# Think Tank > History >  Founding Fathers: Christians or Deists

## RSLudlum

I just got this chain letter sent to me proclaiming (with unsourced quotes) that the majority of the founding fathers were Christians and that in itself deems that the placement of the 10 Commandments justifiable in Gov't buildings.  At the end of the email it states:

"It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.
Therefore, it is very hard to understand 
why there is such a mess about having the Ten 
Commandments on display or 'In God We Trust' 
on our money and having God in the Pledge of 
Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 
14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!"


What do you think about this?  And is there still an ongoing debate about whether the majority of our 'notable' Founding Fathers were Christian's or Deist's?

----------


## ryanmkeisling

Anyone who studies history knows that at least some them were deists.  These Christians will say anything to get what they want.  I'd love to hear how they reconcile evolution theory with the bible.  Or any number of other things that make the christian faith what it is or isn't.  The founding fathers weren't the best men and did not have the best intentions.  They did start something new and did have better ideas than were already in existence, but to think that freedom, liberty, etc. were the heart of what they were after is plane foolish.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> Anyone who studies history knows that at least some them were deists.  These Christians will say anything to get what they want.  I'd love to hear how they reconcile evolution theory with the bible.  Or any number of other things that make the christian faith what it is or isn't.  The founding fathers weren't the best men and did not have the best intentions.  They did start something new and did have better ideas than were already in existence, but to think that freedom, liberty, etc. were the heart of what they were after is plane foolish.


Actually, a lot of Masons were founders of this country also, so not all of them were Christians, although the majority probably were.  As long as nobody tries to force their beliefs on me, I won't try to force them on others, although the government is going too far by allowing Arab women to wear full head garments for drivers license, and teaching evolution in school.

----------


## Dieseler

I'm going through quite a learning curve on the true nature of the founders of our great nation.
The movers and shakers of which were indeed Masons.
This is a pretty good documentary, I have not finished watching but thought it fit the thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcLDPoeI4ms

----------


## Mini-Me

> Actually, a lot of Masons were founders of this country also, so not all of them were Christians, although the majority probably were.  As long as nobody tries to force their beliefs on me, I won't try to force them on others, although the government is going too far by allowing Arab women to wear full head garments for drivers license, and teaching evolution in school.


Well...
*Driver's licenses*:  This is a state issue (except when the damn feds get involved, e.g. Real ID).  If state governments want to "let" people wear full head garments for their pictures, that's their prerogative.  Mandating driver's licenses isn't exactly an absolutely essential function of government anyway.  While driver's licenses have their uses, they also have their dangers.  They're an example of giving away some freedom for security - are they an example of giving up *essential* freedom, though?  That's up to the people of each state to decide.

*Evolution in school*:  There's nothing inherently wrong with teaching evolution in school (and as a personal opinion, I think it's probably a good idea).  What IS wrong is when the federal government dictates policy to state and local school boards.  It should be up to them to decide what to teach, not the federal government.

----------


## mtmedlin

My reply would be that even if all of their argument was true (its not) we are a Republic and not a pure democracy. The wants of the majority do not outstrip the rights of the few. The government has an oligation to uphold equal and just law for ALL its citizens including the 14%. The 14 amendment is referred to as the "equal protection" clause. It is what keeps any one group from running its agenda over anybody else.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

> Actually, a lot of Masons were founders of this country also, so not all of them were Christians, although the majority probably were.  As long as nobody tries to force their beliefs on me, I won't try to force them on others, although the government is going too far by allowing Arab women to wear full head garments for drivers license, and teaching evolution in school.


And many of those masons are professed Christians although not true to their religion, but how many true christians are there>?  And what is a true christian? 

Evolution should be taught everywhere especially if we want to have truly educated scientists or truly educated people.  Evolution is more than a belief at this point and is almost irrefutable as far as modern thought is concerned.  The creation-evolution controversy is a crock promoted by people who want to believe fantasy or cannot admit their creation myths are wrong.  Evolutionary concepts are also evident in many other sciences: computer, medicine, philosophy, psychology.  Anyone who is in denial of evolution has their head in the sand or is just plain crazy. Sorry but we weren't created by God out of thin air 5,000 years ago and theistic evolution is not science but a way for religions to still exist or to try and reconcile themselves with the theory of evolution.

As for the head dress thing I have to agree as it kind of defeats the purpose of having identification but it is a states issue not a Federal issue although they would like it to be.

----------


## Shiranu

> And many of those masons are professed Christians although not true to their religion, but how many true christians are there>?  And what is a true christian? 
> 
> Evolution should be taught everywhere especially if we want to have truly educated scientists or truly educated people.  Evolution is more than a belief at this point and is almost irrefutable as far as modern thought is concerned.  The creation-evolution controversy is a crock promoted by people who want to believe fantasy or cannot admit their creation myths are wrong.  Evolutionary concepts are also evident in many other sciences: computer, medicine, philosophy, psychology.  Anyone who is in denial of evolution has their head in the sand or is just plain crazy. Sorry but we weren't created by God out of thin air 5,000 years ago and theistic evolution is not science but a way for religions to still exist or to try and reconcile themselves with the theory of evolution.
> 
> As for the head dress thing I have to agree as it kind of defeats the purpose of having identification but it is a states issue not a Federal issue although they would like it to be.


quoted for brain eating truth...



wait...this isn't my zombie survival forums...
QFT.

----------


## Macon, GA

> Evolution should be taught everywhere especially if we want to have truly educated scientists or truly educated people. Evolution is more than a belief at this point and is almost irrefutable as far as modern thought is concerned. The creation-evolution controversy is a crock promoted by people who want to believe fantasy or cannot admit their creation myths are wrong. Evolutionary concepts are also evident in many other sciences: computer, medicine, philosophy, psychology. Anyone who is in denial of evolution has their head in the sand or is just plain crazy. Sorry but we weren't created by God out of thin air 5,000 years ago and theistic evolution is not science but a way for religions to still exist or to try and reconcile themselves with the theory of evolution.


Evolution is a theory.  It has to be accepted by faith.  Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated in a laboratory, nor has one creature's DNA being changed into the DNA of another creature.  Because we can't reproduce this theory in a lab, and nobody has ever observed it (none of us were there), one must accept it by faith.

I think that one could be "truly educated" without accepting Evolution.  All one must do is peruse historical figures for evidence of that.  After all, I would consider Galileo and Isaac Newton to be fairly "scientifically minded."

----------


## Macon, GA

*Piltdown Man*: fake, human skull with a few key parts missing, jaw of an ape whose teeth had been filed down and stained

*Java Man*: Bones found over fifty feet apart in gravel. Who knows if bones came from the same individual. Regular human skulls also evidenced in gravel (which were conveniently forgotten for 30 years).

*Nutcracker Man*: Skull ape-like, but buried with evidence of human tools.... must be evidence of an apeman using tools? Or perhaps the human tools were used on the ape skulls, not by the apes. Ape meat may be too tough, so the ape brain is considered the real delicacy. 30 years later Leakey finds bones like modern man buried deeper. Hmmmmmmm...

We also have other mistakes made.... supposed ape-men's bones turning out to be other things like: alligator's upper leg bone, dolphin's rib, horse's toe.

*Nebraska Man (including his whole family)*: based on a single TOOTH.... that is good science. Remember the Scopes Trial? An identical tooth was found later with its real skull attached to its real skeleton..... Pig's tooth. 

*Ramapithecus*: first ape to walk upright????? This based on pieces of jaws and teeth. Soon after whole jaw is found and as it turns out Rama was just an ape after all.

How come Evolutionist's are so eager to use the tiniest bit of "evidence" to support their Scientific endeavors? 

How about the tooth that wasn't there? Discover magazine's cover story on a jaw that had the canine teeth missing. The hole where they should have been was small, so the pointed teeth must have been small, which means they couldn't have been used as weapons, which means the animal must have had its hands free to hold weapons, which PROVES it walked upright....

Evolution is not science. It is a belief about the past. A belief made up by men and women who weren't there. Men and women who are not omniscient, and who have made some HUGE mistakes about the past already.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

> *Piltdown Man*: fake, human skull with a few key parts missing, jaw of an ape whose teeth had been filed down and stained
> 
> *Java Man*: Bones found over fifty feet apart in gravel. Who knows if bones came from the same individual. Regular human skulls also evidenced in gravel (which were conveniently forgotten for 30 years).
> 
> *Nutcracker Man*: Skull ape-like, but buried with evidence of human tools.... must be evidence of an apeman using tools? Or perhaps the human tools were used on the ape skulls, not by the apes. Ape meat may be too tough, so the ape brain is considered the real delicacy. 30 years later Leakey finds bones like modern man buried deeper. Hmmmmmmm...
> 
> We also have other mistakes made.... supposed ape-men's bones turning out to be other things like: alligator's upper leg bone, dolphin's rib, horse's toe.
> 
> *Nebraska Man (including his whole family)*: based on a single TOOTH.... that is good science. Remember the Scopes Trial? An identical tooth was found later with its real skull attached to its real skeleton..... Pig's tooth. 
> ...


I could care less about any of this bone or that bone and yes science often is not perfect. The fact that we may have evolved from apes is debatable, however evolution is undeniable and it is evident in everything we are and we do.  It doesn't need to be recreated in a lab; biological evolution is the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

People used to think the earth was flat; we now know for a fact that it is round.  People used to think the earth was created 5,000 years ago by an omnipresent "being," that even though he created everything and is omnipotent he could not help but create evil and can do nothing about its existence, and for some reason they still do despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  When someone decides to vote for Ron Paul as opposed to Hilary Clinton they evolve.  When a people move and settle in higher elevations over generations their lungs get bigger to compensate; they evolve.  Now I will not say time and experience will not lead us to other discoveries but evolution is here to stay and its everywhere you look. 

 The FACT is that this powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth which is far more powerful and evidenced than anything else out there, ever.  Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behavior of organisms. Most prominent are the specific behavioral and physical adaptations that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food, avoiding predators or attracting mates. Organisms can also respond to selection by co-operating with each other, usually by aiding their relatives or engaging in mutually-beneficial symbiosis.  Everything evolves, it is not a belief about the past by people who weren't there.  It is a scientifically demonstrable theory that happens all the time.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> I'm going through quite a learning curve on the true nature of the founders of our great nation.
> The movers and shakers of which were indeed Masons.
> This is a pretty good documentary, I have not finished watching but thought it fit the thread.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcLDPoeI4ms


Watched it, very good indeed.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> I could care less about any of this bone or that bone and yes science often is not perfect. The fact that we may have evolved from apes is debatable, however evolution is undeniable and it is evident in everything we are and we do.  It doesn't need to be recreated in a lab; biological evolution is the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
> 
> People used to think the earth was flat; we now know for a fact that it is round.  People used to think the earth was created 5,000 years ago by an omnipresent "being," that even though he created everything and is omnipotent he could not help but create evil and can do nothing about its existence, and for some reason they still do despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  When someone decides to vote for Ron Paul as opposed to Hilary Clinton they evolve.  When a people move and settle in higher elevations over generations their lungs get bigger to compensate; they evolve.  Now I will not say time and experience will not lead us to other discoveries but evolution is here to stay and its everywhere you look. 
> 
>  The FACT is that this powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth which is far more powerful and evidenced than anything else out there, ever.  Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behavior of organisms. Most prominent are the specific behavioral and physical adaptations that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food, avoiding predators or attracting mates. Organisms can also respond to selection by co-operating with each other, usually by aiding their relatives or engaging in mutually-beneficial symbiosis.  Everything evolves, it is not a belief about the past by people who weren't there.  It is a scientifically demonstrable theory that happens all the time.


To some extent that is true.  Animals will "evolve" to adapt to a new environment, such as changing colors;  However, the "Theory of Evolution" is wrong, since people did not evolve from apes.

----------


## Macon, GA

Microevolution and Macroevolution are two different things.  Species do adapt to their environments, but one species does not develop into another species.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> Microevolution and Macroevolution are two different things.  Species do adapt to their environments, but one species does not develop into another species.


Precisely.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

> Microevolution and Macroevolution are two different things.  Species do adapt to their environments, but one species does not develop into another species.


I do not dispute that there are two different levels of evolutionary thought, only that they are not separate. Speciation does occur on macro and micro levels and macroevolution is nothing more than an aggregate of the effects of microevolution. This is the modern scientific view called modern synthesis.

 The creationist perspective you put forth, specifically that the term macroevolution is used as a perversion of its true scientific definition, exists as a denial with virtually nothing to back it up besides some crazy religious reasoning/ideas.  This perspective has no scientific basis and is not advocated by any scientific representation that I am aware of.  A theory is only an observation or explanation concerning a fact.  The facts do not change and evolution is a fact; it has been demonstarted in a lab using fruit flies.  For example current popular scientific thought dictates that humans definitely did evolve from "ape-like" ancestors, the only questions left are whose theories about how this happened are correct and this may still be yet to be discovered.  There is a wealth of scientific certainty surrounding this and any refusal to accept it is simply not based in reality.  Show me some facts and I would be willing to entertain them but I have been studying this for years and I am pretty familiar with all of the current literature.  It is only a matter of time until one of these theories is proven and then it will be fact but there are no theories that dispute that humans did evolve from Ape-like animals; at least none that anyone in the scientific community takes seriously.  Creationist theories are not accepted as they have no factual basis and no empirical proof while most of the accepted theories have a good deal of proof.

"Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other is yet to be discovered."

----------


## MGreen

> Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated in a laboratory


Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains why we have such diverse life on Earth, not how that life ultimately began.




> nor has one creature's DNA being changed into the DNA of another creature.


Because that doesn't happen.




> Because we can't reproduce this theory in a lab, and nobody has ever observed it (none of us were there)


Yes, we have observed it (speciation/evolution, that is... not abiogenesis  ).




> However, the "Theory of Evolution" is wrong, since people did not evolve from apes.


How can people still say this? Of course we didn't evolve from apes. We shared a common ancestor with modern day apes.

Accepting that evolutionary theory is a valid scientific theory doesn't mean you have to believe it to be true, people. (Real) Scientists know that evolution could be proven completely false tomorrow.

As for the founders, I don't know what kind of discussion there can be. We have writings that pretty much confirm their religious beliefs. Some were deists, some were Christians, and then you have people like Thomas Jefferson. Crazy, crazy man.

----------


## Kade

> I just got this chain letter sent to me proclaiming (with unsourced quotes) that the majority of the founding fathers were Christians and that in itself deems that the placement of the 10 Commandments justifiable in Gov't buildings.  At the end of the email it states:
> 
> "It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.
> Therefore, it is very hard to understand 
> why there is such a mess about having the Ten 
> Commandments on display or 'In God We Trust' 
> on our money and having God in the Pledge of 
> Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the other 
> 14% to Sit Down and SHUT UP!!!"
> ...


Most of the most famous Founding Fathers were deist. 

I consider all Deists, Non-Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Unitarians, and other infidels, as the same mindset... All basically believe rule of man on Earth, not God.

Deists, Unitarians, Infidels and Non-Christians:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Franklin
James Madison
Thomas Paine
Ethan Allen 
John Adams
George Mason
Robert Treat Paine
Cornelius Harnett



Personal writing between many of them show disgust, bordering on outright intolerance and infidelity towards Christianity, and in the case of Paine and Jefferson, outright atheism. Atheism at the time was a HUGE no-no, very secretive, and very unheard of... good thing times are changing, no?


It should be noted that most others were Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Congregationalist, and a few splashes of Protestant, Catholic, and Quaker.

----------


## RSLudlum

> Most of the most famous Founding Fathers were deist. 
> 
> I consider all Deists, Non-Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Unitarians, and other infidels, as the same mindset... All basically believe rule of man on Earth, not God.
> 
> Deists, Unitarians, Infidels and Non-Christians:
> 
> George Washington
> Thomas Jefferson
> Benjamin Franklin
> ...



Kade, thanks for actually staying on topic with my OP.  For some reason this thread got overrun with 'evo-creationist debaters".

----------


## travisAlbert

The founding fathers at the Constitutional Convention were overwhelmingly Deistic in nature. There was one Unitiarian, however, he would have likely held some unconventional beliefs about Christ. There was also one person there who would consider himself born again, however he has no recorded input.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

> Kade, thanks for actually staying on topic with my OP.  For some reason this thread got overrun with 'evo-creationist debaters".


Sorry...I couldn't help it when the "no evolution in schools" comes along I cannot keep my mouth shut.  I didn't mean to hijack your thread.  Oh buy the way you should check out a book A Peoples History of the United States, it is an eye opener....and it isn't really a debate as no one takes that creationist stuff seriously, how could they?

----------


## Macon, GA

*George Washington*:  "O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day.  I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins... Let me live according to those holy rules with Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy holy Word."

*James Madison*:  "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government."

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of the government, far from it.  We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

*Ethan Allen*:  When Allen's troops surrounded Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain, Allen demanded the surrender of the fort.  The bewildered captain asked in whose authority was Allen making such a demand.  Allen's reply:

"In the Name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress."

*John Adams*:  "The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity.  Let the blackguard Paine (Thomas) say what he will; it is resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man."

"The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion..."

*George Mason*:  "My soul, I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, whose tender mercies are over all His works, who hateth nothing that He hath made and to the Justice and Wisdom of whose dispensation I willingly and cheerfully submit, humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins."

Even *Thomas Paine's* last words were:

"I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God."

----------


## sophocles07

Oh, Macon, Ga; your google founding fathers quotes delight me so (over and over again).

----------


## wv@SC

Interesting thread!

----------


## Theocrat

> Most of the most famous Founding Fathers were deist. 
> 
> I consider all Deists, Non-Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Unitarians, and other infidels, as the same mindset... All basically believe rule of man on Earth, not God.
> 
> Deists, Unitarians, Infidels and Non-Christians:
> 
> George Washington
> Thomas Jefferson
> Benjamin Franklin
> ...


What proof can you provide us from *the writings of these Founders themselves* you've mentioned that they were deists, Unitarians, infidels, and non-Christians? I do not want what other historians have written about them; I want *their own words* (no block quotes, please, so I can read their writings in their original context) which would prove your conjecture that they were all deists, Unitarians, infidels, and non-Christians.

Thus, the challenge I lay before you, Kade, entails not only providing the words from the mouths and pens of these Founding Fathers which you've listed, but also *clearly establishing the teachings and doctrines of Deism and Unitarianism* in order that they may be synthesized accurately with the writings of these Founders (taking into account through comparative analysis lexicographic and linguistic changes of the English language that have occurred from the time of the Founders unto now in contemporary language, particularly in their use of the word "God" in relation to how we use it in 21st Century speech) to logically conclude from the evidence that they are truly deistic, Unitarian, infidel, etc. This is what I expect from you in your analysis of the theological background and beliefs of those Founding Fathers, since you've made the claim. And please, don't try to shift the burden of proof on me to prove the contrary of what you've stated, for this is not the issue I'm dealing with in this post reply. Thank you.

----------


## IRO-bot

> "I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God."


Uhm,  how does this not prove he was a Deist?

----------


## Macon, GA

> Even Thomas Paine's last words were:
> 
> "I die in perfect composure and resignation to the will of my Creator, God."


Deists typically believe that God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe.   Therefore, I deduced that a true deist would not think the Creator God has a presupposed "will" for His people.

----------


## allyinoh

> Sorry...I couldn't help it when the "no evolution in schools" comes along I cannot keep my mouth shut.  I didn't mean to hijack your thread.  Oh buy the way you should check out a book A Peoples History of the United States, it is an eye opener....and it isn't really a debate as no one takes that creationist stuff seriously, how could they?


I find it funny that most people are respectful towards other people's religions, but the people that I find are the most disrespectful are the people like you.

If you don't like Christians, fine, but do you have to continuously take shots at them in all your posts?

I am a Christian, and very proud of that, but I don't push my beliefs on others and I really could care less what you believe in.

I guess that's just the difference between people who are respectful and those who aren't.

----------


## mtmedlin

> I find it funny that most people are respectful towards other people's religions, but the people that I find are the most disrespectful are the people like you.
> 
> If you don't like Christians, fine, but do you have to continuously take shots at them in all your posts?
> 
> I am a Christian, and very proud of that, but I don't push my beliefs on others and I really could care less what you believe in.
> 
> I guess that's just the difference between people who are respectful and those who aren't.


I would disagree, I support my atheist friends and they get crapped on by christians all the time. Until you open your eyes an see what an atheist goes through then you can never fully understand the bigotry. Christians are by far some of the most judgmental, over hysterical individuals anytime someone questions their faith or worse if you bring up evolution.
Evolutionists can no more prove what has taken millions of years to happen any more then christians can explain a supposed all knowing deity that has always existed, who made up rules that we are to live by and fully new we would never follow. So he has his creations kill off a son in order so that an all powerful god can forgive his creations of sins that he new they were going to commit BEFORE he ever created them.
Now honestly, tell me is that anymore of a provable argument then evolution.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

> I find it funny that most people are respectful towards other people's religions, but the people that I find are the most disrespectful are the people like you.
> 
> If you don't like Christians, fine, but do you have to continuously take shots at them in all your posts?
> 
> I am a Christian, and very proud of that, but I don't push my beliefs on others and I really could care less what you believe in.
> 
> I guess that's just the difference between people who are respectful and those who aren't.


 I do not mean to offend anyone at all and I am truly sorry if you take offense to what I have written.  I have nothing against anyone for being a christian; they tried to raise me as one in a half jewish half protestant household.  My real problem is the religion itself, or moreover the various religions that fall privy to the name.  They allow for the corruption of society and history is full of examples.  I realize these views are not popular but am I to just shut up and stand in the corner as year after year the evidence builds?  I don't think my posts are that offensive and I would never disrespect you directly as a person for your beliefs.  But the FACTS remain that creationist ideas are not considered intellectually sound by anyone other than religious people who Want to believe and cannot stand to hear anything which might force them to take stock of the existing contradictions.  I hope I did not offend the other posters as I was under the impression it was a healthy debate we were engaging in; just not in the right place. This was not the thread to do it in as it was way off topic.  I do not take shots at Christians but rather monotheistic religion as a whole.  

I am not an atheist but I do agree they get a great deal of grief for their beliefs, mostly from Christians. Many of my friends and family are either Christians or Jews.  Ron Paul is a Christian.  I do not discount these peoples intellect for their beliefs nor do I not have respect for them as fellow human beings and fellow Americans.  I am sorry allyinoh if I offended you in any way...I will try to restrain myself from speaking my mind here.

----------


## Kade

> *George Washington*:  "O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day.  I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins... Let me live according to those holy rules with Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy holy Word."
> 
> *James Madison*:  "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."
> 
> "Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government."
> 
> "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of the government, far from it.  We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
> 
> *Ethan Allen*:  When Allen's troops surrounded Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain, Allen demanded the surrender of the fort.  The bewildered captain asked in whose authority was Allen making such a demand.  Allen's reply:
> ...


Wow Macon. Way to spend time on Christian sites for the LOSS.

Three of the quotes are horribly misquoted and false... I'll leave it to you and hopefully some decent research to figure that out for yourself...

Seriously, what a shame. Bordering on pathetic actually... 

I should have suspected I would be thrown the book of famous pseudohistorian David Barton misquotes... epic.

----------


## Macon, GA

You are right about the Madison quote only....  I went back and double checked my book.

Madison did NOT say:

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

That quote was listed under Madison because he attended Princeton under the direction of Rev. John Witherspoon.  The *college* had declared:

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

The rest are correct.

----------


## Deborah K

> Wow Macon. Way to spend time on Christian sites for the LOSS.
> 
> Three of the quotes are horribly misquoted and false... I'll leave it to you and hopefully some decent research to figure that out for yourself...
> 
> Seriously, what a shame. Bordering on pathetic actually... 
> 
> I should have suspected I would be thrown the book of famous pseudohistorian David Barton misquotes... epic.


Well, Kade.  Don't leave us in the dark.......enlighten us!  Proooove that Barton is a pseudohistorian!  Proooove that the quotes are "horribly misquoted and false".

----------


## RSLudlum

> *George Washington*:  "O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving Father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day.  I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins... Let me live according to those holy rules with Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy holy Word."
> 
> *James Madison*:  "Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."
> 
> "Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government."
> 
> "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of the government, far from it.  We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
> 
> *Ethan Allen*:  When Allen's troops surrounded Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain, Allen demanded the surrender of the fort.  The bewildered captain asked in whose authority was Allen making such a demand.  Allen's reply:
> ...



quite odd.  I found some differing SOURCED quotes.  The question is which set are true representation of what each believed?

*George Washington:*  To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, 

 (every man) "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."


*John Adams* wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: 
"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!" 



*James Madison* from his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments  (1785): 

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." 

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." 



*Benjamin Franklin* professed in his Autobiography:

"Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."



*Thomas Paine* from his The Age of Reason:

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

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

----------


## Deborah K

> I would disagree, I support my atheist friends and they get crapped on by christians all the time. Until you open your eyes an see what an atheist goes through then you can never fully understand the bigotry. Christians are by far some of the most judgmental, over hysterical individuals anytime someone questions their faith or worse if you bring up evolution.
> Evolutionists can no more prove what has taken millions of years to happen any more then christians can explain a supposed all knowing deity that has always existed, who made up rules that we are to live by and fully new we would never follow. So he has his creations kill off a son in order so that an all powerful god can forgive his creations of sins that he new they were going to commit BEFORE he ever created them.
> Now honestly, tell me is that anymore of a provable argument then evolution.


Ever notice how, in the bible it states that God created Adam from the earth, and science states that man evolved from the earth?  Could it be that God created evolution?

Just a thought....sorry for diverging yet again...

----------


## Deborah K

Definitions of Deist on the Web:

One who admits the possibility of the existence of a God or gods, but claims to know nothing of either, and denies revelation. ...
www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-glos.htm

A person whose worldview embraces Deism [noun] [OW] a philosophy of natural religion, emphasizing morality, and, usually, denying interference by a Creator with the laws of the universe. ...
members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm

One who subscribes to or professes the belief in the existence of a personal God, based solely on the testimony of reason and rejecting any supernatural revelation; also believing that God created the world and set it into motion, subject to natural laws, but takes no interest in it
www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm

a person who believes that God created the universe and then abandoned it 
of or relating to deism 
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in England, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist

----------


## sophocles07

> Ever notice how, in the bible it states that God created Adam from the earth, and science states that man evolved from the earth? Could it be that God created evolution?
> 
> Just a thought....sorry for diverging yet again...


Another thought: why is literalism necessary for some Christians?

EVER HEARD OF *METAPHOR*, folks?

----------


## RSLudlum

That's what i've been trying to figure out...It seems to me many of the founders were deists that had respect for Christian ideals/teachings but did not approve of the Christian practices that had been implemented in the past in the name of God and the Christian religion. 

Is this a correct interpretation?  Please enlighten me.

----------


## billyjoeallen

> That's what i've been trying to figure out...It seems to me many of the founders were deists that had respect for Christian ideals/teachings but did not approve of the Christian practices that had been implemented in the past in the name of God and the Christian religion. 
> 
> Is this a correct interpretation?  Please enlighten me.


Most Deist reject the very idea of a "correct interpretation."  Deism has no priesthood and no catechism.  Your interpretation is as valid as anyone else's.

Speaking only for myself, I largely agree with your view.

----------


## RSLudlum

> Most Deist reject the very idea of a "correct interpretation."  Deism has no priesthood and no catechism.  Your interpretation is as valid as anyone else's.
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I largely agree with your view.




So this rejection of a 'correct interpretation' also applies to the Constitution?  Seems to go against a strict interpretation of the Constituion when put in the these terms.

----------


## rmholla

I'm not sure how anyone reads the Bible and actually believes it.  Though I think that is the issue, most Christians have never read the Bible.  How do they even get past Genesis without being completely miffed at how badly their churches have lied to them?

Genesis chapter 2 contradicts chapter 1.  If you still think Noah took 2 of each animal on the ark, go read Genesis chapter 7 (verses 2 & 3 at least) and then read Genesis 8:20.  If the first thing Noah does when he hits land is kill one of each of the clean animals and one of each bird, then how did they reproduce if he only took 2 of each?  

If the founding fathers were the die hard Christians some claim they were, our laws would be much different.   The founding fathers didn't simply overlook God in the Constitution, they intentionally left Him out.

-

----------


## Kade

> quite odd.  I found some differing SOURCED quotes.  The question is which set are true representation of what each believed?
> 
> *George Washington:*  To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, 
> 
>  (every man) "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
> 
> 
> *John Adams* wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: 
> "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!" 
> ...


Epic QFT. Nice.

There is an attempt to paint the Founders as anything but what they were... men of enlightenment, wary of Religious Statehood and Divine Right of Kings and Monarchies, and believers that men could rule themselves, and that certain natural rights should always be protected.

----------


## mtmedlin

> Ever notice how, in the bible it states that God created Adam from the earth, and science states that man evolved from the earth?  Could it be that God created evolution?
> 
> Just a thought....sorry for diverging yet again...


A very valid point. It very well could be that in the Bible it states, in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. Could this also have been a Nebular cloud that began to swirl and form our galaxy. Science and the Bible can go hand in hand. Evolution could very well have been an integrated concept. ever notice how the bible doesnt even mention the dinosaurs. Does that mean that it didnt happen either?

----------


## Kade

> A very valid point. It very well could be that in the Bible it states, in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. Could this also have been a Nebular cloud that began to swirl and form our galaxy. Science and the Bible can go hand in hand. Evolution could very well have been an integrated concept. ever notice how the bible doesnt even mention the dinosaurs. Does that mean that it didnt happen either?


 11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12

Plants evolved from aquatic spore reproducing marine organisms. The earliest angiosperm is about 125 million years ago... in reality, flowering plants didn't exist until then. This is a major contradiction.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

In evolution, because the concept of a male sex was most likely a result of a parasitic relationship of early multicellular organisms, there is a strong indication that technically, "Females" were first... the "Y" chromosome basically proves this without a doubt... 

I could really go on for hours... let me know if you want some more.

----------


## Macon, GA

> ever notice how the bible doesnt even mention the dinosaurs.


Actually, the reason you don't find the word "Dinosaur" in the Bible is because the KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew into English in 1611.  The word "Dinosaur" was not coined until 1841.

You do see the Bible making mention of "dragons."

Isaiah 34:13
Malachi 1:3
Jeremiah 14:6

Job mentions "Behemoth" which sounds  a lot like a dinosaur to me:

"Behold now Behemoth (whom I made with thee) which eateth grass as an ox.  Behold now his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.  When he taketh pleasure, *his tail is like a cedar*:  the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.... He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him, will make his sword to approach unto him.

"Leviathan" is also mentioned.

"The majesty of his scales is like strong shields, and are sure sealed.  One is joined to another: they stick together, and they cannot be sundered.  His sneezings make the light to shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.  Out of his mouth go lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.  *Out of his nostrils cometh out smoke, as out of a boiling pot or caldron.  His breath maketh the coals burn:  for a flame goeth out of his mouth...."*

----------


## Kade

> Actually, the reason you don't find the word "Dinosaur" in the Bible is because the KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew into English in 1611.  The word "Dinosaur" was not coined until 1841.
> 
> You do see the Bible making mention of "dragons."
> 
> Isaiah 34:13
> Malachi 1:3
> Jeremiah 14:6
> 
> Job mentions "Behemoth" which sounds  a lot like a dinosaur to me:
> ...


I don't believe in Dragons.

----------


## Cinnaboo

Some atheists want to believe in the immortal soul, but not me.  I'd truthfully prefer an ending, to go up in flames with my earthly and only form.

However, this dragon lore has stirred something...

What is this glowing sensation!?  This tranquil tingling!  Is it.. Hope?  No... it's much more than that.

Is this His infinite love?  O Father I shalt not dishonor you henceforth.  O Might there be room in your boundless affection for this petulant child, for finally he has tasted the salty goodness of your enveloping heart.

Dragons   are   *REALLL!!!*

----------


## Kade

> Some atheists want to believe in the immortal soul, but not me.  I'd truthfully prefer an ending, to go up in flames with my earthly and only form.
> 
> However, this dragon lore has stirred something...
> 
> What is this glowing sensation!?  This tranquil tingling!  Is it.. Hope?  No... it's much more than that.
> 
> Is this His infinite love?  O Father I shalt not dishonor you henceforth.  O Might there be room in your boundless affection for this petulant child, for finally he has tasted the salty goodness of your enveloping heart.
> 
> Dragons   are   *REALLL!!!*


I am trumped. Praise be to the dragons.


BTW, excellent Macon quote... I'm starting a collection myself.

----------


## ryanmkeisling

> Actually, the reason you don't find the word "Dinosaur" in the Bible is because the KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew into English in 1611.  The word "Dinosaur" was not coined until 1841.
> 
> You do see the Bible making mention of "dragons."
> 
> Isaiah 34:13
> Malachi 1:3
> Jeremiah 14:6
> 
> Job mentions "Behemoth" which sounds  a lot like a dinosaur to me:
> ...


Not to contribute to this thread being off topic again but I am of the understanding that the Bible puts the creation of the earth around 5,000 years ago?  Am I wrong about this? Yet dinosaurs are known to have been around millions of years ago?  I read the bible when I was young and forced to but quickly did my best to forget about the whole thing as it is a confusing, contradictory document.  Anyone care to enlighten me about this?

----------


## sophocles07

> Not to contribute to this thread being off topic again but I am of the understanding that the Bible puts the creation of the earth around 5,000 years ago? Am I wrong about this? Yet dinosaurs are known to have been around millions of years ago? I read the bible when I was young and forced to but quickly did my best to forget about the whole thing as it is a confusing, contradictory document. Anyone care to enlighten me about this?


There's nothing really to be enlightened about, you're already right.  Macon, GA just likes to go to absurdly ridiculous lengths to justify the literal historical truth of an obviously defunct literary document.

----------


## Deborah K

> There's nothing really to be enlightened about, you're already right.  Macon, GA just likes to go to absurdly ridiculous lengths to justify the literal historical truth of an obviously defunct literary document.


I don't think the bible is meant to be taken literally.  Yes, fundamentalists take it literally but when you consider its many authors and the millennia that it encompasses, not mention who it was that assembled it and what their motivations were, it's arguable as to whether it should be taken literally.

I read the bible as a work of literature, poetry, history, and life lessons.  As a result, it has enriched my life.  It is intriguing to me to consider its languages and their translations as well as studying the peoples who authored the many books and letters that it entails.

What influence did the political and religious atmosphere have on those who assembled the bible?  Why have some of the books been removed while others were never even given consideration for inclusion?  Look at all the anthropology an archeology that has been inspired because of the Bible.

As an amateur historian, I think it is a mistake to dismiss the bible out of hand.

----------


## MalcolmGandi

> I could care less about any of this bone or that bone and yes science often is not perfect. The fact that we may have evolved from apes is debatable, however evolution is undeniable and it is evident in everything we are and we do.  It doesn't need to be recreated in a lab; biological evolution is the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. Evolution occurs when heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
> 
> People used to think the earth was flat; we now know for a fact that it is round.  People used to think the earth was created 5,000 years ago by an omnipresent "being," that even though he created everything and is omnipotent he could not help but create evil and can do nothing about its existence, and for some reason they still do despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  When someone decides to vote for Ron Paul as opposed to Hilary Clinton they evolve.  When a people move and settle in higher elevations over generations their lungs get bigger to compensate; they evolve.  Now I will not say time and experience will not lead us to other discoveries but evolution is here to stay and its everywhere you look. 
> 
>  The FACT is that this powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth which is far more powerful and evidenced than anything else out there, ever.  Evolution influences every aspect of the form and behavior of organisms. Most prominent are the specific behavioral and physical adaptations that are the outcome of natural selection. These adaptations increase fitness by aiding activities such as finding food, avoiding predators or attracting mates. Organisms can also respond to selection by co-operating with each other, usually by aiding their relatives or engaging in mutually-beneficial symbiosis.  Everything evolves, it is not a belief about the past by people who weren't there.  It is a scientifically demonstrable theory that happens all the time.


I was pretty sketchy about evolution until recently, I now believe it's pretty verifiable.  However, I don't think we evolved from monkeys.  I think it's more probable that we are extraterrestrials.  Think about it.  The universe is so big we can't even see most of it.  We don't know how many light-years across it is.  It's trillions of years old.  Are we the first civilization?  I doubt that very much.  www.redicecreations.com

----------


## MalcolmGandi

> I don't think the bible is meant to be taken literally.  Yes, fundamentalists take it literally but when you consider its many authors and the millennia that it encompasses, not mention who it was that assembled it and what their motivations were, it's arguable as to whether it should be taken literally.
> 
> I read the bible as a work of literature, poetry, history, and life lessons.  As a result, it has enriched my life.  It is intriguing to me to consider its languages and their translations as well as studying the peoples who authored the many books and letters that it entails.
> 
> What influence did the political and religious atmosphere have on those who assembled the bible?  Why have some of the books been removed while others were never even given consideration for inclusion?  Look at all the anthropology an archeology that has been inspired because of the Bible.
> 
> As an amateur historian, I think it is a mistake to dismiss the bible out of hand.


The bible, in my opinion, is simply a means of control and nothing more.  Religion, even more so than goverment, is a way of getting people to let you control them.

----------


## sophocles07

> I read the bible as a work of literature, poetry, history, and life lessons. As a result, it has enriched my life. It is intriguing to me to consider its languages and their translations as well as studying the peoples who authored the many books and letters that it entails.


I agree completely.

Christians need to get caught up with current Biblical literary theory.  Harold Bloom, considered by most academics and readers in general as the top literary critic working contemporaneously, puts forward an analysis of Jesus and Yahweh in several of his books (in particular, the Names Divine).  Yahweh is one of the most schizophrenic, but interesting literary characters to have ever been invented; Jesus Bloom finds very Whitmanian, at least in Mark's version, where Jesus is always 'one step ahead' of his followers.  I find these kinds of ideas and discussions much more culturally enriching than attempting to argue that the Biblical talk of "dragons" really means "dinosaurs" (as I think Macon, GA did in this thread) or attempting to prove that every word is the literal, "rational," absolute, pure, ETC word of god (as M, GA and Theocrat do) WHATEVER kind of garbage literalists waste their time with.  Let's GROW UP, children; national gods are so   


900 BC.

----------

