Zone1 Christianity and our founding fathers

[ding]

... but did not lead him to Christianity.

You keep forgetting this part, Ding.

Never made that argument. Read what I wrote and stop knocking over straw men of your own making.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This may help Ding on his "either" or "all" argument that Natural Rights automatically lead to or from Christianity.

1. Natural Rights:
   • Natural rights are fundamental rights that are inherent to all human beings by virtue of their existence.
   • These rights are considered universal, inalienable, and self-evident.
   • Examples of natural rights include the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.
2. Flowing from Deity:
   • The theory of natural rights often traces these rights back to a divine source.
   • Here’s how it works:
     • Deism, a philosophical and religious perspective, posits that a supreme being (the deity) created the universe.
     • According to deists, this deity established natural law—a set of moral principles governing human behavior.
     • Through reason, humans can discern these natural laws, which include fundamental rights.
     • In other words, the deity’s design of the world inherently includes these rights, accessible through human reason.
3. Not Necessarily Tied to Christianity:
   • While natural rights are often associated with Christian theology, they are not exclusively bound to it.
   • Christian natural-law tradition asserts that God establishes the natural moral law through eternal law.
   • Prior to revelation, human reason allows us to recognize the first principles of this moral law and some truths about God.
   • Thus, natural rights can be understood independently of specific religious doctrines.
   • Medieval theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, wove Stoic notions into Christian thought, recognizing ethical standards apart from divine revelation123.

In summary, natural rights are rooted in the idea that they flow from a divine source, but this connection need not be limited to any particular religious tradition like Christianity. Reason and universal principles play a crucial role in understanding and safeguarding these fundamental rights.

 

[ding]

This may help Ding on his "either" or "all" argument that Natural Rights automatically lead to or from Christianity.

Again... not the argument I made.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This may help Ding on his "either" or "all" argument that Natural Rights automatically lead to or from Christianity.

1. Natural Rights:
   • Natural rights are fundamental rights that are inherent to all human beings by virtue of their existence.
   • These rights are considered universal, inalienable, and self-evident.
   • Examples of natural rights include the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness.
2. Flowing from Deity:
   • The theory of natural rights often traces these rights back to a divine source.
   • Here’s how it works:
     • Deism, a philosophical and religious perspective, posits that a supreme being (the deity) created the universe.
     • According to deists, this deity established natural law—a set of moral principles governing human behavior.
     • Through reason, humans can discern these natural laws, which include fundamental rights.
     • In other words, the deity’s design of the world inherently includes these rights, accessible through human reason.
3. Not Necessarily Tied to Christianity:
   • While natural rights are often associated with Christian theology, they are not exclusively bound to it.
   • Christian natural-law tradition asserts that God establishes the natural moral law through eternal law.
   • Prior to revelation, human reason allows us to recognize the first principles of this moral law and some truths about God.
   • Thus, natural rights can be understood independently of specific religious doctrines.
   • Medieval theologians, including Thomas Aquinas, wove Stoic notions into Christian thought, recognizing ethical standards apart from divine revelation123.

In summary, natural rights are rooted in the idea that they flow from a divine source, but this connection need not be limited to any particular religious tradition like Christianity. Reason and universal principles play a crucial role in understanding and safeguarding these fundamental rights.

We make the argument that reason and logic lead us to other religious traditions than proto-evangelical Christinaity of the late 18th century.

 

[ding]

We make the argument that reason and logic lead us to other religious traditions than proto-evangelical Christinaity of the late 18th century.

Maybe this will help you...

Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a system of law based on a close observation of natural order and human nature, from which values thought by the proponents of this concept to be intrinsic to human nature can be deduced and applied independently of positive law (the express enacted laws of a state or society).[2] According to the theory of law called jusnaturalism, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."[3] Natural law theory can also refer to "theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality."[4]

In Western tradition, it was anticipated by the pre-Socratics, for example in their search for principles that governed the cosmos and human beings. The concept of natural law was documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle,[5] and was referred to in ancient Roman philosophy by Cicero. References to it are also to be found in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and were later expounded upon in the Middle Ages by Christian philosophers such as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas. The School of Salamanca made notable contributions during the Renaissance.

Although the central ideas of natural law had been part of Christian thought since the Roman Empire, the foundation for natural law as a consistent system was laid by Aquinas, as he synthesised ideas from his predecessors and condensed them into his "Lex Naturalis" (lit. 'Natural law').[6] Aquinas argues that because human beings have reason, and because reason is a spark of the divine (see: image of God), all human lives are sacred and of infinite value compared to any other created object, meaning all humans are fundamentally equal and bestowed with an intrinsic basic set of rights that no human can remove.

Natural law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AMart]

The marxists, in their weak satanic attempt, always trot out about 3 of the 56 founding Fathers. It's funny.

 

[ding]

The marxists, in their weak satanic attempt, always trot out about 3 of the 56 founding Fathers. It's funny.

It's crazy. The thing is though, those 3 out of 56 still believed in natural law and that the source of natural law is God. They just have a slightly different perception of who God is. But none were atheists or Marxists.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You use wikipedia to refute real scholarship. OK.

 

[ding]

You use wikipedia to refute real scholarship. OK.

Is there anything that was posted that was incorrect?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Is there anything that was posted that was incorrect?

Read both, hmmm? There is nothing to suggest the Constitution is a Christian document or that Christian principles should inform a secular government.

It is an Enlightment document of governance.

 

[ding]

Read both, hmmm? There is nothing to suggest the Constitution is a Christian document or that Christian principles should inform a secular government.

It is an Enlightment document of governance.

Again... not the claim I made.

 

[ding]

Belief in natural law did not make Christians all like Patrick Henry and John Jay. Many were weak Christians or deists or believe in plural gods. At least one, Ethan Allan, was an atheists.

Two out of plus fifty does not strain the soup for you.

Ethan Allen was no atheist and I never said belief in natural law makes them Christians. I said natural is a Christian belief.

The selections here from Allen's Reason the Only Oracle revolve, in typical deistic fashion, around the ideas of God, reason, and morality. In writing about the deity, Allen argues that its existence is demonstrated a posteriori. Experience teaches that all events are causally dependent on preceding ones, so it follows that the "vast system of causes and effects are [likewise] necessarily connected." This points to a First Cause of the entire set of perceptible events. The First Cause maintains providential regularity in reality-indeed, Allen goes so far as to identify the natural harmony with God. Of course, the perceived dependency of individual events does not entail an analogous causal dependency of reality in general, but this is a logical point that escaped Allen as well as many other American deists. For him and them, the causal argument remained a sufficient demonstration of divine existence. In Allen's words, "The display of God's providence is that by which the evidence of his being is evinced to us."​

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/266/oa_monograph/chapter/3009802

​

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Again... not the claim I made.

But the correctio need to the one you made.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I disagree with "Progressive Christian Deist," but the article is interesting.

Ethan Allen, a multifaceted figure during the American Revolution, held religious views that diverged from traditional orthodox Christianity. Let’s explore his beliefs:

1. Deism and Reason:
   • Like other Founding Fathers, Allen was influenced by the Enlightenment and embraced deistic ideas.
   • Deism emphasized reason in discerning religious truth and rejected certain Christian doctrines, including the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and miracles.
   • Allen’s work, “Reason: The Only Oracle of Man” (published in 1784), reflected these deistic views and openly challenged orthodox Christianity12.
2. Progressive Christian Deism:
   • Allen might be best described as a Progressive Christian Deist.
   • He believed that reason should play a central role in religious matters, similar to other notable figures like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin1.
3. Critique of Prayer and Supernatural Revelation:
   • Allen questioned the efficacy of prayer. He believed that God, being aware of all our needs, did not require supplication for specific requests.
   • His views aligned with the philosophy that true religion originates from reason and cannot be understood without its exercise and improvement.
   • In his words: “Whoever has a just sense of the absolute perfection of God… cannot but infer the impropriety of praying or supplicating to God for this, that, or the other thing” 1.
4. Open Rejection of Christianity:
   • Allen openly criticized traditional religions, including Christianity.
   • His book, “Reason: The Only Oracle of Man”, challenged supernatural inspiration and revelation, asserting that true religion arises from reason alone.
   • While he denied being a deist, his rejection of orthodox Christian doctrines was evident3.

In summary, Ethan Allen’s religious journey was marked by reason, skepticism, and a departure from conventional Christian beliefs. While he wasn’t an atheist, his views were far from orthodox Christianity.

 

[ding]

But the correctio need to the one you made.

Nope. Never went there. If you disagree, quote it using the quote feature.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Ding's errors have been corrected. Let's close the thread.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The separation of church and state is one of our core values. That's one of the reasons that make this country great.

Just look around the world at all the &%*$%#$ theocracy's; Iran, Israel, etc. Once you mix religion and government, your country is &$#%@#$!

Such comments are a sad example of the fruits of public education. It is sick that you would equate Israel with Iran. Israel is not a theocracy--at least not on this planet.

Anyway, the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence. It's not there.

The founding fathers did not want an official national church ala the Church of England. They never dreamed anyone would twist their words to mean that the government should be godless, much less hostile to religion.

George Washington must not have understood this "core value" the same way you do:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (Farewell Address, September 17, 1796)

“I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for brethren who have served in the field; and finally that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.” (Letter from George Washington to All Governors, June 14, 1783)

“. . . it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow--citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.” (First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789)

“Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.” (First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789)

 

[Billo_Really]

Such comments are a sad example of the fruits of public education. It is sick that you would equate Israel with Iran. Israel is not a theocracy--at least not on this planet.

Anyway, the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence. It's not there.

The founding fathers did not want an official national church ala the Church of England. They never dreamed anyone would twist their words to mean that the government should be godless, much less hostile to religion.

George Washington must not have understood this "core value" the same way you do:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (Farewell Address, September 17, 1796)

“I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for brethren who have served in the field; and finally that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.” (Letter from George Washington to All Governors, June 14, 1783)

“. . . it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow--citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.” (First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789)

“Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.” (First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789)

What is up with the data dump? You can't be more succinct than that?

As far as religion, the Costitution says we will respect no religion. Religion has no place in government. In this country, we separate church from state. Period.

And lastly, about Israel, they want to be known as "the Jewish State"! That is a theocracy and it is disgusting for anyone living there who is not Jewish.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Such comments are a sad example of the fruits of public education. It is sick that you would equate Israel with Iran. Israel is not a theocracy--at least not on this planet.

Anyway, the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence. It's not there.

The founding fathers did not want an official national church ala the Church of England. They never dreamed anyone would twist their words to mean that the government should be godless, much less hostile to religion.

George Washington must not have understood this "core value" the same way you do:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (Farewell Address, September 17, 1796)

“I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for brethren who have served in the field; and finally that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.” (Letter from George Washington to All Governors, June 14, 1783)

“. . . it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow--citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.” (First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789)

“Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.” (First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789)

Yet the Constitution is secular. How about that?

 

[ding]

Yet the Constitution is secular. How about that?

For securing religious rights, not abolishing religious rights.