Thanks Edwin, but I have already posted once explaining that was directed at another poster, that I quoted. They simply stated, ‘that’s nice.’ without explanation. I just wondered why the person felt it was nice. But thanks again anyways.
This is the typical straw man argument. No one is claiming it was “a Christian nation,” which would be a nation full of Christians. What people DO claim, and history does support, is that the nation was founded upon the moral principles taught by all Christian religions. That means that the Founding Fathers, having many different philosophies and religions upon which they could have based our laws, chose they one that they saw value in, which is the moral teachings of Christianity.
The post to which I was responding referred to “nations who turn their backs to God their creator.” If I interpreted the post incorrectly, my apologies.
Not at all. It was founded on classical liberal philosophical tenets that conflict with Christian morality, such as those found in the writings of John Locke. The concept of freedom enshrined in our founding documents and subsequent laws is not rooted in Christianity but in philosophical nominalism and is implicitly unitarian.
No one is suggesting that the founders were modern secular humanists. They were classical liberals, individualists, and philosophical nominalists. (Religiously speaking, many of them were, not surprisingly, unitarians and deists.)
Just the opposite. His radically individualist “man in the state of nature” has nothing whatever to do with a Christian theological anthropology which sees humans as persons created by, in, and for interpersonal communion-- as intrinsically social beings.
Again, I never said they were atheists, nor that they desired anyone else to be. Jefferson thought it inevitable that we would all become unitarians. What I am saying is the same thing stated in the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
I think you are confusing Locke’s views on what drives man in a quest to even have something like a government and his views on the basis of natural law. Do you deny that Locke believed in a source for natural law that is distinct from and above, or higher than man himself, what Locke called “nature’s God?” Locke’s discourse on what drives man from sense of weighing individualism versus the benefit of socialization - coming together for a common good - hardly represents his viewpoint on man’s source of morals or law.
What we are discussing is not who they were as individuals. We are discussing the system of government they got together and formed, and what was the basis for the system they gave us, specifically what was their source of moral principles. The people who gave us the laws wrote that these laws were based on the moral principles of Christianity, yet some deny that, trying instead to use a wedge of what each one, as an individual were, citing “deist” as though it meant athiest. This is historical speculation that would be the equivalent of examining a jury in a capital case from hundreds of years ago and deciding Juror A could not have voted in favor of execution only because they were a Catholic. They might have been a Catholic and still voted in favor, we can’t simply assign their actions based on a canned set of beliefs.
Which writings do you refer to besides something of Jefferson? A person doesn’t even have to believe in the Trinity at all to recognize the value in the Christian system of moral beliefs. So it doesn’t matter if they believed in a Trinity or not. You are again trying to relate their personal matter of faith in a way that suggests if they didn’t hold a personal belief in something, they couldn’t write our laws in a way that holds to the moral principles of those who did.
Is that sounding very “deist” to you? How about the observation of someone who knew him as well as any person could - his adopted daughter? She said of him that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.
No. Muslims also believe in the Creator, but what they believe about the Creator is extremely dissimilar to what we Christians believe about the Creator, and this has profound effects on how we view the world, what we believe about morality, etc. Are there areas of commonality between Muslim and Christians, their faith, their worldview, their morality? Yes, some very beautiful commonalities. Are there dissimilarities between Muslim and Christians, their faith, their worldview, their morality? Yes, some very profound ones.
His view of what it means to be human is the basis of his ideas about morality and law. They’re all messed up.
I agree. They may have all been swell fellows whose company we would all enjoy thoroughly. What we’re talking about is how their intrinsically flawed philosophy led to the creation of a flawed government.
Except they didn’t, as their writings clearly show once anyone takes more than a superficial glance at them.
But because they believe very different things about the nature of that God, they believe very different things about the nature of God’s creations, and especially human beings.
It matters very much indeed. They have a radically different concept than we Christians what it means to be human, the nature of freedom, what morality entails, etc.
Something which they themselves affirmed.
Such prooftexts are not helpful, just as prooftexts claiming that they were Christians or held Christian beliefs (like the ones you present) are not helpful. What really matters is the actual worldview they present in their writings, what they believed about the nature of human beings, what they believed about the purpose(s) of human society, what they believed about the nature of freedom, and so forth. On these points, they uphold a worldview contrary to Christianity.
And when one reads the whole passage in context, and in the context of his other writings about Christianity, we find that what he means by calling himself “Christian” is radically different than what we Christians mean by “Christian.” This is why the prooftexting method of discerning their real beliefs is frankly absurd.
How is tolerance dangerous? If there was more tolerance in the world, then we wouldn’t have as many wars and needless death. As a pagan, I don’t see how you tolerating my beliefs are going to harm you any, just as I am tolerant of yours.“Earth-based” religions? Worshipping creation INSTEAD of the Creator?
I can only pray for those responsible for allowing the pagans to “worship” at the Air Force Acadamy. How insulting it must be to God to witness His children “worship” other god/esses instead of the ONLY God.
Woe to the people and nations who turn their backs to God their creator.
Tolerance,what a dangerously misused word and philosophy.
I love planet earth, I thank God for creating it and placing me here, and I take seriously the need to be responsible with HIS gift.
First, Freemason is all one word. Second, how are they so powerful? Please cite a few examples (other than getting the Seeing Eye on the back of currency).
Well, if that’s true, then that is just another example of how silly it is to rely on general dictionaries to define religious terminology! But in fact the definitions you cite elsewhere from these dictionaries say nothing about atheism or agnosticism.
There is no doubt that Paine was not a Christian at all–have you read his Age of Reason? Jefferson was not a Christian by any orthodox definition, and was clearly opposed to orthodox Christianity. Franklin was friendlier to Christianity, and in his Autobiography spoke of having been a “Deist” in his youth, but his position was broadly Deistic in the sense that he believed in God but clearly was not committed to specific Christian beliefs. Washington wasn’t very interested in theology, but his Christian practice was clearly rather lukewarm and the beliefs that he seems to have held to most deeply were those shared by Deists. Madison and Hamilton were probably best described as unorthodox Christians influenced by Deist ideas.
You won’t get anywhere with vague statements about how they were “Christians,” unless you can show what this “Christianity” meant. In the 18th century many people thought “Christianity” basically meant good morals. I don’t think most of us here subscribe to that definition.
Actually yes. Not the militant anti-Christian Deism of folks like Paine and Voltaire–but it’s all about morality.
That’s meaningless unless she explained what she meant.
But he defined “Christian” in a typically Deist way–a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. In other words, he believed that Jesus’ teachings were wonderful, but that Christian claims about Him were most likely false. See this letter to his nephew.
Nothing in the passage you quote says anything about Christian moral principles. It’s classic Deism. You can make a case that all the others were some kind of Christian–though not very orthodox–but not Paine. He is clear on this in the Age of Reason.
I won’t argue that point regarding Hamilton.
All of these quotes deal with either God or the divine. They said nothing about Christ.
I believe it was John Woolman who wrote…“There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and proceeds from God. It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever they become brethren in the best sense of the expression.”
I agree. It wouldn’t hurt the Christians at all to hear the message of the Wiccans, Druids, etc…
