What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?

[glockmail]

FREEMASONS are not required to be CHRISTIANS, stupid. Merely to believe in a god. You know.. LIKE DEISM.





for real.. you are exactly why dogma junkies have been on the losing end of everything since the development of the fucking scientific method.

Actually you claimed that they are deists here:

..... the symbology of the FUCKING DEISTIC FREEMASONS
.....

which is obviously not true, otherwise they wouldn’t state that they are “under the Fatherhood of a Supreme Being”, since a deist would never call their dispassionate god “father”.

In spite of your childish claims of superior intellect and knowledge, you have been proven wrong more than I care to count in this single thread.

 

[Shogun]

Actually you claimed that they are deists here:



which is obviously not true, otherwise they wouldn’t state that they are “under the Fatherhood of a Supreme Being”, since a deist would never call their dispassionate god “father”.

In spite of your childish claims of superior intellect and knowledge, you have been proven wrong more than I care to count in this single thread.

dude.. DEISTS BELIEVE IN A SUPREME BEING. THIS doesn't at all mean that they believe if jesus fucking christ. AS EVIDENT in the writing of both JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN.


holy SHIT you are a goddamn ignorant hayseed.

OBVIOUSLY? the only thing that is OBVIOUS is that you are short bus retarded.

how the fuck do YOU know what a DEIST would NEVER do? Are you the spokeman for the fucking NATIONAL DEIST COUNCIL? For real, dude... stick to your lead paint lunch and mercury soda, dude.

 

[glockmail]

dude.. DEISTS BELIEVE IN A SUPREME BEING. THIS doesn't at all mean that they believe if jesus fucking christ. AS EVIDENT in the writing of both JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN.


holy SHIT you are a goddamn ignorant hayseed.

OBVIOUSLY? the only thing that is OBVIOUS is that you are short bus retarded.

how the fuck do YOU know what a DEIST would NEVER do? Are you the spokeman for the fucking NATIONAL DEIST COUNCIL? For real, dude... stick to your lead paint lunch and mercury soda, dude.

Again, a deist believes that god does not react to earthly events, and that is completely incompatible with the concept of “Fatherhood”. This interpretation is entirely within the actual definition of deism cited in post 47.

 

[LOki]

1. Jefferson states that he holds Christ’s precepts (principles or commands) to be “pure” and “benevolent”. Certainly this would include, say, The Lord’s Prayer, a command to pray to God.

Again I cite the definition of deism:



Therefore it would be foolish to suggest that a deist held prayer as benevolent; he would hold prayer as a waste of time.

Praying for an intervention, like winning the lottery, is (to the Deist) most certainly a waste of time. Yet prayer to God can most certainly be construed as beneficial (to the person that prays) without that prayer being "answered" according to the nature of the prayer; such as a prayer of thanks...for the gift of liberty as an example. Also, this prayer need not assert the deity of Christ, which Christian prayer most certainly does.

It's still Deism.

2. Again, a deist would not state that “liberties are the gift of God”, since the deist god does not interfere with the comings and goings of man.

Deists still hold that God created everything, and appurtenant to that creation might be this gift of liberty. That God provided this gift at the onset, and now no longer interferes in comings and goings of man is still consistent with Deism.

Then there are these little tidbits, confirming Jefferson’s Christianity and beliefs:


"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

Which still does not assert his belief in Christ as a deity, but ather as a moral example--consistent with Deism.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

Again, no reference to Christ as the Deity, and no assertion that God must do anything.

Even if you demand that he is suggesting otherwise, Jefferson's imperfect adherence to the dictionary definition of Deism in no way invalidates his identity as as Deist, any more than a Christian's imperfect adherence to the Dictionary definition of Christianity invalidates their Christian identity--such imperfection only asserts their humanity.

“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
[Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]

This is just an assertion that "real" Chrisians do nnot deify Christ, yet still follow his moral principles--you should really read the Jeffersonian Bible. Seriously.

 

[LOki]

Lookie here, more evidence that the Founders were not deists:

Eye of Providence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like you're really asserting they worshipped the all seeing eye of Mordor!

 

[glockmail]

[1]Praying for an intervention, like winning the lottery, is (to the Deist) most certainly a waste of time. Yet prayer to God can most certainly be construed as beneficial (to the person that prays) without that prayer being "answered" according to the nature of the prayer; such as a prayer of thanks...for the gift of liberty as an example. Also, this prayer need not assert the deity of Christ, which Christian prayer most certainly does.

It's still Deism.

[2]Deists still hold that God created everything, and appurtenant to that creation might be this gift of liberty. That God provided this gift at the onset, and now no longer interferes in comings and goings of man is still consistent with Deism.

Which still does not assert his belief in Christ as a deity, but ather as a moral example--consistent with Deism.

[3]Again, no reference to Christ as the Deity, and no assertion that God must do anything.

[4]Even if you demand that he is suggesting otherwise, Jefferson's imperfect adherence to the dictionary definition of Deism in no way invalidates his identity as as Deist, any more than a Christian's imperfect adherence to the Dictionary definition of Christianity invalidates their Christian identity--such imperfection only asserts their humanity.

This is just an assertion that "real" Chrisians do nnot deify Christ, yet still follow his moral principles--you should really read the Jeffersonian Bible. Seriously.

1. Wow that’s a stretch. Praying to a god that isn’t listening is good for the soul that he doesn’t care about. As the track coach says to the last runner: “good effort”.
2. You appear now to be equating deism with fatalism. Curious, but nonsensical.
3. Taken by itself, no, but in context with other statements, undoubtedly Christian.
4. Actually no, since a deist denies that his god can impact his life. Christians, on the other hand, routinely and openly question if God exists, is listening or cares. The best example of this is John 20:24-29 (doubting Thomas).
5. Jefferson wrote that in the second decade of the 19th century, past the time of the Revolution and his presidency. The issue here is what were his beliefs during the founding period.

Looks like you're really asserting they worshipped the all seeing eye of Mordor!

Is this a contemporary reference?

 

[glockmail]

What, no bloviating by Shogun this morning? And I was looking forward to that, like my second cup of coffee!

 

[Shogun]

I was busy linking this thread to friends of mine who were interested in seeing the reason dogma junkies fail when it comes to evidence trumping their sad little faith.





did you need to feel like a martyr this morning or something? I'd have figured you'd be out giving a speach at the National Deist Council or something given how you are, apparently, the spokesman for Deists past and present!

 

[glockmail]

I was busy linking this thread to friends of mine who were interested in seeing the reason dogma junkies fail when it comes to evidence trumping their sad little faith.





did you need to feel like a martyr this morning or something? I'd have figured you'd be out giving a speach at the National Deist Council or something given how you are, apparently, the spokesman for Deists past and present!

Clever comeback. I look forward to responding with facts and logic to all your friends.

 

[Shogun]

Clever comeback. I look forward to responding with facts and logic to all your friends.

HA!

oh, you mean like the total ASSumptions you've insisted upon, despite autobiographical quotes, in this thread.


indeed. I really care that you still think the world is flat, dude.

 

[LOki]

1. Wow that’s a stretch.

What is? The asstertion that Deists feel praying for a divine intervention is a waste of time? If so, you should get yourself aquainted with Deism. That Deists might construe a prayer of thanks to be beneficial and/or appropriate? Again, you should get yourself aquainted with Deism. That a Deist's prayer of thanks to Nature's God need not be a prayer that asserts the deity of Christ? Well, Glockmail, perhaps you really should get yourself aquainted with Deism.

Praying to a god that isn’t listening is good for the soul that he doesn’t care about.

I didn't say that God isn't listening and/or doesn't care; and neither do Deists.

2. You appear now to be equating deism with fatalism. Curious, but nonsensical.

Though I'm not saying fatalism is incompatible with Deism, neither am I suggesting any equivalency. You seem to be making shit up. Expected, and as usual, nonsensical.

3. Taken by itself, no, but in context with other statements, undoubtedly Christian.

What context are you referring to? Some more Dave Barton fabrications? Or maybe this:

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. -Notes on Virginia, 1782

OR

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. --Letter to Richard Price, 1789

OR

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." --Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1803

OR

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. --Letter to John Adams, 1814

OR

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." --The Jefferson Bible

OR

No historical fact is better established than that the doctrine of one god, pure and uncompounded was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the antients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the supreme being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus with one body and three heads had it's birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith is it's restoration as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and it's eternal divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simply unity of the creator of the universe is now all but ascendant in the Eastern states; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United states. The Eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestly's learned writings on it are, or should be in every hand. In fact 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 decieves himself. He proves also that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullability which they call faith takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck. --Letter to James Smith, 1822

4. Actually no, since a deist denies that his god can impact his life.

This is false. Plainly. Why would a Deist assert that being who created the universe, including the human beings in it, is unable to impact the lives of those beings? The answer is, they don't. Some Deists beleive that God intervenes upon rare occasion, but as a rule, they assert the God just doesn't intervene--not that He is unable.

And since I was speaking to the orthodoxy (whatever that might be) of Jefferson's Deism; actually, yes: Jefferson's imperfect adherence to the dictionary definition of Deism in no way invalidates his identity as as Deist, any more than a Christian's imperfect adherence to the Dictionary definition of Christianity invalidates their Christian identity--such imperfection only asserts their humanity.

Christians, on the other hand, routinely and openly question if God exists, is listening or cares. The best example of this is John 20:24-29 (doubting Thomas).

Which serves to affirm the point I made; including the observation that Thomas was not in disbelief of God, but rather the story told by the other disciples.

By the way, the Christian penalty for not believing in Jesus is to be stoned to death outside the gates of the city--look it up. Since stonings for such disbelief are not so "routine", I seriously doubt that Christians "routinely and openly question if God exists." Maybe these stonings are just not so "openly" done that anyone notices.

5. Jefferson wrote that in the second decade of the 19th century, past the time of the Revolution and his presidency. The issue here is what were his beliefs during the founding period.

Demonstrate that he did not hold these beliefs during the Revolution, and his Presidency.

Also, not that it's conclusive, but just before the revolution, while writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson used the Deist's term for the deity: "Nature's God", rather than one of the Christian terms for their deity, such as: "Jesus" or "Christ". That might be a clue.

Is this a contemporary reference?

 

[Shogun]

dude.. for real.. this guy still thinks the Earth is the center of the Universe.

 

[glockmail]

What is? The asstertion that Deists feel praying for a divine intervention is a waste of time? If so, you should get yourself aquainted with Deism. That Deists might construe a prayer of thanks to be beneficial and/or appropriate? Again, you should get yourself aquainted with Deism. That a Deist's prayer of thanks to Nature's God need not be a prayer that asserts the deity of Christ? Well, Glockmail, perhaps you really should get yourself aquainted with Deism.....

Again, I point back to the actual definition of deism, not what you want it to be.

 

[LOki]

Again, I point back to the actual definition of deism, not what you want it to be.

Let me suggest that I'm not asserting any definition of Deism inconsistent with what Deists think--that the "actual definition" that you appear to be referencing is the one "you want it to be."

Deism Defined

Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." The above definition is from a non-Deist source. Please see our expanded definition of Deism in our Deist Glossary below.

Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

 

[glockmail]

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.

Bingo.

 

[LOki]

Bingo.

And nothing I've said is inconsitent with the definition of Deism: so what's your point?

 

[glockmail]

And nothing I've said is inconsitent with the definition of Deism: so what's your point?

The definition that you cited goes exactly with what I have been saying.

 

[Shogun]

Galileo had to deal with this kind of dogma junkie shit too...


who, im sure, was an avowed believer of heliocentrism!

 

[Anguille]

Perhaps you mean “MONTICELLO”?

No. Knowing Shogun...he probably meant Mound of Jello.

 

[LOki]

The definition that you cited goes exactly with what I have been saying.

Not really.