but I think it is quite narrow minded to base your entire assumption that Jefferson's beliefs came from deism which presupposes many things. As I stated one thing shapes another. The fact is the many of the colonists were christian and they sought religious freedom by colonizing america. They wanted to worship how they chose. Christianity in it's truest form never suggested it be ruled by a catholic authority. It is about each person having faith and learning for themselves the truth and then being able to worship God how they want to and not any authoritarian church. They were freethinkers yet they came to america with fundamental beliefs systems. Even Jefferson and his deistic peers. This is why I support that christianity shaped the US and inspired many of it's fundamental rights. Jefferson didn't just wake up one morning and he was a deist. You have to look beyond the deist writings of Jefferson and look at where there origins may have come. I don't claim to know positively the mind of Jefferson. There is evidence that men don't just become a deist one morning. Influences shape each person and I believe christianity were the influence of Jeff and most of the founding fathers. That is why I suggested our nation was founded on christianity. This gets taken the wrong way and threatens some because they think this belief is going gradually remove freedom. Well I am all for freedom and believe God blesses and strengthens the US because of it's freedom to chose. Free agency is so important in the sheme of things and a democracy such as ours allows the most.

quote:

Hehe well it’s good that you referenced the Jefferson Bible because that exemplifies Jefferson’s exclusion of Christianity in his belief in God. I gather you’ve never read the Jefferson Bible? I think you should, it’s quite interesting what Jefferson wrote, and more importantly what he didn’t write. In The Jefferson Bible, there is no reference to Christ fulfilling prophecy, there is no reference to the spirit of the lord being upon him, there is no victory of Christ over the temptations of Satan, there is no annunciation, there is no virgin birth, no angels, etc., etc., etc. In other words, Jefferson looked upon Jesus as a common everyday man … or in his words:

Just as I already mentioned to arbiter, I know he removed all refereces suggesting metaphysics.

quote:

In case you haven’t figured it out, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus as the son of God, and you the only way you can achieve salvation is through Jesus.

Hahaha.

quote:

He believed in a God, and he supported the common sense teachings that Christ exhibited. But who doesn’t? Who in their right mind is against teachings of love and respect? Shit, I support the teachings of Christ but that hardly makes me a Christian.

Maybe so, but everything has it's influences. I at one point rejected everything I was taught about religion and became agnostic. Thats right Aribter/Occrider. I honestly didn't know either way. I actually opposed religious laws and most authority. This country isn't truly 'free' both of you must agree. There are laws which many coincidentally happen to be similar if not exactly the same as those of the bible. This isn't coincidence. Most of these laws came about by states governing themselves and christian biases were and are strong in the judiciary system. This cannot be overlooked and is another reason why I made a general claim that the US gov. is based on christianity. Whether you like it or not the evidence is everywhere. Is that good or bade? Well it has for the most(excluding the civil war) part kept a nation of people comprising every culture, religion and ethnicity of the world living at peace and living together since it's foundation. That is quite remarkable.

quote:

Bingo, Jefferson is a Deist. That doesn’t make him Christian however. And when one considers the implications of his bible, and his own words:

tecno-I already covered this.

quote:

Take note of this, this is Jefferson speaking of Christianity directly: "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies" (Letter to Dr. Woods). "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." (Notes on Virginia) In a letter to Adams: "It is not to be understood that I am with him [Jesus] in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist."

tecno- I understand this.

quote:

Jefferson goes on and on and on … I can spend all day taking his personal writings where he quite clearly indicates that he is not a christian. As for your statements about George Washington, I addressed those points in the thread you deleted. If you would like, I can make them again.

tecno- if you wish you can. your choice. I've alreaded stated I know of Jefferson's deistic writings. I don't know how the thread got deleted.




occrider - This is for my own benefit. My reply shall be forthcoming.

___________________
Retro ...