| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
" Tom P" |
| Date: |
09 Nov 2006 11:16:35 AM |
| Object: |
Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this
life."
"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties
consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our
fellow-creatures happy."
"I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise;
they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine." (Certain of our
atheist brethren hereabouts who post their admiration for Tom Paine could
learn from this . . . as could our Christian brethren)
"Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect,
to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable
man. The morality that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent
kind; and thought similar systems of morality had been preached by
Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before, by the
Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by
any."
"That such a person as Jesus existed, and that he was crucified, which was
the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within
the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality and the
equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of
the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of
the whole order of priesthood."
From Tom Paine, "The Age of Reason, Part One," 1794
Anyone can and should read the entire work, which is available full text at
http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/reason/index.htm as well as numerous printed
editions.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
12 Nov 2006 06:23:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:01:52 +0000, peter bayliss wrote:
But He also was raised from the dead,
Thomas Paine? Wow, the things you learn on Usenet...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
13 Nov 2006 10:05:10 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:TJKdnbispJ26j8rYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganews.com...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:01:52 +0000, peter bayliss wrote:
But He also was raised from the dead,
Thomas Paine? Wow, the things you learn on Usenet...
Funny, but I don't recall reading that in my American History book in grade
school ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
13 Nov 2006 06:00:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:05:10 -0500, Robibnikoff wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:TJKdnbispJ26j8rYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@giganews.com...
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:01:52 +0000, peter bayliss wrote:
But He also was raised from the dead,
Thomas Paine? Wow, the things you learn on Usenet...
Funny, but I don't recall reading that in my American History book in grade
school ;)
Well, he was painefully shy about it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
09 Nov 2006 12:18:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:01:52 +0000, peter bayliss wrote:
But He also was raised from the dead, a fact witnessed by many people,
So you *claim...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"...otherwise, we're looking at the potential
of this kind of world:.... a world in which
oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order
to extract blackmail from the West..." [George Bush]
Wait... oil reserves?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
09 Nov 2006 03:19:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:01:52 GMT, "peter bayliss"
<pbbg16545@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
But He also was raised from the dead, a fact witnessed by many people,
Names, please?
His actions were recorded
Cites?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
09 Nov 2006 05:40:16 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet peter bayliss
(pbbg16545@blueyonder.co.uk) made the light shine upon us with this:
But He also was raised from the dead, a fact witnessed by many
people,
The witnesses are just part of the story, Einstein.
His actions were recorded,
In the same book that invented him. Do the words "circular argument" mean
anything to you?
and when He left the earth, He gave a great gift,
the gift of the Spirit who would continually confirm the power and
love within the Saviour.
"Believe in me or else" is not love. It's mind control. If you wish to
live that way, please do so. Just keep it out of my face, off my money,
off the billboards I have to drive past, and out of my schools.
<remaining garbage snipped>
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
10 Nov 2006 09:08:53 AM |
|
|
peter bayliss <pbbg16545@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
But He also was raised from the dead, a fact witnessed by many people,
And I once saw Siegfried and Roy make a 400 lb. tiger disappear, a fact
witnessed by many people.
His actions were recorded,
No, actually, they weren't. The myth took several years to develop and
weren't written down until decades later.
If you doubt the resurrection, look at the power given to the disciples,
and the early church.
What "powers" are you talking about? Could his disciples make a tiger
disappear?
The only lasting "power" the church has is the ability to separate the
gullible from their money.
And where were those that would challenge this event? Yes the were a few,
as there are now. Yet no simple `proof` to deny this event.
Hoo boy, another "prove it didn't happen" idiot.
And there are many now, including me, who will confirm the reality of the
presence of Jesus in lives of folk today.
Yes, yes. Myths exert a powerful influence over many people. Nobody
denies that.
Its hard to believe? Its even harder to deny.
Not really. All that's required is an open mind and basic knowledge of
logic and science.
Jesus already is here in folks lives and experience, His final return is
to be looked forward to whilst we have the joy of radiating the joy of
knowing Jesus.
Ah, now we're getting to it. An "end of time" nutter...
.
|
|
|
| User: "galia" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
10 Nov 2006 10:00:29 AM |
|
|
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hokqvh.1ilu534qkz46tN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
peter bayliss <pbbg16545@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
But He also was raised from the dead, a fact witnessed by many people,
And I once saw Siegfried and Roy make a 400 lb. tiger disappear, a fact
witnessed by many people.
His actions were recorded,
No, actually, they weren't. The myth took several years to develop and
weren't written down until decades later.
If you doubt the resurrection, look at the power given to the disciples,
and the early church.
What "powers" are you talking about? Could his disciples make a tiger
disappear?
The only lasting "power" the church has is the ability to separate the
gullible from their money.
And where were those that would challenge this event? Yes the were a few,
as there are now. Yet no simple `proof` to deny this event.
Hoo boy, another "prove it didn't happen" idiot.
And there are many now, including me, who will confirm the reality of
the
presence of Jesus in lives of folk today.
Yes, yes. Myths exert a powerful influence over many people. Nobody
denies that.
Its hard to believe? Its even harder to deny.
Not really. All that's required is an open mind and basic knowledge of
logic and science.
Wrong; your logic sucks!
Science is nothing more BUT a "study of the physical world" finding
explanations
for the "unkown". ;-) As long as there are unexplained matters, and there
always
will be, science is in business. Nothing wrong with that; I support science.
But this
doesn't mean that I would solely rely on its findings, because I would close
myself off
to the spiritual world around us, which can't be explained with scientific
data.
That's where faith comes in!
Jesus already is here in folks lives and experience, His final return is
to be looked forward to whilst we have the joy of radiating the joy of
knowing Jesus.
Ah, now we're getting to it. An "end of time" nutter...
I feel tempted to call you a spiritual moron!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
11 Nov 2006 12:43:00 PM |
|
|
"galia" <galia@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:4554953d$0$12142$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1hokqvh.1ilu534qkz46tN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
peter bayliss <pbbg16545@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
But He also was raised from the dead, a fact witnessed by many people,
And I once saw Siegfried and Roy make a 400 lb. tiger disappear, a fact
witnessed by many people.
His actions were recorded,
No, actually, they weren't. The myth took several years to develop and
weren't written down until decades later.
If you doubt the resurrection, look at the power given to the disciples,
and the early church.
What "powers" are you talking about? Could his disciples make a tiger
disappear?
The only lasting "power" the church has is the ability to separate the
gullible from their money.
And where were those that would challenge this event? Yes the were a
few,
as there are now. Yet no simple `proof` to deny this event.
Hoo boy, another "prove it didn't happen" idiot.
And there are many now, including me, who will confirm the reality of
the
presence of Jesus in lives of folk today.
Yes, yes. Myths exert a powerful influence over many people. Nobody
denies that.
Its hard to believe? Its even harder to deny.
Not really. All that's required is an open mind and basic knowledge of
logic and science.
Wrong; your logic sucks!
Science is nothing more BUT a "study of the physical world" finding
explanations
for the "unkown". ;-) As long as there are unexplained matters, and
there always
will be, science is in business. Nothing wrong with that; I support
science. But this
doesn't mean that I would solely rely on its findings, because I would
close myself off
to the spiritual world around us, which can't be explained with scientific
data.
That's where faith comes in!
So you hold the belief that there is something you call "the spiritual world
around us" (with no evidence whatsoever) and declare that it cannot be
studied by science. Nice logic. And then you say that that's where faith
comes in. So you admit that this "spiritual world" is simply a matter of
faith. It is indeed. It's just in your head. Science cannot study this
world in your head but actually it can study why you suffer the delusion
that there is such a world.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
16 Nov 2006 10:10:34 PM |
|
|
peter bayliss wrote:
But He also was raised from the dead, a fact witnessed by many people,
His actions were recorded, and when He left the earth, He gave a great
gift,
the gift of the Spirit who would continually confirm the power and love
within
the Saviour.
Tom Paine did all that?
Wow!
Cheers, Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tak a#344" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
09 Nov 2006 12:22:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:16:35 -0600, " Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this
life."
"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties
consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our
fellow-creatures happy."
some Cites would be nice. You know, like this,
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or
Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
-- Thomas Paine, (1737-1809), The Age of Reason, pt. 1, "The Author's
Profession of Faith" (1794), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary of
Quotations
The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the
study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it
proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing
and admits of no conclusion.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793-5), quoted from Jonathon
Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations
No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations)
Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the
worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live
in, but this attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us
into eternity.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations)
What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty
committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the
belief of this debauchery is called faith.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)
The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and
brutalise mankind.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793-5), quoted from Jonathon
Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations
The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations)
The Bible is a book that has been read more, and examined less, than
any book that ever existed.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations)
Priests and conjurors are of the same trade.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793), quoted from Jonathon Green,
The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with
which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent
that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a
history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize
mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest
everything that is cruel.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the
greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their
origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations), also found inVictor J Stenger, Has Science Found
God? (2001)
Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word
of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the
Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
09 Nov 2006 04:08:59 PM |
|
|
"Tak a#344" <notan@emailadressyouspambastards.com> wrote in message
news:o3s6l2lgtq961c77628mro2al7cfvqt87f@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:16:35 -0600, " Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com>
wrote:
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this
life."
"I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties
consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our
fellow-creatures happy."
some Cites would be nice. You know, like this,
I did cite it, at least as completely as you did yours. But that was in the
part of the post you deleted. I shall restore my citation which you
snipped: "From Tom Paine, 'The Age of Reason, Part One,' 1794"
"Anyone can and should read the entire work, which is available full text at
http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/reason/index.htm as well as numerous printed
editions."
Or, if you prefer, Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason, Part One" pages
399-452, in 'The Thomas Paine Reader," ed. by Michael Root and Isaac
Cramnick, New York: Penguin Classics, 1987. These specific quotations
appear on pages 400, 404, and 405.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or
Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
-- Thomas Paine, (1737-1809), The Age of Reason, pt. 1, "The Author's
Profession of Faith" (1794), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary of
Quotations
Who is the publisher, where was it published and when was it published?
Those are standard elements required of bibliographic citations. Go find
and 8th grade English teacher and they can help you out with that.
Have you ever read any of Paine's works all the way through?
The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the
study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it
proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing
and admits of no conclusion.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793-5), quoted from Jonathon
Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations
I guess you haven't really read Paine.
No falsehood is so fatal as that which is made an article of faith.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations)
Then how do you know the quotation is truly the words of Tom Paine? Are you
accepting on the faith that this "Joseph Lewis is truthful?
Of all the tyrannies that afflict mankind, tyranny in religion is the
worst. Every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live
in, but this attempts a stride beyond the grave and seeks to pursue us
into eternity.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations)
Same comment.
What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty
committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the
belief of this debauchery is called faith.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)
What page? Or even what section does that appear in?
Why is your citation sufficient but mine was not? Let's compare the two:
Yours: "Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)"
Mine: "From Tom Paine, '"The Age of Reason, Part One,' 1794."
The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and
brutalise mankind.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793-5), quoted from Jonathon
Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations
Another collection of quotations? Which edition? Which page? Where is the
rest of the publication data? Don't you know how to properly and fully cite
a work you are quoting?
The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations)
Another unsourced citation you accept on faith alone. I thought you atheist
fellows didn't rely on faith.
The Bible is a book that has been read more, and examined less, than
any book that ever existed.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations)
Yet another article of faith. You have established a trend. If you are
going to jump up on your hind legs and bark about citing one's sources, you
should do the same.
Priests and conjurors are of the same trade.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1793),
Are you sure about that date?
quoted from Jonathon Green,
The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations
Another quote from a collection of quotations. You have no idea what Tom
Paine really wrote, do you? Don't feel lonely. I have found through
experience that the same is true of the vast majority of atheists
hereabouts. Their total experience with Jefferson, Washington, Madison,
Adams, Paine and everyone else from history is a highly biased collection of
quotations at various atheist web sites.
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with
which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent
that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a
history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize
mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest
everything that is cruel.
-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)
What page of which edition?
The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the
greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their
origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or
source citations), also found inVictor J Stenger, Has Science Found
God? (2001)
Yet another alleged quote improperly cited.
Yet this is trash that the Church imposes upon the world as the Word
of God; this is the collection of lies and contradictions called the
Holy Bible! this is the rubbish called Revealed Religion!
-- Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom
from the Writings of Thomas Paine
Bet I can find and post more quotations from Tom Paine's corpus supporting
belief in God and the practice of religion than you can find that condemn
religion. Care to enter such a competition? You will lose. Tom Paine was
never an atheist.
How does anything you quoted above support atheism?
Why didn't you quote some of Tom Paine's thoughts concerning atheism?
Could it be that Paine, much like Jefferson and John Adams, held atheists
and atheism in contempt and rather loathed atheism?
What did Paine write about Marat and the other atheists who organized the
Terror?
You, like many of your atheist fellow travelers hereabouts, confuse attacks
on the abuses and forms of religion with attacks on God and religion itself.
In fact, many of the "Founding Fathers'" bitterest polemics are against the
abuses of the clergy and religion because they held God and their religion
so dear. Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, Paine all left extensive writings
concerning the abuses of religion. None was atheist. In fact, I doubt you
can find any of the "Founding Fathers" who declared himself an atheist. But
I will certainly read anything you produce.
Bearing that fact in mind, why are you atheists so eager to quote people who
thought atheism silly and contemptible, such as Jefferson, Adams, and Paine?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
09 Nov 2006 06:16:04 PM |
|
|
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4553a082$0$14816$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
<SNIP>
Bearing that fact in mind, why are you atheists so eager to quote people
who thought atheism silly and contemptible, such as Jefferson, Adams,
and Paine?
You are missing the point. The quotes are negating the claim often made the
the US was founded as a Christian nation etc. You are the one bringing up
atheism.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
10 Nov 2006 03:43:30 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns987786F498A59Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4553a082$0$14816$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
<SNIP>
Bearing that fact in mind, why are you atheists so eager to quote people
who thought atheism silly and contemptible, such as Jefferson, Adams,
and Paine?
You are missing the point. The quotes are negating the claim often made
the
the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.
Consider this sets of facts. The quotations you refer to as "negating the
claim often made the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.," are from
"The Age of Reason." That was a book not written until 1791 as a response to
Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France." That is, AFTER
the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been ratified, the second elected
Congress was in session and the Washington administration was halfway
through its first term. Are you beginning to see the absurdity of your
position?
How do you think a dozen carefully selected quotes by one man among the
writings of hundreds of men who expressed the opposite position negate the
idea that Christianity influenced the foundation of the United States of
America?
Why do you believe that the thoughts of one man who adored the Christian God
and revered Jesus Christ by his own profession of faith (yes, Tom Paine)
determine once and for all time the issue of Christian influences on the
foundation of the United States? Do you comprehend that your position is
utter nincompoopery?
What did the authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence,
Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and Bill of Rights and those who
argued for and against these, have to say about Christians and Christianity?
I presume you understand that Paine was not one of these men, and in fact
Paine was a very effective propagandist and little else. You do know that,
don't you?
Was Paine's a majority opinion or did Paine's opinion represent a lunatic
extreme written by someone who had no part in the deliberations concerning
the constitution? You have no idea, do you?
So, those quotes do not negate the claim that the United States was founded
on Christian principles. Unless you care to believe that a few quotations
from one man who had nothing at all to do with the constitution because he
had left the country, and wrote the book from which those quotations were
taken only after the republic had been founded, and had been functioning for
over two years, were the only influence on such a foundational document. Do
you believe that nincompoopery?
To emphasize, do you understand that Paine was one voice among many
thousands whose writings concerning the American Revolution and Early
Republic have survived? You should understand that fact.
You are the one bringing up
atheism.
Indeed I did ask whether there were any atheist influences or any atheists
involved in the foundation of the American Republic. And among those
thousands of British and American voices, no one has produced a single is no
atheist voice, or even an atheist concept. Those voices that even mention
atheists and atheism are contemptible of both.
Klazmon.
Care to reassess your opinion now?
Please, do check my facts and correct me if I am mistaken.
An aside or perhaps post script, and I know I have failed to resist
temptation. Mea culpa. Mea Maxima culpa. This particular pile of verbal
poop has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read on use net. I
mean, geez, we have this atheist claiming that a book not written until
after a government was formed somehow influenced the foundation of that
government. And other atheists have taken up the hue and cry! Wow!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
12 Nov 2006 04:01:19 PM |
|
|
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4554ec02$0$14817$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns987786F498A59Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4553a082$0$14816$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
<SNIP>
Bearing that fact in mind, why are you atheists so eager to quote
people who thought atheism silly and contemptible, such as Jefferson,
Adams, and Paine?
You are missing the point. The quotes are negating the claim often made
the
the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.
Consider this sets of facts. The quotations you refer to as "negating
the claim often made the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.," are
from "The Age of Reason." That was a book not written until 1791 as a
response to Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France."
That is, AFTER the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been ratified,
the second elected Congress was in session and the Washington
administration was halfway through its first term. Are you beginning to
see the absurdity of your position?
What position would that be?
How do you think a dozen carefully selected quotes by one man among the
writings of hundreds of men who expressed the opposite position negate
the idea that Christianity influenced the foundation of the United
States of America?
Why do you believe that the thoughts of one man who adored the Christian
God and revered Jesus Christ by his own profession of faith
And was severley critical of both christianity and the bible. Open your
eyes.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
16 Nov 2006 02:10:19 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns987A701EFBD90Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4554ec02$0$14817$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns987786F498A59Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4553a082$0$14816$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
<SNIP>
I can understand why you snipped that. The parts you snipped make you
appear stupid concerning the topic of this thread.
Bearing that fact in mind, why are you atheists so eager to quote
people who thought atheism silly and contemptible, such as Jefferson,
Adams, and Paine?
You are missing the point. The quotes are negating the claim often made
the
the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.
Consider this sets of facts. The quotations you refer to as "negating
the claim often made the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.," are
from "The Age of Reason." That was a book not written until 1791 as a
response to Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France."
That is, AFTER the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been ratified,
the second elected Congress was in session and the Washington
administration was halfway through its first term. Are you beginning to
see the absurdity of your position?
I put a deliberate error in the above paragraph in the sure and certain
anticipation that even though you quoted from "The Age of Reason" you have
never read it and know nothing about it. Can you figure out the blatant
falsehood that anyone familiar with either Tom Paine or "The Age of Reason"
can readily identify?
What position would that be?
Are you a nincompoop? Pay attention! Your position that a book written in
December of 1793 and not published until 1794 influenced the foundation of
the United States of America is obviously, patently, and blatantly false.
Considering the fact that the United States of America had already been
founded and the Washington administration was already in its second term by
1794, and the Third Congress was halfway through its session, Tom Paine's
little book "The Age of Reason" had nothing to do with the foundation of the
United States of America. The foundation of the American Republic was a
done deal by 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
How do you think a dozen carefully selected quotes by one man among the
writings of hundreds of men who expressed the opposite position negate
the idea that Christianity influenced the foundation of the United
States of America?
Why do you believe that the thoughts of one man who adored the Christian
God and revered Jesus Christ by his own profession of faith
And was severley critical of both christianity and the bible. Open your
eyes.
Klazmon.
Are you a jackass? A dunderhead?
Martin Luther and John Calvin were severely critical of Christianity and the
bible. Does that mean they were atheists?
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were severely critical of both the bible and
Christianity. Does that mean Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were atheists?
John D. Crossan and Bishop John Shelby Spong are both severely critical of
both Christianity and the bible. Does that mean either is an atheist?
Your logical process is inherently flawed, because your conclusion that
anyone who severely criticizes the bible and Christianity must be an atheist
is based on invalid premises. So that means in this case your conclusions
are nincompoopery. But most of us already knew that.
<SNIP>
I understand why you snipped that too. The part you deleted shows you for
the nincompoop you are. The deleted parts also are a strong case that you
have never read "The Age of Reason" because you were unable to place your
quotes in the sequence they occur in the book or even properly cite them.
So the inevitable conclusion is that you obtained all of your knowledge of
Tom Paine from an atheist web page containing highly selective quotes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
16 Nov 2006 04:08:46 PM |
|
|
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:455cbf05$0$26892$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns987A701EFBD90Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4554ec02$0$14817$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
message news:Xns987786F498A59Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4553a082$0$14816$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
<SNIP>
I can understand why you snipped that. The parts you snipped make you
appear stupid concerning the topic of this thread.
Bearing that fact in mind, why are you atheists so eager to quote
people who thought atheism silly and contemptible, such as
Jefferson, Adams, and Paine?
You are missing the point. The quotes are negating the claim often
made the
the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.
Consider this sets of facts. The quotations you refer to as "negating
the claim often made the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.,"
are from "The Age of Reason." That was a book not written until 1791
as a response to Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in
France." That is, AFTER the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been
ratified, the second elected Congress was in session and the
Washington administration was halfway through its first term. Are you
beginning to see the absurdity of your position?
I put a deliberate error in the above paragraph in the sure and certain
anticipation that even though you quoted from "The Age of Reason" you
have never read it and know nothing about it. Can you figure out the
blatant falsehood that anyone familiar with either Tom Paine or "The Age
of Reason" can readily identify?
What position would that be?
Are you a nincompoop? Pay attention! Your position that a book written
in December of 1793 and not published until 1794 influenced the
foundation of the United States of America is obviously, patently, and
blatantly false.
Even your religion frowns on lying I understand. Prove that I said anything
of the sort. Your lies are now a matter of public record.
Considering the fact that the United States of America
had already been founded and the Washington administration was already
in its second term by 1794, and the Third Congress was halfway through
its session, Tom Paine's little book "The Age of Reason" had nothing to
do with the foundation of the United States of America. The foundation
of the American Republic was a done deal by 1791 when the Bill of Rights
was ratified.
You are arguing against a straw man of your own devising. Stick with
honesty and people will give more credence to your words.
How do you think a dozen carefully selected quotes by one man among
the writings of hundreds of men who expressed the opposite position
negate the idea that Christianity influenced the foundation of the
United States of America?
Why do you believe that the thoughts of one man who adored the
Christian God and revered Jesus Christ by his own profession of faith
And was severley critical of both christianity and the bible. Open your
eyes.
Klazmon.
Are you a jackass? A dunderhead?
Martin Luther and John Calvin were severely critical of Christianity and
the bible. Does that mean they were atheists?
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were severely critical of both the bible
and Christianity. Does that mean Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were
atheists?
You are again deliberately misrepresenting what others have said. If you
can not demonstrate evidence showing that I claimed that these people were
atheists then publically admit you are a congential liar or retract and
apologise.
Klazmon.
<SNIP more outright lies>
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
17 Nov 2006 01:58:29 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns987E7162B5331Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:455cbf05$0$26892$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns987A701EFBD90Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4554ec02$0$14817$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in
message news:Xns987786F498A59Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4553a082$0$14816$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
<SNIP>
I can understand why you snipped that. The parts you snipped make you
appear stupid concerning the topic of this thread.
Bearing that fact in mind, why are you atheists so eager to quote
people who thought atheism silly and contemptible, such as
Jefferson, Adams, and Paine?
You are missing the point. The quotes are negating the claim often
made the
the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.
Consider this sets of facts. The quotations you refer to as "negating
the claim often made the US was founded as a Christian nation etc.,"
are from "The Age of Reason." That was a book not written until 1791
as a response to Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in
France." That is, AFTER the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been
ratified, the second elected Congress was in session and the
Washington administration was halfway through its first term. Are you
beginning to see the absurdity of your position?
I put a deliberate error in the above paragraph in the sure and certain
anticipation that even though you quoted from "The Age of Reason" you
have never read it and know nothing about it. Can you figure out the
blatant falsehood that anyone familiar with either Tom Paine or "The Age
of Reason" can readily identify?
Couldn't figure it out, eh? I thought so.
What position would that be?
Are you a nincompoop? Pay attention! Your position that a book written
in December of 1793 and not published until 1794 influenced the
foundation of the United States of America is obviously, patently, and
blatantly false.
Even your religion frowns on lying I understand.
You have no idea what religion I profess. If any. You are indulging
yourself in a common atheist error of logic. You presume that anyone who
points out the logical flaws, factual mistakes, and utter nincompoopery in
your arguments must be a member of the opposite end of the theist spectrum
from your atheist self. That is, only a fundamentalist Christian can
criticize the atheist position. I am not a fundamentalist Christian. Never
have been. I am not an atheist. Never have been. What I have done is
identified a few holes in your silly argument using the words of the men who
did found the United States of America. The only reason I can identify
certain holes in your argument is because the holes already exist.
Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Madison, Franklin, and many more of the "Founding
Fathers" did not profess the atheist sentiments the atheist web pages lead
their readers to believe with their collections of highly selective
quotations. The American Revolution and the subsequent foundation of the
American Republic are an extremely complex series of events. In fact,
Samuel Elliot Morrison, a rather distinguished professor of American history
at Harvard, opined that, "The roots of the American Revolution go far down
into the past. Geography and climate, institutional developments, religion
and race, and other factors beyond our ken, may have made the separation
inevitable." From Samuel E. Morrison, "Sources and Documents Illustrating
the American Revolution and the Formation of the Federal Constitution
1764-1788," 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1963, page xi. All
of you atheists might note that Professor Morrison considered religion as
important a factor as race, geography, climate, and institutional
developments. Read the book and you too can discover what Morrison meant by
"institutional developments."
Prove that I said anything
of the sort. Your lies are now a matter of public record.
Did you post this? "You are missing the point. The quotes are negating the
claim often made the the US was founded as a Christian nation etc. You are
the one bringing up atheism. Klazmon."
Or was it someone posting under your name? If that is the case, just say
so.
If that is not the case, the "quotes" you refer to are all from Tom Paine's
"The Age of Reason," which was not written until December, 1793, and was not
published until 1794. Do you doubt the truth of those assertions?
Those "quotes" you refer to were not published until after the United States
of America had already been founded, and by that I mean the Constitution had
been ratified and was already the ideological and legal basis for a fully
functioning republic, as evidenced by the elections of the First Congress
and Washington as President and Adams as Vice President in 1788, and their
taking office in 1789. Still with me? This is not really difficult to
follow.
So obviously, the "quotes" you refer to were only written after the United
States of America had been founded. Thus your "quotes" cannot possibly
negate "the claim often made the the US was founded as a Christian nation
etc."
Is that clear?
If you wish to negate "the claim often made the the US was founded as a
Christian nation etc.," you need to find quotes written before the United
States of America was founded. Since the requirement that ratification of
the constitution by nine states for the plan of government to be implemented
was met by the ratification by new Hampshire in June, 1788, that marks the
end of the foundation of the United States of America under the Constitution
of 1787.
So, Klazmon, you need to find quotations from before June, 1788, to support
your thesis and negate "the claim often made the the US was founded as a
Christian nation etc." I can't wait to read any quotes you can produce.
Considering the fact that the United States of America
had already been founded and the Washington administration was already
in its second term by 1794, and the Third Congress was halfway through
its session, Tom Paine's little book "The Age of Reason" had nothing to
do with the foundation of the United States of America. The foundation
of the American Republic was a done deal by 1791 when the Bill of Rights
was ratified.
You are arguing against a straw man of your own devising. Stick with
honesty and people will give more credence to your words.
One of the usual atheist dodges. Can't you guys at least be original?
Look, Klazmon, you are the damned fool who made the inordinately stupid
claim that "quotes" from a book written in 1793 and published in 1794
somehow negates a claim about influences to the foundation of a nation
founded by 1788. Even you ought to be able to discern that your argument is
nincompoopery.
How do you think a dozen carefully selected quotes by one man among
the writings of hundreds of men who expressed the opposite position
negate the idea that Christianity influenced the foundation of the
United States of America?
Why do you believe that the thoughts of one man who adored the
Christian God and revered Jesus Christ by his own profession of faith
And was severley critical of both christianity and the bible. Open your
eyes.
Klazmon.
Are you a jackass? A dunderhead?
Martin Luther and John Calvin were severely critical of Christianity and
the bible. Does that mean they were atheists?
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were severely critical of both the bible
and Christianity. Does that mean Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were
atheists?
You are again deliberately misrepresenting what others have said.
I did? Please, do show me exactly what I misrepresented.
If you
can not demonstrate evidence showing that I claimed that these people were
atheists then publically admit you are a congential liar or retract and
apologise.
Yet another common atheist dodge. Actually two common atheist dodges. This
first one consists of accusing your opponent of making claims your opponent
never made. And the second is calling your opponent a liar. Caught you.
You should read more carefully. I never wrote that you "claimed that these
people were atheists." What I did do is ask the question whether three pairs
of men, one pair each from the 16th, 18th, and 20th centuries, famous
critics of Christianity and the bible all, were atheists because of their
criticism of Christianity and the bible. And you utterly failed to address
that issue.
You forgot to answer the question. It is a simple question. Do you think
Adams and Jefferson were atheists?
Klazmon.
<SNIP more outright lies>
"<SNIP more outright lies>" restored. Please identify the outright lies
below. Bet you can't.
John D. Crossan and Bishop John Shelby Spong are both severely critical of
both Christianity and the bible. Does that mean either is an atheist?
Your logical process is inherently flawed, because your conclusion that
anyone who severely criticizes the bible and Christianity must be an atheist
is based on invalid premises. So that means in this case your conclusions
are nincompoopery. But most of us already knew that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
17 Nov 2006 02:25:18 PM |
|
|
Tom P wrote:
Interesting
Even your religion frowns on lying I understand.
You have no idea what religion I profess. If any. You are indulging
yourself in a common atheist error of logic. You presume that anyone who
points out the logical flaws, factual mistakes, and utter nincompoopery in
your arguments must be a member of the opposite end of the theist spectrum
from your atheist self. That is, only a fundamentalist Christian can
criticize the atheist position. I am not a fundamentalist Christian. Never
have been. I am not an atheist. Never have been. What I have done is
identified a few holes in your silly argument using the words of the men who
did found the United States of America. The only reason I can identify
certain holes in your argument is because the holes already exist.
Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Madison, Franklin, and many more of the "Founding
Fathers" did not profess the atheist sentiments the atheist web pages lead
their readers to believe with their collections of highly selective
quotations. The American Revolution and the subsequent foundation of the
American Republic are an extremely complex series of events. In fact,
Samuel Elliot Morrison, a rather distinguished professor of American history
at Harvard, opined that, "The roots of the American Revolution go far down
into the past. Geography and climate, institutional developments, religion
and race, and other factors beyond our ken, may have made the separation
inevitable." From Samuel E. Morrison, "Sources and Documents Illustrating
the American Revolution and the Formation of the Federal Constitution
1764-1788," 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1963, page xi. All
of you atheists might note that Professor Morrison considered religion as
important a factor as race, geography, climate, and institutional
developments. Read the book and you too can discover what Morrison meant by
"institutional developments."
Yes, yes, yes... and so what? The great majority of the people of
European descent living in the colonies were Christians of one flavor
or another. No one disputes that. To take that fact and then somehow
claim that Christianity had a profound influence on the practical and
constitutional formation of the United States is absurd. The history of
Christianity and the state had been one of Churches supporting absolute
monarchs, despots and tyrants under the theory of divine right. At
times and in places the depots also controlled the Church (read a bit
about the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottonian system). In any event,
there is nothing, absolutely nothing in Christian teaching and
tradititon, or in the Bible, to support any concept of
Republican-Democracy.
One of the most religious of the founding fathers, Adams, was aware of
this (So were Jefferson and Paine, and anyone with the basic education
of the time). He sought out pre-Christian pagan sources for his Defense
of Constitutions, and lavishly praised Cicero, not Aquinas or Calvin.
In order to think clearly about law and government, the memebrs of the
Constitutional convention purged from the final document any invocation
of God, even the shadowy Diest "Creator" mentioned in the Declaration
of Independence. God, you see, endorses despots. Benjamin Frankin
couldn't even get the members of the Constitutional Convention to a say
a joint prayer when they seemed helplessly deadlocked.
The Constitution was, if anything, a triumph over Christian tradition
and prejudice and a reinvocation of the pagan fondness for
representative government, a fondness not only derived from classical
sources but from the old Germanic traditions which most
European-Americans have as part of our heritage. Our laws are not
bible-based, our sense of justice not in conformity with much, if
anything, in the Bible, our religion was separated from our government,
and our founders treated the Divine with benign indifference when
crafting our Bill of Rights.
Had we based our government and constitution on the Bible, we'd have an
anointed King who would rule by divine right. People would be stoned to
death for personal moral offenses. We'd enslave those we defeated in
battle, rape their women, and confiscate their lands (actually we did
that to the Indians, but that was when we were still too Christian).
Women would have no power and no rights, and every man would have all
the concubines he could afford.
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
19 Nov 2006 06:35:48 PM |
|
|
"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163795118.259129.8000@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom P wrote:
Interesting
Even your religion frowns on lying I understand.
You have no idea what religion I profess. If any. You are indulging
yourself in a common atheist error of logic. You presume that anyone who
points out the logical flaws, factual mistakes, and utter nincompoopery
in
your arguments must be a member of the opposite end of the theist
spectrum
from your atheist self. That is, only a fundamentalist Christian can
criticize the atheist position. I am not a fundamentalist Christian.
Never
have been. I am not an atheist. Never have been. What I have done is
identified a few holes in your silly argument using the words of the men
who
did found the United States of America. The only reason I can identify
certain holes in your argument is because the holes already exist.
Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Madison, Franklin, and many more of the
"Founding
Fathers" did not profess the atheist sentiments the atheist web pages
lead
their readers to believe with their collections of highly selective
quotations. The American Revolution and the subsequent foundation of the
American Republic are an extremely complex series of events. In fact,
Samuel Elliot Morrison, a rather distinguished professor of American
history
at Harvard, opined that, "The roots of the American Revolution go far
down
into the past. Geography and climate, institutional developments,
religion
and race, and other factors beyond our ken, may have made the separation
inevitable." From Samuel E. Morrison, "Sources and Documents
Illustrating
the American Revolution and the Formation of the Federal Constitution
1764-1788," 2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1963, page xi.
All
of you atheists might note that Professor Morrison considered religion as
important a factor as race, geography, climate, and institutional
developments. Read the book and you too can discover what Morrison meant
by
"institutional developments."
Yes, yes, yes... and so what? The great majority of the people of
European descent living in the colonies were Christians of one flavor
or another. No one disputes that.
No one? Not even certain atheist fanatics hereabouts?
To take that fact and then somehow
claim that Christianity had a profound influence on the practical and
constitutional formation of the United States is absurd.
"Profound" is not my adjective. Christianity was one cluster of ideas among
four clusters of ideas that contributed to the American Revolution and
Constitution.
The history of
Christianity and the state had been one of Churches supporting absolute
monarchs, despots and tyrants under the theory of divine right.
What other forms of government other than monarchies do you think were
available for the church to support? Or to support the church?
Your conclusion implies that there were republics, democracies, and other
forms of government more palatable to your 21st century tastes from the
first through the eighteenth centuries. Which other form of government than
monarchy do you have in mind that you think existed then?
And where did such a government exist between the first and the eighteenth
centuries that was available for the Church to either oppose or support?
Iceland had the "Althinge" which was sort of a republic or perhaps direct
democracy and the I think the Church supported that government, didn't it?
Can you think of another?
At
times and in places the depots also controlled the Church (read a bit
about the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottonian system).
I have read a few dozen books on Medieval history. What specific incidents
and despots do you have in mind? Although history is by its nature a
generalization, the generalization is made up of very specific evidence in
the form of reports concerning specific people and specific events. You are
still on the generalization. Let's move to the particulars, shall we?
In any event,
there is nothing, absolutely nothing in Christian teaching and
tradititon, or in the Bible, to support any concept of
Republican-Democracy.
Have you ever read Augustine's "The City of God," Aquinas' "Summas," or
Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion"? How about anything by
John Cotton? Cotton Mather? John Locke?
If you haven't read those as a minimum, you have no idea what Christian
teaching is. Therefore you are not capable of judging whether or not
Christian teaching or tradition ever supported any concept of republicanism
or democracy unless you are thoroughly grounded in Christian theology. I
don't think you are. Surprise me by proving me wrong.
One of the most religious of the founding fathers, Adams,
Why do you think John Adams was "one of the most religious of the founding
fathers"? Who are you comparing him with, and on what basis are you making
the comparison?
Do you really think that Adams was as religious as, say, Charles Carroll?
was aware of
this (So were Jefferson and Paine, and anyone with the basic education
of the time). He sought out pre-Christian pagan sources for his Defense
of Constitutions, and lavishly praised Cicero, not Aquinas or Calvin.
Of course he did. And he explains why in certain of his letters. Adams
loathed Roman Catholicism and Calvinism. Which is also screamingly obvious
to anyone who has ever read Adams' correspondence. And John Adams wasn't the
only one who used the works of Cicero. Have you ever read
Cicero? Do you know what Cicero wrote about the duties of the virtuous
citizen in a republic? If I recall accurately, Cicero wrote that man had
duties to the
gods. Seems to me that is in "De Officiis" and possibly "De Amicita," but I
don't have time to look it up just now and translate it, so feel free to
correct me if you believe I am mistaken.
In order to think clearly about law and government, the memebrs of the
Constitutional convention purged from the final document any invocation
of God, even the shadowy Diest "Creator" mentioned in the Declaration
of Independence.
They "purged" did they? Are you sure it was "purged" or was it never
inserted in the first place? And then of course you must not only accuse,
but you must prove your accusation. Which of the three accounts of the
Convention mentions this "purge" you mentioned?
God, you see, endorses despots.
So now you claim to know the mind of God? Actually, you have no basis for
your conclusion that "God . . . endorses despots." Unless you claim to know
the mind of God. Do you assert such a claim? Besides, that isn't something
the "Founding Fathers" wrote.
Benjamin Frankin
couldn't even get the members of the Constitutional Convention to a say
a joint prayer when they seemed helplessly deadlocked.
Where did you read that?
The Constitution was, if anything, a triumph over Christian tradition
On what do you base your conclusion? The Constitution is, if anything, an
explicit expression of the Christian worldview in it's fundamental
assumption
concerning human nature underlying the checks and balances that are the
fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States. Read
Madison. Read Jefferson. Read Adams. See if you can follow this: No man
is worthy to govern another was the widely held assumption. Why is no man
worthy to govern another? The answer, of course, is because all human
beings are subject to vices, corruptions, and promoting their private
interests at the expense of their fellow human beings and the common
welfare. Is that idea expressed in Enlightenment thought? Where exactly?
Who wrote it?
On the other hand, the basis of Christian philosophy, especially the
Pauline-Augustinian-Calvinist-Edwardsian strain of Christian philosophy
predominant in Massachusetts by the middle of the 18th century, explicitly
states that all human beings are innately corrupt and depraved, thus all men
are subject to vices, corruptions, and promoting their private interests at
the expense of their fellow human beings and the common good.
There are also certain ideological break points readily identifiable in the
polemics of that era where Enlightenment theory gave way to Puritanism.
You seem oddly unaware of such a change. You seem to believe that some
version of the primarily French Enlightenment personified by Diderot,
Voltaire, and Rousseau dawned in the English colonies at some point
following the Seven Years War. Then somehow Enlightenment ideals of the
innate nobility of humankind, notions of pure democracy on the model of the
"General Will" expressed by the "Will of the People," and some sort of
natural limits on the power and scope of government became universal, or at
least widespread, in English North America. And then somehow these
Enlightenment ideals led inexorably and uninterruptedly to civil
disturbances, various congresses, the outbreak of war, the Declaration of
Independence, the government under the Articles of Confederation and then
directly to the Constitution. Do I have that more or less correct?
and prejudice and a reinvocation of the pagan fondness for
representative government,
Prove that. Bet you can't.
a fondness not only derived from classical
sources but from the old Germanic traditions which most
European-Americans have as part of our heritage.
Yes, that is actually one of the four idea clusters that made the American
Revolution and Constitution happen the way they did. The idea cluster is
usually referred to as English traditions of liberty as embodied in the
Common Law. Christianity is one of the other idea clusters. The ideals of
the Enlightenment are the third idea cluster. And the Greek and Roman
ideals of the virtuous citizen in the virtuous state are the fourth idea
cluster. All four clusters of ideas are equally important and none can be
proven more or less important than any other. Why? Because the ideas of
all four clusters are evident in the writings of the people who made the
American Revolution and Constitution, and if any one cluster is removed, the
American Revolution and Constitution do not and can not happen as they did.
Another point you seem unfamiliar with is that the American Revolution was
unique among world revolutions because it was ideological in origin. In the
period 1763-1776, times were good. There was a labor shortage, so wages
were high and unemployment was very low. Malcontents could move to the
frontier and believe and say anything they cared to. There were no food
shortages. Taxes were low. And the residents of English North America
considered themselves loyal English men and women, citizens of the greatest
and most advanced civilization to that time. Yet these same people, at
least about two thirds of them, gave up this economic comfort to commit
armed rebellion against the King and Parliament of the nation they
heretofore considered themselves loyal citizens of. What explains that?
Our laws are not
bible-based,
Did I ever write that they were?
But there are an awful lot of common points between the laws delineated in
Exodus and Deuteronomy and the English Common Law. Do you really think
there were no Christian influences on the Common Law?
How then do you account for the large number of similarities between the
Torah and the Common Law?
our
Who do you mean by "our"?
sense of justice not in conformity with much, if
anything, in the Bible,
You must have a very strange sense of justice. So do you think murder is
permissible? Atheists have murdered more human beings than anyone else in
human history, so I guess it does make sense that an atheist would approve
of murder. You see, I read in the Bible in more than one place that murder
is forbidden. Rape, robbery, perjury, and a host of other socially
intolerable conduct is defined and condemned by the Torah. Are those
offences not in conformity with your "sense of justice"?
So you don't think the Bible contains common notions of justice with
American jurisprudence? That must mean you totally disregard Natural Rights
theory as a contributing factor to the American Revolution. Do you?
Remember that in Natural Rights theory, the inalienable rights referred to
in the Declaration of Independence are endowed by the "Creator." That
"Creator" is the Judeo-Christian God. I know certain atheists bloviate
about Islam also being a monotheistic religion and I am aware of a short
monotheistic belief in Egypt about 1800 B.C., and there may even be other
monotheistic religions in world history. But none of those contributed to
Western European constructs of monotheism during the 18th century. And you
should keep in mind that every time the word "rights" is used in the
Constitution, as it appears in the first, second, fourth, sixth, seventh,
and ninth amendments, the source of those rights is the Creator, which in
the context of the late 18th century in English North America and later the
United
States of America, was the Judeo-Christian God.
Now behave and stop squealing. You can scream about Deism and atheism all
you care to, but the God of American Deism was the Judeo-Christian God
stripped of certain Judaic and Christian accretions. Atheism was not a
contributing factor at all. The correct historical sequence is the
Judeo-Christian God from which the 18th century American Deist concept of
God evolved, and the writings of Adams, Jefferson, Paine, and a whole bunch
of others is evidence for that intellectual history.
And the Preamble to the Constitution clearly states that one of the
objectives of this founding document was ". . . to secure the blessings of
liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America." Who do you believe the
"Founding Fathers" considered to have been doing the "blessing" and
"bestowing" when these "blessings of liberty" were bestowed?
our religion
"Our religion"? "Our" is the first person plural, isn't it? Are you
religious?
was separated from our government,
You have that right. Religion was quite deliberately separated from the
national government, and the history of that idea is crystal clear from the
documents of the period. But at the same time, the First Congress voted to
pay a Christian Minister to minister in the Congress. Yeah, I am well aware
that Madison was opposed to that. But Madison was not in the majority in
that instance, was he?
and our founders treated the Divine with benign indifference when
crafting our Bill of Rights.
You are mistaken. Obviously. The first words of the First Amendment in the
Bill of Rights are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, . . ." Please, do
tell us how that expresses "indifference," can you? I consider beginning
the Bill of Rights by delineating two principles concerning religion a
rather strange way to express indifference towards the Divine. In fact, I
am inclined to believe that God and religion were so central to their world
view and to their everyday lives that the "Founding Fathers" chose to begin
the Bill of Rights by addressing religion.
At no point did anyone indicate disrespect for God or
"the Divine" as you worded it. When you read the words of the founders, you
will find their goal was to prevent an establishment of religion. Their
writing are full of references to the abuses by various religions and their
belief that many if not most of the Christian sects had twisted the words of
God and Jesus into something they were never intended to be. Not even Paine
and Jefferson attacked God or Jesus. Both enthusiastically attacked the
corruption of the word of God and of Jesus by people claiming to be
religious.
Had we based our government and constitution on the Bible, we'd have an
anointed King who would rule by divine right. People would be stoned to
death for personal moral offenses. We'd enslave those we defeated in
battle, rape their women, and confiscate their lands (actually we did
that to the Indians, but that was when we were still too Christian).
Women would have no power and no rights, and every man would have all
the concubines he could afford.
Only if one take the fundamentalist view that every word of the bible is
literally true. That is a minority view among Christians even today. Why
do you atheists presume that the doctrines of the fundamentalists is the
possible Christian doctrine? I address this question specifically to you
because you obviously expressed that concept.
How do you explain the concept of "checks and balances" and the balance of
factions and parties in the structure of the Constitution itself?
Why do you think the framers of the Constitution went to such great lengths
to insure that not only would one man never have absolute power, but that no
one interest or party would obtain absolute power?
Does that fit with Enlightenment philosophy that attributes nobility and
goodness to humanity? Or does it fit the Puritan Christian concept of human
nature that all human beings are depraved and none can be trusted with power
over another?
Which of those opposing concepts of human conduct do you think is reflected
in these quotations from Federalist X?
"AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none
deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and
control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never
finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he
contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail,
therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the
principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The
instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils,
have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments
have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful
topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious
declamations. . ."
"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a
majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some
common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other
citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."
"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by
removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."
"There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by
destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by
giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same
interests."
"It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was
worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an
aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly
to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it
nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which
is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive
agency."
"The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As
long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to
exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection
subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions
will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be
objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the
faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less
an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of
these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of
different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of
different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the
influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective
proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and
parties."
"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see
them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the
different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions
concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well
of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders
ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other
descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions,
have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual
animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each
other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity
of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial
occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have
been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most
violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has
been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and
those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in
society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a
like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a
mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up
of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes,
actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various
and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation,
and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary
operations of the government."
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest
would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his
integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to
be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most
important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not
indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of
large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators
but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law
proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors
are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold
the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the
judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful
faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be
encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are
questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the
manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice
and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions
of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality;
yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and
temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of
justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a
shilling saved to their own pockets."
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust
these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public
good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many
cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view
indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the
immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of
another or the good of the whole."
"The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot
be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling
its EFFECTS."
Did you follow all that? The "CAUSES of faction cannot be removed" because
the "latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man." How is
that not the same as the Christian doctrine of the depravity of humankind?
If Madison's construct is not from the Christian doctrine of the depravity
of humankind, tell us what the source is. Please be very specific.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Tom Paine on Faith and Jesus Christ |
29 Nov 2006 11:25:56 PM |
|
|
Tom P skrev:
"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163795118.259129.8000@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snip
Yes, yes, yes... and so what? The great majority of the people of
European descent living in the colonies were Christians of one flavor
or another. No one disputes that.
No one? Not even certain atheist fanatics hereabouts?
I certainly have not seen any posts that dispute that. How about a
quote?
To take that fact and then somehow
claim that Christianity had a profound influence on the practical and
constitutional formation of the United States is absurd.
"Profound" is not my adjective. Christianity was one cluster of ideas among
four clusters of ideas that contributed to the American Revolution and
Constitution.
The history of
Christianity and the state had been one of Churches supporting absolute
monarchs, despots and tyrants under the theory of divine right.
What other forms of government other than monarchies do you think were
available for the church to support? Or to support the church?
That was not the point. Perhaps you could name one Christian doctrine
that supports religious freedom, freedom of the press, or the
soverignty of the people.
Your conclusion implies that there were republics, democracies, and other
forms of government more palatable to your 21st century tastes from the
first through the eighteenth centuries.
There was no such implication.
Which other form of government than
monarchy do you have in mind that you think existed then?
And where did such a government exist between the first and the eighteenth
centuries that was available for the Church to either oppose or support?
Iceland had the "Althinge" which was sort of a republic or perhaps direct
democracy and the I think the Church supported that government, didn't it?
The Church came into power with Norwegian monarchy, and it immediately
had the old religion outlawed. Not much democracy or religious freedom
in that.
Can you think of another?
At
times and in places the depots also controlled the Church (read a bit
about the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottonian system).
I have read a few dozen books on Medieval history. What specific incidents
and despots do you have in mind? Although history is by its nature a
generalization, the generalization is made up of very specific evidence in
the form of reports concerning specific people and specific events. You are
still on the generalization. Let's move to the particulars, shall we?
In any event,
there is nothing, absolutely nothing in Christian teaching and
tradititon, or in the Bible, to support any concept of
Republican-Democracy.
Have you ever read Augustine's "The City of God," Aquinas' "Summas," or
Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion"? How about anything by
John Cotton? Cotton Mather? John Locke?
John Locke does not belong on your list. The others cannot be said to
support the ideas behind the Constitution. Calvin or the others
certainly did not believe in religious freedom or freedom of speech.
They would have not been pleased with the Constitution, if one can
judge by their behavior and writings.
snip
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
