Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh...I would say most do likewise.
Oh, and it isn't "willy-nilly"...it is info that comes up on the first page or two, so you know it is commonly looked at.
You didn't answer the question about the Paine citation. Guess you need better "spidey sense".
Sorry, I missed your question, and had to look back for it.
No one is denying that Paine was a deist. And my "spidey sense" is just fine. Your link only provides a small portion of the speech, including the following:
THE universe is the bible of a true Theophilanthropist. It is there that he reads of God. It is there that the proofs of his existence are to be sought and to be found. As to written or printed books, by whatever name they are called, they are the works of man's hands, and carry no evidence in themselves that God is the author of any of them. It must be in something that man could not make, that we must seek evidence for our belief, and that something is the universe; the true bible; the inimitable word of God.
Paine may have been spiritual, but he was not a Christian god follower in any sense. I think he and I would have wonderful discussions, and probably end up seeing eye to eye on most things religious.
Sorry, I missed your question, and had to look back for it.
No one is denying that Paine was a deist. And my "spidey sense" is just fine. Your link only provides a small portion of the speech, including the following:
THE universe is the bible of a true Theophilanthropist. It is there that he reads of God. It is there that the proofs of his existence are to be sought and to be found. As to written or printed books, by whatever name they are called, they are the works of man's hands, and carry no evidence in themselves that God is the author of any of them. It must be in something that man could not make, that we must seek evidence for our belief, and that something is the universe; the true bible; the inimitable word of God.
Paine may have been spiritual, but he was not a Christian god follower in any sense. I think he and I would have wonderful discussions, and probably end up seeing eye to eye on most things religious.
That is not what your claim was. You said the listed quotes were not something you believed he would have said.
Do you now believe he did, or did not, say what it claimed was a quote of what he said?
He was saying that school children should be taught about the Creator himself! What do you think about that being done? Do you see eye to eye with him on that?
Come on, fella. You know (or should) that these were before the days of Darwin and Goddunnit was the only explanation on the table. Those quotes fit entirely with Deism. They had no other explanation of creation than God had dunnit and that proved he loved us as He had given us power of reason or, as Franklin saw it, He had given us stuff that we could make beer out of.
But after that, He had taken his hands off the wheel and left us to it. The stuff that happened in our lives, just happened. There was no guidance or Plan behind it. Wars were won thanks to better tactics, or at least lost by those with the most idiots in charge, laws were made by men, and if they were based on some of the best devised - Jesus' - he was just a man, too. He never rose from the dead or stilled storms or walked on water. Jefferson proved that by simply ripping all that out of his Bible and throwing it in the Nightsoil -bucket. Genius! Aren't you lucky that he pretty much edited the Constitution?
All that apart, we are post Darwin and post Hubble and Hawking, and we have better explanations than the Founding fathers had, and there is no case at all to teach 'Creation' or about a 'Creator' (unless as a metaphor for Physics or as ancient religious literature). And none of those Deists, who today would surely be atheists, would suggest that we should.
Perfect! That's a good thing, right? I mean, if you want a religious nation, Saudi Arabia, Iran or the Vatican would be your place to go to.
Secular is where it's at.
There is a HUGE difference in Religion and Faith. Religion is a man made concept, with mans rules and ideas. Naturally, that won't work for a nation. Faith would work IF everyone wanted to please God before themselves. That however, is not realistic due to mans self centered nature. Our nation was designed to follow Christian principles. However, those in power developed a yellow streak down their back, and became more interested in not "offending" people. So now we have a gov't designed to not hurt feelings, be politically correct, and make excuses for irresponsible people. Moderator cut: This isn't the Politics forum.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-16-2018 at 07:35 AM..
Reason: The current political agenda is always off topic in the R&S forums.
Maybe, but in the long run- it won't affect how I live my life. I try to focus on God, not on man and the world.
Keep talking. I think that and a goddless atheist such as myself and a Theist who focusses on God and lets the world arranges things according to what seems on logical reasoning, the best way to do it, can still do business.
Keep talking. I think that and a goddless atheist such as myself and a Theist who focusses on God and lets the world arranges things according to what seems on logical reasoning, the best way to do it, can still do business.
What a revolutionary idea! thou it sounds similar to the basics requirements for diverse communal living.
That is not what your claim was. You said the listed quotes were not something you believed he would have said.
Do you now believe he did, or did not, say what it claimed was a quote of what he said?
He was saying that school children should be taught about the Creator himself! What do you think about that being done? Do you see eye to eye with him on that?
He was a deist.
de·ism
/ˈdēˌizəm,ˈdāˌizəm/
noun
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
I strongly suspect that in today's world Paine would be an atheist, or at least, an agnostic. Him and I could have great conversations, after all, his "Age of Reason" was a long way towards that already. Let's not forget, unlike you or me, he was a public figure in a superstitious society. That superstitious group is getting less and less in the western world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
