Why would God send someone to hell over suicide?
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
When I state that we're a Christian nation it is in reference to the values on which it was founded and that the vast majority of Americans believe in Christ. It in no way is meant to infer we don't have seperation between church and state. We do.
However, our founders were Christians, our leaders have traditionally looked to the Christian God for guidance (most of them), as do the vast majority of our citizens.
BS, bs, BEE ESS. It's been proven to you time and again that is not correct. Quakers sure as hell aren't "Christians", yet they made up a goodly part of the population in the New England area at the time of this country's founding. Evangelicals do more to rewrite history than any group out there and vehemently oppose the values of others, such as the Jews, Catholics, etc.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
No, it's been demonstrated to you that it is indeed correct. Our founders words demonstrate this. The vast majority of people in this country, whether Christian of whatever denominaton, Catholic, etc, do believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died so that we may be redeemed.
This does not mean an atheist, Jew, Hindu, Muslum or witch doctor should have any less right to practice what they wish. It simply means that Christianity is woven throughout our history from it's founders to it's citizens. Based on your opening comments you may not enjoy this, but it doesn't make it any less true.
^^ What? Of course Quakers are Christians. Where would you get the idea that they are not?
And while TheLonelySquire and I may not agree on all aspects of Christianity - I am fairly sure he's more conservative than I am - he is absolutely right that whether one likes it or not, Christianity has been woven into U.S. history right from the very beginning. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the way it was.
And while TheLonelySquire and I may not agree on all aspects of Christianity - I am fairly sure he's more conservative than I am - he is absolutely right that whether one likes it or not, Christianity has been woven into U.S. history right from the very beginning. Right, wrong or indifferent, that's the way it was.
Deist.
–noun a person who believes in deism.
de·ism(dē'ĭz'əm, dā'-)
n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
Famous Deists
- Ethan Allen - American revolutionary and guerrilla leader
- Aristotle - ancient Greek philosopher; founder of Aristotelianism
- George Berkeley - Anglican bishop; philosopher
- Cicero - Platonist; orator
- Charles Darwin - nominal Anglican; active Unitarian
- Paul Davies - Australian philosopher, physicist
- Albert Einstein - Jewish, with Spinozan concept of God
- Antony Flew - raised Methodist; was a famous atheist who switched to Deism
- Benjamin Franklin - a Founding Father of United States; inventor; diplomat
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - German philosopher and writer
- Stephen Hawking - physicist
- William Hogarth - influntial British artist and engraver
- David Hume - Presbyterian (Church of Scotland); philosopher
- Thomas Jefferson - Episcopalian
- Immanuel Kant - Lutheran; Pietist; philosopher
- Gottfried Leibniz - Lutheran; German philosopher and mathematician
- Gotthold Ephraim Lessing - philosopher, writer, art critic
- Abraham Lincoln - raised Baptist; later a Christian with distinctive beliefs and no specific denominational affiliation
- John Locke - raised as a Puritan (Anglican); later general liberal Protestant Christian
- James Madison - 4th U.S. President; Episcopalian
- Gouverneur Morris - Episcopalian; led committee that produced U.S. Constitution
- Voltaire - Jansenist writer, philosopher
- George Washington - Episcopalian; 1st U.S. president
- Thomas Paine - Quaker; American revolutionary and writer
- Elihu Palmer - former Baptist minister who tried to organize Deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York"
- Mark Twain - Presbyterian author, humorist
- Plato - ancient Greek philosopher; Platonist
- Alexander Pope - Catholic; poet and satirist
- Maximilien Robespierre - leader of French Revolution
- Baruch Spinoza - Jewish philosopher
- Alfred Lord Tennyson - Anglican writer
- Matthew Tindal - English deist philosopher; raised Anglican
- John Toland - philosopher of deism, "freethinker"; wrote Christianity not Mysterious; distinguished himself from both atheists and orthodox theologians
- Keith R. Wright - founder and first president of the United Deist Church
Last edited:
I've been told many times, including by people who ought to know, that many of the founding fathers were deists, but there are a couple of problems with that:
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?
Edit: I found a Thomas Jefferson speech - his first innaugural speech (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html)- in which he specifically references "an overruling Providence" that deserves to be "adored" and that "delights in the happiness of man." That doesn't sound the least bit deistic to me.
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.
So until I see more data, the deist argument just doesn't seem to hold any water. It seems to me that those who seek deism find it, but those who don't have a harder time.
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?
Edit: I found a Thomas Jefferson speech - his first innaugural speech (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html)- in which he specifically references "an overruling Providence" that deserves to be "adored" and that "delights in the happiness of man." That doesn't sound the least bit deistic to me.
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.
So until I see more data, the deist argument just doesn't seem to hold any water. It seems to me that those who seek deism find it, but those who don't have a harder time.
Last edited:
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
You answered your own question, Justkate. And don't be so sure I'm more conservative than you are. I'm pretty down the middle overall and liberal on some issues.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
That's called using your noggin and not swallowing the kool-aid...from either side.
I see George Washington is listed as a deist. Well, huh. Because here's a sentence from his first innaugural speech (which you can see it its entirety here: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html):
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge."
"Fervent supplications" to an "Almighty Being" who "rules over the universe," and in addition asking for "His" benediction and consecration? How - how, I ask you - can that be "deist"?
Edit: I wonder if the founding fathers just weren't as hung up on religious labels as we are these days? Maybe Washington simply had no difficulty thinking of himself as a modified deist or a semi-deist or a Christian who believes some elements of deism?
Or perhaps he didn't label his religion at all?
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge."
"Fervent supplications" to an "Almighty Being" who "rules over the universe," and in addition asking for "His" benediction and consecration? How - how, I ask you - can that be "deist"?
Edit: I wonder if the founding fathers just weren't as hung up on religious labels as we are these days? Maybe Washington simply had no difficulty thinking of himself as a modified deist or a semi-deist or a Christian who believes some elements of deism?
Or perhaps he didn't label his religion at all?
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
^^^
and then there's this little gem....
“ 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 my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine.
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; from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752
William J. Johnson George Washington, the Christian (New York: The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919), pp. 24-35.]
Yeah, seems like he wasn't a Christian to me...lol
and then there's this little gem....
“ 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 my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine.
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; from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752
William J. Johnson George Washington, the Christian (New York: The Abingdon Press, New York & Cincinnati, 1919), pp. 24-35.]
Yeah, seems like he wasn't a Christian to me...lol
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
Wow. I'd call that a supplication to a supreme deity, TheLonelySquire, but maybe that's just me. 
There are a lot of problems with that list John Picard/Ebeneezer posted, now that I look at it more closely. Whoever created that list seems to be under the impression that not being affiliated with a specific denomination (e.g., Abraham Lincoln) makes you a deist, or being "liberal" makes you a deist (e.g., John Locke). And that doesn't fit in with the definition, at least not the generally accepted one.
There are a lot of problems with that list John Picard/Ebeneezer posted, now that I look at it more closely. Whoever created that list seems to be under the impression that not being affiliated with a specific denomination (e.g., Abraham Lincoln) makes you a deist, or being "liberal" makes you a deist (e.g., John Locke). And that doesn't fit in with the definition, at least not the generally accepted one.
I agree that they wanted separation of church and state and to create a secular government - that is, a government that isn't dependent on any one religion. And actually, I agree with that goal. But saying they created a secular govenment isn't at all the same thing as saying that they themselves weren't molded and influenced by their religious beliefs, because clearly they were. Everybody who has religious or ethical or philosophical beliefs had better be influenced by them or what's the point in having them?
As for your latter point: I see. Washington said those things because he was a coward? Not because he believed them? Jefferson didn't really believe that our inalienable rights came from a creator? Yeah, right.
As I said before, it's possible to look at anything and see what you want to see.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
Do you believe everything in the universe has a scientific answer?
Any chance some of that can be attributed to "saying what people want to hear"? If you're presiding over a nation that is predominantly one religion, you tend to ham it up a little for that one, don't you?
The President (all of them, not just current one) pretty much always goes to church on Sundays, right? Because, for the most part, it's expected of him. If it was Barry from Chicago instead of President Obama, he'd probably not be there as often. And yes, that counts for earlier in the career too, because he still had public offices, and was aspiring to the current position.
Gotta consider the audience that the speaches were given to. Not gonna talk up Whitey at a Black Panther party, after all...
The President (all of them, not just current one) pretty much always goes to church on Sundays, right? Because, for the most part, it's expected of him. If it was Barry from Chicago instead of President Obama, he'd probably not be there as often. And yes, that counts for earlier in the career too, because he still had public offices, and was aspiring to the current position.
Gotta consider the audience that the speaches were given to. Not gonna talk up Whitey at a Black Panther party, after all...
I'd lean towards "yes" if forced at gunpoint. It's definite that we'll never KNOW all the answers, and some may indeed even be beyond our comprehension, but our limited views and comprehension shouldn't mean that there's a magical answer, instead of it just being beyond our understanding.
Looking at the scope and complexity of the universe, how likely do you think it is that there IS an answer to 'everything' that would fall within our understanding?
Just because something might be unknowable, doesn't mean it's magic. Simplifying something so complex into "god did it" seems arrogant, at best, and sorely lacking.
TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
I agree with this on all points.
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.
Scout101 said:Any chance some of that can be attributed to "saying what people want to hear"? If you're presiding over a nation that is predominantly one religion, you tend to ham it up a little for that one, don't you?
The President (all of them, not just current one) pretty much always goes to church on Sundays, right? Because, for the most part, it's expected of him. If it was Barry from Chicago instead of President Obama, he'd probably not be there as often. And yes, that counts for earlier in the career too, because he still had public offices, and was aspiring to the current position.
Gotta consider the audience that the speaches were given to. Not gonna talk up Whitey at a Black Panther party, after all...
Some? Maybe. But it's entirely possible that they believed it, you know. In the case of the founding fathers, 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 - or that we can read their minds.
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 extremely 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.
Similar threads
