OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[Underhill]

Except they didn't found this country, nor write the founding documents, nor establish in their writings on what precepts the country and its founding documents were based on. The idea that the founding fathers were not Christians is ludicrous and easily debunked. A good 30 to 40 of the founding fathers had theology degrees, the very first session of congress spent its first several hours in prayer. It's all fact and easily looked up in the National Archives for all to see.

I don't think that is the argument. I certainly haven't said they weren't christians. I have said I don't think they were all christians. Certainly not fundamentalist type christians. And I do think their writings back me up in this.

Some of them were, probably even most. Just as most of our politicians today profess to be christians. But I have read a great deal of Jefferson, and a fair amount written by Franklin (also Adams, but there is no denying he was a christian) and I would say both were agnostics who believed a god may very well be out there, but had no confidence in established religions.

But this whole argument started because someone tried to claim our country was created as a christian nation. And that I disagree with fundamentally.

The post I quoted with my response clearly stated that the FF's were not Christians, I even bolded the line to show what my post was answering. So, yes, someone was making the claim that they were not Christians.

The FF's in their writings clearly state that the foundation for the Constitution stemmed from their beliefs as Christians. That did not mean that they were creating a theocracy or forcing their religion on anyone. They believed in freedeom, which they held as very valuable because of their religious beliefs and felt that their morals, which were used to shape the documents they created, also stemmed from their religious Christian beliefs. Whether or not that makes this a 'christian nation' can be up to your own opiinon, but it was certainly founded on Christian principles. The wrtings found by the FF's clearly show that to be true.

Perhaps. But that ignores all the other influences on their thinking. And there were many. These were well educated men.

The original statement was this,

Your intention in using these facts escapes me. The actual reality of our history, not the one you wish, points to our founding fathers being largely deistic and not the god-fearing Christians you wish them to have been, as they were influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire. Quoting a contemporary author with the same Christian bias' as you does nothing to make your case, in fact, it just outlays the severity of your own bias.

Now I didn't make the statement, and I don't entirely agree But I think the author was at least partially correct. Some of the founding fathers (at least those 2 I mentioned and probably more) were definitely more deistic than hardline christians.

And there were a great deal of influences at work other than their faith or lack of it. Especially when you consider the bible never even mentions "freedom" as one of its tenets. It talks a great deal about personal responsibility and making choices. But god also orders (again according to the bible) multiple times for the Jews to appoint a King. You would think the all knowing god of the bible might call for a democracy or republic if he was all that keen on freedom. But that is a separate topic.

The founders do talk about god, but they also talk about greek and roman influences. The influence of the magna carta and a half dozen other philosophers and writers that inspired them.

 

[Hollie]

This is where she either disappears for a bit, or screeches, "YOU RELIGIOUS FUNDIE YOU!"

I wish we'd get one that presents more of a challenge.

Though I have to admit, gaddawg's infrequent sputterings do make her look less retarded by comparison.

Gee whiz. It's like a smorgasbord of angry, self-loathing religious zealots.

Seriously, Hollie, you're the only one here that is coming across as 'angry' and a 'zealot'. I'm guessing even those arguing your side of the debate would agree with me.

Seriously, I'm thinking you and the hate cabal are the worst examples of religious hate and intolerance.

 

[Newby]

I don't think that is the argument. I certainly haven't said they weren't christians. I have said I don't think they were all christians. Certainly not fundamentalist type christians. And I do think their writings back me up in this.

Some of them were, probably even most. Just as most of our politicians today profess to be christians. But I have read a great deal of Jefferson, and a fair amount written by Franklin (also Adams, but there is no denying he was a christian) and I would say both were agnostics who believed a god may very well be out there, but had no confidence in established religions.

But this whole argument started because someone tried to claim our country was created as a christian nation. And that I disagree with fundamentally.

The post I quoted with my response clearly stated that the FF's were not Christians, I even bolded the line to show what my post was answering. So, yes, someone was making the claim that they were not Christians.

The FF's in their writings clearly state that the foundation for the Constitution stemmed from their beliefs as Christians. That did not mean that they were creating a theocracy or forcing their religion on anyone. They believed in freedeom, which they held as very valuable because of their religious beliefs and felt that their morals, which were used to shape the documents they created, also stemmed from their religious Christian beliefs. Whether or not that makes this a 'christian nation' can be up to your own opiinon, but it was certainly founded on Christian principles. The wrtings found by the FF's clearly show that to be true.

Perhaps. But that ignores all the other influences on their thinking. And there were many. These were well educated men.

The original statement was this,

Your intention in using these facts escapes me. The actual reality of our history, not the one you wish, points to our founding fathers being largely deistic and not the god-fearing Christians you wish them to have been, as they were influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire. Quoting a contemporary author with the same Christian bias' as you does nothing to make your case, in fact, it just outlays the severity of your own bias.

Now I didn't make the statement, and I don't entirely agree But I think the author was at least partially correct. Some of the founding fathers (at least those 2 I mentioned and probably more) were definitely more deistic than hardline christians.

And there were a great deal of influences at work other than their faith or lack of it. Especially when you consider the bible never even mentions "freedom" as one of its tenets. It talks a great deal about personal responsibility and making choices. But god also orders (again according to the bible) multiple times for the Jews to appoint a King. You would think the all knowing god of the bible might call for a democracy or republic if he was all that keen on freedom. But that is a separate topic.

The founders do talk about god, but they also talk about greek and roman influences. The influence of the magna carta and a half dozen other philosophers and writers that inspired them.

I've read quite a bit about the entire group, and only a few are ever mentioned or quoted whenever trying to make the claim that they weren't Christians. The reason for that is because the majority of them were not only Christians, but they had degrees in theology and were pastors/ministers in their own churches. I've never said that there weren't other things that contributed to their thought processes when forming the government and the constitution, but there are many that try to insist that not only were they not Christians, but that their religious beliefs played no part in what they created, which is not true at all. It doesn't, nor isn't one extreme or the other, and you don't have to try to prove it is to make a point in my opinion. From just the few quotes that I provided above, they definitely believed that this country could not stay as they designed it without the morals that are founded in religion, specifically Christianity. The part of the Bible that you're referencing is the Old Testament as well. The concept of individual freedom didn't exist back then as it does today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee whiz. It's like a smorgasbord of angry, self-loathing religious zealots.

Seriously, Hollie, you're the only one here that is coming across as 'angry' and a 'zealot'. I'm guessing even those arguing your side of the debate would agree with me.

Seriously, I'm thinking you and the hate cabal are the worst examples of religious hate and intolerance.

Gee....that's not fair.

Here...credit where credit is due:
I thought you did an excellent job on that instructional video you submitted:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdVuSvZOqXM]Burning My Hair Off -ORIGINAL VIDEO- (Hair Tutorial Gone Wrong) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Newby]

Seriously, Hollie, you're the only one here that is coming across as 'angry' and a 'zealot'. I'm guessing even those arguing your side of the debate would agree with me.

Seriously, I'm thinking you and the hate cabal are the worst examples of religious hate and intolerance.

Gee....that's not fair.

Here...credit where credit is due:
I thought you did an excellent job on that instructional video you submitted:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdVuSvZOqXM]Burning My Hair Off -ORIGINAL VIDEO- (Hair Tutorial Gone Wrong) - YouTube[/ame]

I'd rep you again if I could...

 

[newpolitics]

"...you made the claim that the difference between the french revolution and the american was christianity. "

It was.

And that is why they don't teach this difference between the two revolutions in government schools.




1. Contrary to the assertions of Liberals, who wish our founding fathers were more like the godless French peasants, skipping around with human heads on a pike, our founding fathers were God-fearing descendants of Puritans and other colonial Christians.
Coulter, 'Demonic," chapter eight.

2. The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.”
David Limbaugh

3. "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were... the general principles of Christianity. ...I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." -
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,
1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.

Who our founding fathers were descended from is irrelevant to anything within this discussion. You seem to think this fact makes our founding fathers also puritans or of similar theological disposition: This is a genetic fallacy. Who our founding fathers' forebears were is utterly irrelevant to who they were, and even more so, to the constitution they forged. Your intention in using these facts escapes me. The actual reality of our history, not the one you wish, points to our founding fathers being largely deistic and not the god-fearing Christians you wish them to have been, as they were influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire. Quoting a contemporary author with the same Christian bias' as you does nothing to make your case, in fact, it just outlays the severity of your own bias.

That is absolutely incorrect. I think you need to do a little more reading of the FF's writings and educate yourself on the true history of their backgrounds.

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Frequently Asked Questions

The Aitken Bible and Congress

What involvement did Congress have with the Aitken Bible – that is, the 1782 “Bible of the Revolution”?
Because English language Bibles could not be printed in America but had to be imported, when the Revolution began and the British began to blockade all materials coming to America, the ability to obtain such Bibles ended. Therefore, in 1777, America began experiencing a shortage of several important commodities, including Bibles. On July 7, a request was placed before Congress to print or import more, because “unless timely care be used to prevent it, we shall not have Bibles for our schools and families and for the public worship of God in our churches.” Congress concurred with that assessment and announced: “The Congress desire to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement.” A special committee overseeing that project therefore recommended:


[T]he use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great, . . . your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.
Congress agreed with the committee’s recommendation and ordered Bibles imported.

While those Bibles were ordered imported by Congress, there is no indication that any ever arrived.

Four years later, in January of 1781, Robert Aitken (publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine in Philadelphia) petitioned Congress for permission to print an English-language Bible on his presses in America rather than import the Bibles. In his memorial to Congress, Aitken said “your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and went on to say “your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States.” Congress appointed a committee that was to “from time to time [attend] to his progress in the work; that they also [recommend] it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution.” The committee, comprised of Founding Fathers James Duane, Thomas McKean, and John Witherspoon reported back to Congress in September of 1782 giving its full approval. They also included assurances from the two chaplains of Congress that “Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude.” Congress gave Aitken a ringing endorsement in the form of a congressional resolution to “publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper” to help sell and circulate the Bible.

I can go on and on and on...

There is so much fallacy and staunch historical revisionism going on here, its hard to know where to begin. Let me just summarily point out, that because a founder spoke of his admiration of Jesus' philsophy or virtue, that does not make him a believe in the supernatural propositions of christianity, which are required for one to be considered a christian, especially during this post-enlightenment era, wherein enough theological reformation had taken place so as to allow a purely secualur view on biblical doctrine and claims to be orated. This is best exemplified by Thomas Jefferson's secular bible, which by the way, completely falsifies your attempt at asserting Franklin as a christian, and bolsters my claim that a quote does not maketh a man, especially when taken out of context.

Many of the lesser known founding fathers were, in fact, christian. However, two of the most prominet were in fact deist: Jefferson and Franklin.

Here's a few quotes that more directly state my point for me: (ohh internet... how I love thee)

Thomas Jefferson

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."
..........To W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."



John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson


Abraham Lincoln

"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

Benjamin Franklin

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
..........Letter to his father, 1738

James Madison

"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
..........James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'"
..........James Madison, 1811, Writings, 8:133



Thomas Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
.........."Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
..........Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

http://zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/FoundingFathers/


It would seem as if we have contradictory accounts, or... you have quote minted and/or are reading into the forefathers that which you see in yourself: christian belief. This, in psychology, is known as projection. The quotes clearly indicates that non all of the FF's were christian, and indeed, the most prominent among them, are to be included most of all.

 

[Newby]

Who our founding fathers were descended from is irrelevant to anything within this discussion. You seem to think this fact makes our founding fathers also puritans or of similar theological disposition: This is a genetic fallacy. Who our founding fathers' forebears were is utterly irrelevant to who they were, and even more so, to the constitution they forged. Your intention in using these facts escapes me. The actual reality of our history, not the one you wish, points to our founding fathers being largely deistic and not the god-fearing Christians you wish them to have been, as they were influenced by enlightenment thinkers such as Rousseau and Voltaire. Quoting a contemporary author with the same Christian bias' as you does nothing to make your case, in fact, it just outlays the severity of your own bias.

That is absolutely incorrect. I think you need to do a little more reading of the FF's writings and educate yourself on the true history of their backgrounds.















WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Frequently Asked Questions

The Aitken Bible and Congress

What involvement did Congress have with the Aitken Bible – that is, the 1782 “Bible of the Revolution”?
Because English language Bibles could not be printed in America but had to be imported, when the Revolution began and the British began to blockade all materials coming to America, the ability to obtain such Bibles ended. Therefore, in 1777, America began experiencing a shortage of several important commodities, including Bibles. On July 7, a request was placed before Congress to print or import more, because “unless timely care be used to prevent it, we shall not have Bibles for our schools and families and for the public worship of God in our churches.” Congress concurred with that assessment and announced: “The Congress desire to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement.” A special committee overseeing that project therefore recommended:


[T]he use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great, . . . your Committee recommend that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.
Congress agreed with the committee’s recommendation and ordered Bibles imported.

While those Bibles were ordered imported by Congress, there is no indication that any ever arrived.

Four years later, in January of 1781, Robert Aitken (publisher of the Pennsylvania Magazine in Philadelphia) petitioned Congress for permission to print an English-language Bible on his presses in America rather than import the Bibles. In his memorial to Congress, Aitken said “your Memorialist begs leave to, inform your Honours That he both begun and made considerable progress in a neat Edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” and went on to say “your Memorialist prays, that he may be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of, the Sacred Scriptures, in such manner and form as may best suit the wants and demands of the good people of these States.” Congress appointed a committee that was to “from time to time [attend] to his progress in the work; that they also [recommend] it to the two Chaplains of Congress to examine and give their opinion of the execution.” The committee, comprised of Founding Fathers James Duane, Thomas McKean, and John Witherspoon reported back to Congress in September of 1782 giving its full approval. They also included assurances from the two chaplains of Congress that “Having selected and examined a variety of passages throughout the work, we are of opinion that it is executed with great accuracy as to the sense, and with as few grammatical and typographical errors as could be expected in an undertaking of such magnitude.” Congress gave Aitken a ringing endorsement in the form of a congressional resolution to “publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper” to help sell and circulate the Bible.

I can go on and on and on...

There is so much fallacy and staunch historical revisionism going on here, its hard to know where to begin. Let me just summarily point out, that because a founder spoke of his admiration of Jesus' philsophy or virtue, that does not make him a believe in the supernatural propositions of christianity, which are required for one to be considered a christian, especially during this post-enlightenment era, wherein enough theological reformation had taken place so as to allow a purely secualur view on biblical doctrine and claims to be orated. This is best exemplified by Thomas Jefferson's secular bible, which by the way, completely falsifies your attempt at asserting Franklin as a christian, and bolsters my claim that a quote does not maketh a man, especially when taken out of context.

Many of the lesser known founding fathers were, in fact, christian. However, two of the most prominet were in fact deist: Jefferson and Franklin.

Here's a few quotes that more directly state my point for me: (ohh internet... how I love thee)

Thomas Jefferson

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."
..........To W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."



John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson


Abraham Lincoln

"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

Benjamin Franklin

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
..........Letter to his father, 1738

James Madison

"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
..........James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'"
..........James Madison, 1811, Writings, 8:133



Thomas Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
.........."Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
..........Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

Our Founding Fathers on Religion


It would seem as if we have contradictory accounts, or... you have quote minted and/or are reading into the forefathers that which you see in yourself: christian belief. This, in psychology, is known as projection. The quotes clearly indicates that non all of the FF's were christian, and indeed, the most prominent among them, are to be included most of all.

zenhell?

 

[newpolitics]

That is absolutely incorrect. I think you need to do a little more reading of the FF's writings and educate yourself on the true history of their backgrounds.











WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Frequently Asked Questions



I can go on and on and on...

There is so much fallacy and staunch historical revisionism going on here, its hard to know where to begin. Let me just summarily point out, that because a founder spoke of his admiration of Jesus' philsophy or virtue, that does not make him a believe in the supernatural propositions of christianity, which are required for one to be considered a christian, especially during this post-enlightenment era, wherein enough theological reformation had taken place so as to allow a purely secualur view on biblical doctrine and claims to be orated. This is best exemplified by Thomas Jefferson's secular bible, which by the way, completely falsifies your attempt at asserting Franklin as a christian, and bolsters my claim that a quote does not maketh a man, especially when taken out of context.

Many of the lesser known founding fathers were, in fact, christian. However, two of the most prominet were in fact deist: Jefferson and Franklin.

Here's a few quotes that more directly state my point for me: (ohh internet... how I love thee)

Thomas Jefferson

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."
..........To W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."



John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson


Abraham Lincoln

"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."

Benjamin Franklin

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
..........Letter to his father, 1738

James Madison

"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
..........James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'"
..........James Madison, 1811, Writings, 8:133



Thomas Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
.........."Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
..........Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

Our Founding Fathers on Religion


It would seem as if we have contradictory accounts, or... you have quote minted and/or are reading into the forefathers that which you see in yourself: christian belief. This, in psychology, is known as projection. The quotes clearly indicates that non all of the FF's were christian, and indeed, the most prominent among them, are to be included most of all.

zenhell?

I am not going to find alternative sources, independently, for every single one of those quotes, but I don't have to. All I need to do is falsify that anyone of the quoted FF's was not a christian, and here it is:


Christian Deism (wiki???)


"Christian deism, in the philosophy of religion, is a standpoint that branches from deism. It refers to a deist who believes in the moral teachings—but not divinity—of Jesus. Corbett and Corbett (1999) cite John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as exemplars.[1]"

"...It adopts the ethics and non-mystical teachings of Jesus, while denying that Jesus was a deity. Scholars of the founding fathers of the United States "have tended to place the founders' religion into one of three categories—non-Christian deism, Christian deism, and orthodox Christianity."[8] John Locke and John Tillotson, especially, inspired Christian deism, through their respective writings.[9] Possibly the most famed person to hold this position was Thomas Jefferson, who praised "nature's God" in the "Declaration of Independence" (1776) and edited the "Jefferson Bible"—a Bible with all reference to revelations and other miraculous interventions from a deity cut out.

In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson states that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the "deism and ethics of the Jews", and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omit[ting] the question of his divinity, and even his inspiration."[10]

Christian deists see no paradox in adopting the values and ideals espoused by Jesus without believing he was God. Without providing examples or citations, one author maintains, "A number of influential seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers claimed for themselves the title of 'Christian deist' because they accepted both the Christian religion based on revelation and a deistic religion based on natural reason. This deistic religion was consistent with Christianity but independent of any revealed authority. Christian deists often accepted revelation because it could be made to accord with natural or rational religion."[11]


If you want to question wikipedia, I can keep on going.

 

[newpolitics]

"Jefferson cut and pasted pieces of the New Testament together to compose The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (the "Jefferson Bible"), which excluded any miracles by Jesus and stressed his moral message. Though he often expressed his opposition to clergy and to Christian doctrines, Jefferson repeatedly expressed his belief in a deistic god and his admiration for Jesus as a moral teacher. Opposed to Calvinism, Trinitarianism, and what he identified as Platonic elements in Christianity, in private letters Jefferson variously refers to himself as "Christian" (1803),[5] "a sect by myself" (1819),[6] an "Epicurean" (1819),[7] a "Materialist" (1820),[8] and a "Unitarian by myself" (1825).[9] Historian Sydney E. Ahlstrom associated Jefferson with "rational religion" or deism.[10]"

(wiki)


It seems clear that Jefferson was a deist. Perhaps he would refer to himself as a christian for reasons of political expediency. However, evidenced by the fact that he took all of the miracles and divinity out of the bible, and proclaimed himself to believe in a creator "Deist" god, it seems more likely than not, that he was a deist, or at the very least, not a christian.

 

[newpolitics]

I can go on and on...

Thomas Jefferson quotes

THOMAS JEFFERSON


To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820


-----------------------------------------------------------------




"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.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And 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 Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Need I continue?

 

[Underhill]

I can go on and on...

Thomas Jefferson quotes

THOMAS JEFFERSON


To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820


-----------------------------------------------------------------




"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.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And 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 Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Need I continue?

And again I say Amen!

 

[Gadawg73]

Back to the topic at hand.
Science has never attacked any religion unless one wants to admit their religion is myth.
But science does not have to attack myths.
They fail on their own.
If one's faith is so strong, as mine is, science is never a threat.
Christian victim status is all the rage now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Back to the topic at hand.
Science has never attacked any religion unless one wants to admit their religion is myth.
But science does not have to attack myths.
They fail on their own.
If one's faith is so strong, as mine is, science is never a threat.
Christian victim status is all the rage now.

Don't be ignorant your whole life, take a day off why don't you?


"Science has never attacked any religion..."

Now....as soon as I prove what a dolt you are, why don't you slip into something more
comfortable.....like a coma.

1. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


2. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”


3. In "The End of Faith," Sam Harris recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . . . Nonetheless, there is this awkward fact: The twentieth century was not an age of faith, and it was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot will never be counted among the religious leaders of mankind.


4. One might think that the Holocaust would above all other events give the scientific atheist pause. Hitler’s Germany was a technologically sophisticated secular society, and Nazism itself, as party propagandists never tired of stressing, was “motivated by an ethic that prided itself on being scientific.” The words are those of the historian Richard Weikart, who in his treatise From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany made clear what anyone capable of reading the German sources already knew: A sinister current of influence ran from Darwin’s theory of evolution to Hitler’s policy of extermination. A generation of German biologists had read Darwin and concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races. These observations find no echo at all in the literature of scientific atheism.


5. Emile Zuckerkandl Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."



So....you said: "Science has never attacked any religion..."

And this turns out to be as insightful as every other pronouncement you've made.


You should stick to the job you were made for: door stop.

 

[koshergrl]

No, science doesn't attack religion. Science can't attack religion. Science isn't a person, with a motive.

However, there are a lot of morons who use fake science to attack religion.

 

[Gadawg73]

Back to the topic at hand.
Science has never attacked any religion unless one wants to admit their religion is myth.
But science does not have to attack myths.
They fail on their own.
If one's faith is so strong, as mine is, science is never a threat.
Christian victim status is all the rage now.

Don't be ignorant your whole life, take a day off why don't you?


"Science has never attacked any religion..."

Now....as soon as I prove what a dolt you are, why don't you slip into something more
comfortable.....like a coma.

1. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


2. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”


3. In "The End of Faith," Sam Harris recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . . . Nonetheless, there is this awkward fact: The twentieth century was not an age of faith, and it was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot will never be counted among the religious leaders of mankind.


4. One might think that the Holocaust would above all other events give the scientific atheist pause. Hitler’s Germany was a technologically sophisticated secular society, and Nazism itself, as party propagandists never tired of stressing, was “motivated by an ethic that prided itself on being scientific.” The words are those of the historian Richard Weikart, who in his treatise From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany made clear what anyone capable of reading the German sources already knew: A sinister current of influence ran from Darwin’s theory of evolution to Hitler’s policy of extermination. A generation of German biologists had read Darwin and concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races. These observations find no echo at all in the literature of scientific atheism.


5. Emile Zuckerkandl Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."



So....you said: "Science has never attacked any religion..."

And this turns out to be as insightful as every other pronouncement you've made.


You should stick to the job you were made for: door stop.

You remind me of the liberals that claim corporations do not pay enough taxes and I keep having to tell them THAT ONLY PEOPLE pay taxes.
PEOPLE attack religion and all the time.
Science is NOT PEOPLE.
Science is the body of knowledge, NOT PEOPLE.
Science is not an entity that could attack anything, much less people.
Are you that thin skinned that you have to have make believe enemies to go along with your make believe friends?
I quit that at age 5.

 

[koshergrl]

Get your own material, retard.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Back to the topic at hand.
Science has never attacked any religion unless one wants to admit their religion is myth.
But science does not have to attack myths.
They fail on their own.
If one's faith is so strong, as mine is, science is never a threat.
Christian victim status is all the rage now.

Don't be ignorant your whole life, take a day off why don't you?


"Science has never attacked any religion..."

Now....as soon as I prove what a dolt you are, why don't you slip into something more
comfortable.....like a coma.

1. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


2. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”


3. In "The End of Faith," Sam Harris recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . . . Nonetheless, there is this awkward fact: The twentieth century was not an age of faith, and it was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot will never be counted among the religious leaders of mankind.


4. One might think that the Holocaust would above all other events give the scientific atheist pause. Hitler’s Germany was a technologically sophisticated secular society, and Nazism itself, as party propagandists never tired of stressing, was “motivated by an ethic that prided itself on being scientific.” The words are those of the historian Richard Weikart, who in his treatise From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany made clear what anyone capable of reading the German sources already knew: A sinister current of influence ran from Darwin’s theory of evolution to Hitler’s policy of extermination. A generation of German biologists had read Darwin and concluded that competition between species was reflected in human affairs by competition between races. These observations find no echo at all in the literature of scientific atheism.


5. Emile Zuckerkandl Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."



So....you said: "Science has never attacked any religion..."

And this turns out to be as insightful as every other pronouncement you've made.


You should stick to the job you were made for: door stop.

You remind me of the liberals that claim corporations do not pay enough taxes and I keep having to tell them THAT ONLY PEOPLE pay taxes.
PEOPLE attack religion and all the time.
Science is NOT PEOPLE.
Science is the body of knowledge, NOT PEOPLE.
Science is not an entity that could attack anything, much less people.
Are you that thin skinned that you have to have make believe enemies to go along with your make believe friends?
I quit that at age 5.

"You remind me of...."


Stop bragging.


Memory requires a level of cerebral capacity that is not in evidence in your case.

 

[Hollie]

Back to the topic at hand.
Science has never attacked any religion unless one wants to admit their religion is myth.
But science does not have to attack myths.
They fail on their own.
If one's faith is so strong, as mine is, science is never a threat.
Christian victim status is all the rage now.

Science will often refute religious tales and fables and religionists can see that as an attack.
I think the discipline of science terrifies some believers because as the methods of science are used to reveal knowledge, there’s less and less wiggle room left for the introduction of supernaturalism and magic as the cause for existence.

If "prophets" or books are meant to demonstrate the existence of gods, and convey a message from those gods, then their existence should be demonstrable without prior belief. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve? If you already believe in such gods without "prophets" and books (and I'm not sure how anyone could) then they wouldn't be needed in the first place.

Since the only history we have to reach any sort of conclusion that the Abrahamic gods spawned "prophets" is partisan rhetorical literature, (in some cases authored by the “prophets”), any self-claim of "prophet'ness" is meaningless.

And in that case, religionists hould argue with theirr fellow religionists first before wasting their time trying to push a heretical belief on a non-believer.

That anyone believes partisan religious dogma does not make it true. People can believe anything they choose. But if evidence and reason leads one to understand differently, that is where intellectual allegiance must lie.

 

[koshergrl]

Which tales has science *refuted*?

Please provide cites and references. I'm all agog. Be sure to cite the biblical reference...as well as the science that disproves it.

 

[koshergrl]

I think I have time to take a cruise around the South Pacific while I wait for the response.