Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Thesist or Deist, they specifically set out to make a secular government. That said, all references to god couldn't be completely eliminated from even the most secular documents at the tiume for the very same reasons I have a problem, utter indoctrination and fear. That said, if they knew then what we know now regarding science, evolution, and all of that, they might had the guts to actually shed the old traditions and not refer to any kind of god at all in those docments

Do you believe everything in the universe has a scientific answer?

Do I believe that everything in the universe has a scientific answer?

The question itself is a misnomer. I think it should be phrased as to whether or not everything has a rational explanation. By enlarge I would say yes. However, if I sit in a dark room, close my eyes, and come up with enough inspiration to sit down and write a page of my novel, that isn't rational. I still use it... but I also can't demonstrate why it is useful and would never expect others to understand it. So, no,, not everything is compeltely rational, but if it is out there, if people are trying malke policy, teach our children, or judge others or how they might interact with them, then yes, only things that are demonstrable should be considered.

JustKate I respect your question but I also find it naive. Religion is hard for people to simply let go of. I mentioned in another thread how there are true believers, I guess, but there are also people who, if you ask, they say they are true believers, and they go to church and do everything, but deep down, can't really believe. It's almost like they do it because it is expected of them. Considering that in today's era there are more reasons to turn to skepticism, you don't think the Founding Fathers didn't feel the same kind of intrinsic obligation to at least try to believe..because their religious views were the resuly of indoctrination? They were great at creating a government but they were still human.

 

[Amaris]

Some? Maybe. But it's at least as possible that they believed it, you know. These were men that thought hard about stuff, and frankly I think it's a bit presumptuous of us to think we are so much smarter and more sophisticated than they were.

It's not presumptuous for a future generation to say they are smarter and more sophisticated than the previous generations. Emotionally, sure, we're on the same level as we have been for a long time, but intellectually, technologically, we have far surpassed our ancestors, even the previous generation. We grow by leaps and bounds every generation. It will be said several generations from now, that their generation is smarter and sophisticated, and if we keep on this path, they will be right.

Look at it this way: You can't look into people's minds and hearts, right? So all you can go by is what they say, what they write, and how they act. In the case of Washington, I am fairly sure that he referenced God in personal letters, too (I don't have time to look it up, but I'm pretty sure), and this was in the days when every official didn't assume that everything he produced would be posted on the Internet. I think it's probable that Washington believed in a God that has at least some interest in the world. But as I said before, I've sometimes wondered if people in those days just weren't as addicted to religious labels as we are now, and if perhaps some of the confusion stems from that. That's just a guess on my part.

Washington believed in divine Providence, but did not apply it to specific Christian theology. As a Deist, he believed in a grand design, but nothing so doctrinally specific as any particular Christianity.

There are many more examples, but here's one:

Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."​

In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."

You can read more here: http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

Of course, all of this is just detail. The point of this whole particular issue is that our founding fathers wanted a secular nation and made it so, it is stated in our Constitution.

J.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I'm not trying to pick on FSM with this comment, and it may or may not be applicable to him/her, but some people don't like and don't want any spiritual guidance influencing our leaders. I guess if I were dead set against God I might feel similarly.

Please define "spiritual guidance" in this context.

Because there is a fine line between being guided by some spiritual responsibility, a true sense of self, and knowing that love and inspiration do matter, and being guided by dogma.. dogma that Ithink is outdated and ultimately immoral. So many people say they believe in the Bible, and in formal court sessions and the swearing in of presidents, we use the Bible, and people often causally say they believe in the Bible, and yet I see it as a morally reprehensible book that I wouldn't give to my children, one which was written to control the population through both hope and fear at a time when it was the best way to do it by "filling in and asserting" the answers with regards to the great unknown.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Some? Maybe. But it's at least as possible that they believed it, you know. These were men that thought hard about stuff, and frankly I think it's a bit presumptuous of us to think we are so much smarter and more sophisticated than they were.

It's not presumptuous for a future generation to say they are smarter and more sophisticated than the previous generations. Emotionally, sure, we're on the same level as we have been for a long time, but intellectually, technologically, we have far surpassed our ancestors, even the previous generation. We grow by leaps and bounds every generation. It will be said several generations from now, that their generation is smarter and sophisticated, and if we keep on this path, they will be right.

Look at it this way: You can't look into people's minds and hearts, right? So all you can go by is what they say, what they write, and how they act. In the case of Washington, I am fairly sure that he referenced God in personal letters, too (I don't have time to look it up, but I'm pretty sure), and this was in the days when every official didn't assume that everything he produced would be posted on the Internet. I think it's probable that Washington believed in a God that has at least some interest in the world. But as I said before, I've sometimes wondered if people in those days just weren't as addicted to religious labels as we are now, and if perhaps some of the confusion stems from that. That's just a guess on my part.

Washington believed in divine Providence, but did not apply it to specific Christian theology. As a Deist, he believed in a grand design, but nothing so doctrinally specific as any particular Christianity.

There are many more examples, but here's one:

Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."​

In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."

You can read more here: http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

Of course, all of this is just detail. The point of this whole particular issue is that our founding fathers wanted a secular nation and made it so, it is stated in our Constitution.

J.

I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

George Washington

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I'm not trying to pick on FSM with this comment, and it may or may not be applicable to him/her, but some people don't like and don't want any spiritual guidance influencing our leaders. I guess if I were dead set against God I might feel similarly.

Please define "spiritual guidance" in this context.

Because there is a fine line between being guided by some spiritual responsibility, a true sense of self, and knowing that love and inspiration do matter, and being guided by dogma.. dogma that Ithink is outdated and ultimately immoral. So many people say they believe in the Bible, and in formal court sessions and the swearing in of presidents, we use the Bible, and people often causally say they believe in the Bible, and yet I see it as a morally reprehensible book that I wouldn't give to my children, one which was written to control the population through both hope and fear at a time when it was the best way to do it by "filling in and asserting" the answers with regards to the great unknown.

As in a President using his personal faith in God to help him decide how to carry out his role as CIC.

 

[Amaris]

I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

George Washington

In the interests of accuracy, and since you have stated quotes that have been shown to be false before, would you be able to cite the source of that quote?

I cite this as a reason why:

"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more." -- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was published in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27

I also cite this as a reason why:

"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife, to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans

And this reason why:

"Unlike Thomas Jefferson -- and Thomas Paine, for that matter -- Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable. Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life."
-- Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963) pp. 74-75, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I'm not trying to pick on FSM with this comment, and it may or may not be applicable to him/her, but some people don't like and don't want any spiritual guidance influencing our leaders. I guess if I were dead set against God I might feel similarly.

Please define "spiritual guidance" in this context.

Because there is a fine line between being guided by some spiritual responsibility, a true sense of self, and knowing that love and inspiration do matter, and being guided by dogma.. dogma that Ithink is outdated and ultimately immoral. So many people say they believe in the Bible, and in formal court sessions and the swearing in of presidents, we use the Bible, and people often causally say they believe in the Bible, and yet I see it as a morally reprehensible book that I wouldn't give to my children, one which was written to control the population through both hope and fear at a time when it was the best way to do it by "filling in and asserting" the answers with regards to the great unknown.

As in a President using his personal faith in God to help him decide how to carry out his role as CIC.

yes, it is wrong. Indeed, if the idea was that we only have limited lifespans, and there was no promise of anything else, maybe our presidents wouldn't be so eager to send our troops there. It's morally reprehensible that a president would use faith in god to justify a political war (there are other better reasons to justify one). Let't's not forget the fact that it is also hypocrtitical for a presdent to so, unless it goes "thou shall not kill, but thou can send yound people to a foreign land to kill for you, and thus if they are killed it's justified."

 

[John Picard]

Please define "spiritual guidance" in this context.

Because there is a fine line between being guided by some spiritual responsibility, a true sense of self, and knowing that love and inspiration do matter, and being guided by dogma.. dogma that Ithink is outdated and ultimately immoral. So many people say they believe in the Bible, and in formal court sessions and the swearing in of presidents, we use the Bible, and people often causally say they believe in the Bible, and yet I see it as a morally reprehensible book that I wouldn't give to my children, one which was written to control the population through both hope and fear at a time when it was the best way to do it by "filling in and asserting" the answers with regards to the great unknown.

As in a President using his personal faith in God to help him decide how to carry out his role as CIC.

yes, it is wrong. Indeed, if the idea was that we only have limited lifespans, and there was no promise of anything else, maybe our presidents wouldn't be so eager to send our troops there. It's morally reprehensible that a president would use faith in god to justify a political war (there are other better reasons to justify one). Let's not forget the fact that it is also hypocritical for a president to so, unless it goes "thou shall not kill, but thou can send young people to a foreign land to kill for you, and thus if they are killed it's justified."

Actually, it's "Thou shalt not murder" which is different from killing. If you read the Bible (OT), God orders his followers to war many times, so that nullifies your argument that a true believer wouldn't follow such action.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

that's debatable. I've heard it as "though shalt not kill," but it still doesn't affect my point: I don't want my leaders to make faith-based decisions. Then they'll start using words like "rapture" "demons" "ressrection" in the smae sentences as "national debt" "oil" and "National security."

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

George Washington

In the interests of accuracy, and since you have stated quotes that have been shown to be false before, would you be able to cite the source of that quote?

I cite this as a reason why:

"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more." -- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was published in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27

I also cite this as a reason why:

"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife, to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans

And this reason why:

"Unlike Thomas Jefferson -- and Thomas Paine, for that matter -- Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable. Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life."
-- Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963) pp. 74-75, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner.

Post 512.

 

[John Picard]

But...but....but...Jefferson once carried a Bible; THEREFORE, HE MUST HAVE BEEN A CHRISTIAN!

 

[StarryEyed]

The Washington quote looks legit.

This site has a number of founder quotes including the Washington one. It also has many of the Jefferson and Madison quotes that make Christians squirm and none of the bogus quotes so it looks unbiased and legitimate.

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/index.html

 

[Amaris]

Post 512.

I say this because that is not an accurate quote. It is a message that has been modified. Here is the original statement:

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the state over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose examples in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.
I have the honor to be, with much esteem and respect, sir, your Excellency's most obedient and most humble servant. -- G Washington.
-- George Washington, letter sent to the governors in 1783, urging them to quell anarchy and riots by alleviating distress and discontent, quoted from Ford's Writings of Washington, vol. x, p. 265, also quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 19-20

The words in your quote were attributed to Washington, but were never spoken by him.

J.

 

[Kegg]

First, Quakers are Christian. I'm not sure why the hell anyone would think otherwise, but maybe it has something to do with the 'more-Christian-than-thou' spitting game that frequently erupts in religious discourse (the word 'Satanist' entered the English language in reference to Martin Luther, believe it or not).

Also, I'm surprised nobody mentioned Thomas Paine, a rather important thinker of the American Revolution who was also a bona fide atheist, not merely a deist. Anyone want to way a few words in on him? No? Interesting guy, but I guess now his spirit had nothing to do with the Revolution and his legacy can be safely dismissed, Trotsky-like.

And the important thing about the American Revolution religiously was not that it was Christian - it was after all fighting a Christian monarch - but that it was rejecting the state's authority over religion. America was a religiously diverse community, even if that group was predominantly different shades of Protestantism at the time, and the idea that no one shade of that Protestantism should lord it over the rest - further, to not only tolerate minority faiths but to have no national church - were the big deals of the day. There were earlier examples of this in Europe - Cromwell's England (to a point), Holland (to a Point), and so on - but never the disestablishment of the church. Dangerous territory, that, and it implicitly shifts the role of religion from the national to the personal - the state doesn't have a business in your faith and won't punish you for not signing up to the preferred dogma, that's your call.

1. If they were deists, how come they make reference to God and Heaven and Providence and so on in their speeches? Why would they make reference to a being they believe doesn't intervene? How could a distant creator endow anybody with inalienble rights?

He endowed and then let it run. He was the clockmaker who designed everything, after all, and that includes the rights of the people who exist in that world. Come back to me when you find a speech about what to do in case of Divine Intervention on the side of the British (Pray?).

2. Even if some were deists, they certainly all weren't. And in any case, the majority of the population weren't deists. They were regular church-going folks.

That isn't terribly contradictory. Jefferson was a churchgoing Episcopalian, his religious views were fairly private.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Post 512.

I say this because that is not an accurate quote. It is a message that has been modified. Here is the original statement:

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the state over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose examples in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.
I have the honor to be, with much esteem and respect, sir, your Excellency's most obedient and most humble servant. -- G Washington.
-- George Washington, letter sent to the governors in 1783, urging them to quell anarchy and riots by alleviating distress and discontent, quoted from Ford's Writings of Washington, vol. x, p. 265, also quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 19-20

The words in your quote were attributed to Washington, but were never spoken by him.

J.

I'm sure they're ALL made up.

 

[John Picard]

Post 512.

I say this because that is not an accurate quote. It is a message that has been modified. Here is the original statement:

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the state over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose examples in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.
I have the honor to be, with much esteem and respect, sir, your Excellency's most obedient and most humble servant. -- G Washington.
-- George Washington, letter sent to the governors in 1783, urging them to quell anarchy and riots by alleviating distress and discontent, quoted from Ford's Writings of Washington, vol. x, p. 265, also quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 19-20

The words in your quote were attributed to Washington, but were never spoken by him.

J.

I'm sure they're ALL made up.

Either way, you have zero credibility.

 

[Amaris]

I'm sure they're ALL made up.

The point is, even if only a few words are made up, it still brings into question the validity of the statement. Once more, this is moving away from the point that our Constitution was not founded on Christian principles, but was instead, intended to be a secular nation. We are a secular nation today, as it should be, which allows the greatest growth of freedom and liberty for those who are religious and those who are not.

J.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I say this because that is not an accurate quote. It is a message that has been modified. Here is the original statement:

The words in your quote were attributed to Washington, but were never spoken by him.

J.

I'm sure they're ALL made up.

Either way, you have zero credibility.

And either way JP, we are and always have been a Christian nation. Thank God.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I'm sure they're ALL made up.

The point is, even if only a few words are made up, it still brings into question the validity of the statement. Once more, this is moving away from the point that our Constitution was not founded on Christian principles, but was instead, intended to be a secular nation. We are a secular nation today, as it should be, which allows the greatest growth of freedom and liberty for those who are religious and those who are not.

J.

I don't think anyone would argue that the USA provides the greatest growth of freedom and liberty for the groups that you mentioned. That much is fair.

 

[Amaris]

I don't think anyone would argue that the USA provides the greatest growth of freedom and liberty for the groups that you mentioned. That much is fair.

The U.S. has a lot of opportunity provided by our desire to be free to choose our own destinies, to make our own decisions. This works well in principle, and fairly well in practice. However, we are not, and have never been, a Christian nation. There was an attempt in the 1950s under McCarthyism to make us a Christian nation, but aside from a few slogans and some paranoia, it never held.

J.