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.
TJ liked quotes from Jesus, but didn't really believe in divine providence - more of a clockword diety. Lincoln clearly very strongly did believe in divine providence, but didn't mention Jesus much (if at all).
Nah! Not on "the side" of what I see on here...Lincoln was probably too classy a guy.
I'd lay odds you would have NEVER heard him referring to the Bible as "The Buy-bull", to God as "Evil Skydaddy", Jesus as "Hey Zeus", wasting his time and intellect stooping to the level of inventing insulting and disrespectful mock Deities. I can't imagine him saying that ardent Believers proclaiming their theological precepts should "have their license to breath revoked"...and if they endeavor to pass those theological precepts on to their children, should be "charged with abuse, prosecuted, and incarcerated".
That's for the biased, intolerant, hateful types...classy guys don't roll like that. Being a guy that lacks class in a number of ways/areas...it helps make it easy for me to identify "Classiness Deficiency".
Mr....your idea of class or for that matter anything about me is right next to the bottom of my list of concerns. To me as long as the worship of ancient gods is at the top of someone's list I'll know I'm in good shape.
TJ liked quotes from Jesus, but didn't really believe in divine providence - more of a clockword diety. Lincoln clearly very strongly did believe in divine providence, but didn't mention Jesus much (if at all).
Very different kinds of "deists".
Good point. Given that, in the 18th century the only answer to 'Who made everything. then?' was 'God', I can imagine that deists of that persuasion would easily have seen the gods of all other religions as the same one. Thus religion was only of value to humans. Probably Lincoln did believe in 'God' but wasn't bothered about Jesus, whereas Jefferson saw Jesus as an admirable moral teacher but had no time for the divine Son of God claims as he cut all that out of his 'Jefferson Bible'.
What I do feel, is that it is hardly relevant. Science at the time was still far from the disciplines and discoveries that would provide other answers to 'Whodunnit, then?' Whether or not Lincoln or Jefferson with access to today's evidence would still be Deist, deism is actually not a logical or evidence - based belief in this day and age.
Good point. Given that, in the 18th century the only answer to 'Who made everything. then?' was 'God', I can imagine that deists of that persuasion would easily have seen the gods of all other religions as the same one. Thus religion was only of value to humans. Probably Lincoln did believe in 'God' but wasn't bothered about Jesus, whereas Jefferson saw Jesus as an admirable moral teacher but had no time for the divine Son of God claims as he cut all that out of his 'Jefferson Bible'.
What I do feel, is that it is hardly relevant. Science at the time was still far from the disciplines and discoveries that would provide other answers to 'Whodunnit, then?' Whether or not Lincoln or Jefferson with access to today's evidence would still be Deist, deism is actually not a logical or evidence - based belief in this day and age.
Actually in my way of thinking god is the invisible man in the sky. If just once he would part the clouds, write something to me personally on a gold tabloid, let me hear his loud bellowing voice, throw four or five lightning bolts, etc....see, I'm not an unreasonable man. I could have required the parting of seas or something a little more difficult for him.
Since you raise the question of some convincing evidence, on Tentmaker, I first gave an undertaking to convert to Christianity if a bottle of water on my desk turned to wine. It never did of course, and I made the same offer here.
The remarkable thing in both case was that I did not have a flurry of 'I'm praying like crazy right now.' and 'I'll be so happy when your bottle turns sauvignon - red before your astonished eyes and you come back here and humbly...' Nope. it was either dead silence or 'God isn't going to do that, for YOU!'
How did they know? They knew, deep down inside, that it wasn't going to happen. They KNEW. Their only response was to put it out of their minds as soon as possible or try to explain away the failure to meet the very easy request for some good reason to convert as much as they could.
Since you raise the question of some convincing evidence, on Tentmaker, I first gave an undertaking to convert to Christianity if a bottle of water on my desk turned to wine. It never did of course, and I made the same offer here.
The remarkable thing in both case was that I did not have a flurry of 'I'm praying like crazy right now.' and 'I'll be so happy when your bottle turns sauvignon - red before your astonished eyes and you come back here and humbly...' Nope. it was either dead silence or 'God isn't going to do that, for YOU!'
How did they know? They knew, deep down inside, that it wasn't going to happen. They KNEW. Their only response was to put it out of their minds as soon as possible or try to explain away the failure to meet the very easy request for some good reason to convert as much as they could.
Christopher Hitchens states that atheism, backed by recent scientific advancement, has reached the point where it is time to take a far less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religion-based fanaticism than had been extended by moderate atheists,secularists, and some secular scientists. "What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."
What I do feel, is that it is hardly relevant. Science at the time was still far from the disciplines and discoveries that would provide other answers to 'Whodunnit, then?' Whether or not Lincoln or Jefferson with access to today's evidence would still be Deist, deism is actually not a logical or evidence - based belief in this day and age.
I did not come here to debate whether or not deism or any other form is theism is true or not.
I would agree that citing the beliefs of ANY individual (of any era) is not evidentiary as proof or disproof.
It is of historic interest.
It may also be of interest to those who make claims about the charecter or beliefs of theists. For example that all American theists are Christians. Or that all are fanatics. Or that theists are hostile to human rights and progress. The case of Lincoln shows in a particular important individual that all of those claims are false.
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.
