John Adams in Hell
Jonathan Rowe on Jun 1st 2007
Reader James J. Goswick is turning out to be quite an amusing troll. Tsk tsk John Adams. Deny the Trinity, end up in Hell. Mr. Goswick writes:
This just proves my point as Adams was deceived and is paying the price for it.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Begotten Son.” John 3.
“‘How shall I bear a child,’ she [Mary] answered, ‘when I am a virgin…?’ ‘Such is the will of the Lord,’ he replied. ‘That is no difficult thing for Him…God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!…Those who say: ‘The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,’ preach a monstrous falsehood…” (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)
He should have known right there, that they are different Gods. Adams was deceived and is in eternal punishment for denying the deity of Jesus Christ.
I also tried to explain to him the proper way to spell plural possessive nouns, but he won't listen. So maybe someone else can try.
"Since the framer’s [sic] called themselves Christians refutes your entire beliefs.”
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
Tsk tsk John Adams. Deny the Trinity, end up in Hell. Mr. Goswick writes:>>
This is a true statement, without your misspellings. Read the bible, it is clear Jesus Christ is the God man. If he is not God, then God is a biune God, which is contrary, and I am still in my sins, which have been washed away as far as the east is to the west. Jesus had to be God, or he could not have been the sinless man to pay for man’s sin. Only God is sinless, and Holy.
Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin denied some of the scriptures without any contrary evidence on the text refuting their belief. The creation itself refutes reason, but they believed that! What a strange thing to do, for if God created the universe, a resurrection from the dead is minimal compared to that. Trust in Jesus for the remission of your sins.
God Bless
Regards
Kindly point out what I didn’t spell correctly.
I swear, if this discussion devolves into an argument about the proper spelling of “tsk,” I’m going to cry. I’m just gonna cry.
Deny the Trinity, end up in Hell.
Sounds fair to me. Word up, heathens.
James J. Goswickon wrote:
“Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin denied some of the scriptures without any contrary evidence on the text refuting their belief. The creation itself refutes reason, but they believed that! What a strange thing to do, for if God created the universe, a resurrection from the dead is minimal compared to that. Trust in Jesus for the remission of your sins.
God Bless”
It is the contents of the bible, not just the beginning of the book Genesis, which provoked their skepticism. Here is the relevant excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to Peter Carr (Jefferson’s Nephew) written in 1787:
4. Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor, in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature, does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates. For example, in the book of Joshua, we are told, the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said, that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time gave resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth’s motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, and the second by exile, or death “in furea”….
Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision. I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists. Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics. Most of these are lost. There are some, however, still extant, collected by Fabricius, which I will endeavor to get and send you.
5. Travelling. This makes men wiser, but less happy. When men of sober age travel, they gather knowledge, which they may apply usefully for their country; but they are subject ever after to recollections mixed with regret; their affections are weakened by being extended over more objects; and they learn new habits which cannot be gratified when they return home. Young men, who travel, are exposed to all these inconveniences in a higher degree, to others still more serious, and do not acquire that wisdom for which a previous foundation is requisite, by repeated and just observations at home. The glare of pomp and pleasure is analogous to the motion of the blood; it absorbs all their affection and attention, they are torn from it as from the only good in this world, and return to their home as to a place of exile and condemnation. Their eyes are forever turned back to the object they have lost, and its recollection poisons the residue of their lives. Their first and most delicate passions are hackneyed on unworthy objects here, and they carry home the dregs, insufficient to make themselves or anybody else happy. Add to this, that a habit of idleness, an inability to apply themselves to business is acquired, and renders them useless to themselves and their country. These observations are founded in experience. There is no place where your pursuit of knowledge will be so little obstructed by foreign objects, as in your own country, nor any, wherein the virtues of the heart will be less exposed to be weakened. Be good, be learned, and be industrious, and you will not want the aid of travelling, to render you precious to your country, dear to your friends, happy within yourself. I repeat my advice, to take a great deal of exercise, and on foot. Health is the first requisite after morality. Write to me often, and be assured of the interest I take in your success, as well as the warmth of those sentiments of attachment with which I am, dear Peter, your affectionate friend.
It is the contents of the bible, not just the beginning of the book Genesis, which provoked their skepticism. Here is the relevant excerpt from Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to Peter Carr (Jefferson’s Nephew) written in 1787:>>
Proves my point, Jefferson has no basis to refute scripture, only his presupposition of no supernatural. What a fool Jefferson was. He found no evidence of corruption of the scripture, but picked only the ones he believed as true. Jesus will not be accepted like that. You accept all of his word, or none at all. When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I AM” He told them He was God, since Jesus could only have existed before Abraham if He was God, showing His Deity. In the end, Jefferson called Jesus a liar and the bible a liar.
Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time gave resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth’s motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities?>>
Since the law of nature is inside as well as outside of time, He can violate any law He wants, besides a scientific absurdity(as those in the koran), or a moral law. The Creation of the universe is the greatest miracle, why didn’t Jefferson deny this? What a strange man.
The problems go beyond the miracles, however. For one thing, your argument that the skepticism of the bible is unjustified because a god who created the universe could surely implement any of the miracles related in the bible could be applied to any other book that claims to be a revelation of god. For another, there is nothing in the bible that reveals that the authors had any knowledge beyond that which would be known by the peoples who lived in that time and place. And the character of the god of the bible is inconsistent and seriously flawed as is the logic of the theology. For example, in John xvi. 30; Col. ii. 3 it is said that Jesus knew all things but in other parts of the bible he occasionally doesn’t know somethings. Even the Sermon on the Mount presents us with impossible standards. Jesus tells us there to not resist evil, not defend ourselves against violence, and give away everything that anyone might ask of us (Matt. 5:38-42). As Jesus presents things, the main problem for the slaves is not to get free, but to win their master’s praise. There are historical inaccuracies such as Quirinius was not governor of Syria at the time of the census described in the gospel of Luke; There is an inexplicable lack of evidence for major biblical events such as Josephus’ record of Herod’s atrocities makes no mention of the slaughter of infants described in Luke. Here is an article written in 1873 about some of the problems with the bible http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_watts/bible_morality.html
The problems go beyond the miracles, however. For one thing, your argument that the skepticism of the bible is unjustified because a god who created the universe could surely implement any of the miracles related in the bible could be applied to any other book that claims to be a revelation of god.>>
The other books have errors or contradictions, the bible has no contradictions.
For another, there is nothing in the bible that reveals that the authors had any knowledge beyond that which would be known by the peoples who lived in that time and place.>>
Yes they do, they walked and talked with Jesus for three years. Isaiah, prophecied the destruction of Nebuchanezzar, and even mentioned the guys name, Cyrus. Isaiah wrote in the 8th century BC, you have no evidence to deny his account.
For example, in John xvi. 30; Col. ii. 3 it is said that Jesus knew all things but in other parts of the bible he occasionally doesn’t know somethings.>>
Because Jesus was in an inferior postion, taking on a human body, so He couldn’t fly, or be at more than one place at a time, which He can now, and in His pre incarnate body.
Jesus tells us there to not resist evil, not defend ourselves against violence, and give away everything that anyone might ask of us (Matt. 5:38-42)>>
Not self defense, that is common sense and contradicts Jesus not telling the Centurion to get out of the army to be saved. (Resist not evil) context is right after it. “but whosoever shall smite thee on the thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”
Hitting someone with the back side of the hand in that day was an insult, so this is a minor disagreement, not against righteous war or defending your life.
As Jesus presents things, the main problem for the slaves is not to get free, but to win their master’s praise.>>
Where? The early church was to obey their masters as unto the Lord. A wicked govt. is contrary to the law of nature.
There are historical inaccuracies such as Quirinius was not governor of Syria at the time of the census described in the gospel of Luke;>>
He was governor twice.
There is an inexplicable lack of evidence for major biblical events such as Josephus’ record of Herod’s atrocities makes no mention of the slaughter of infants described in Luke.>>
(1.) Josephus, a Jewish historian, and a Jew, would not be likely to record anything that would appear to confirm the truth of Christianity.
(2.) This act of Herod was really so small compared with his other crimes, that the historian might not think it worthy of record. Bethlehem was a small and obscure village, and the other crimes of Herod were so great and so public, that it is not to be wondered at that the Jewish historian has passed over this.
(3.) The order was probably given in secret, and might not have been known to Josephus. It pertained to the Christian history; and if the evangelists had not written, it might have been unknown or forgotten. Besides, no argument can be drawn from the silence of the Jewish historian.
Historians mostly only reported official Roman business, besides Herod killed his brother, sister, and uncle, showing he was crazy. Just because it isn’t there, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
12. HEROD KILLS CHILDREN
PROPHECY FULFILLMENT, The entire context of ch. 31, beginning ch. 30:20 and continuing to ch. 33:26, is Messianic
“Thus says the LORD, ‘A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.’ ”
Jeremiah 31:15 “Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its environs, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the magi.”
Matthew 2:16
Here is an article written in 1873 about some of the problems with the bible>>
There are no doctrinal problems.
“Where? The early church was to obey their masters as unto the Lord. A wicked govt. is contrary to the law of nature.”
Doesn’t the Bible also say something about not adding to it? I’m glad you are recognizing, like the Founders, philosophers, and ministers they followed, that in order to justify rebellion, you have to look outside of the text of the Bible to “the law of nature.”
Doesn’t the Bible also say something about not adding to it? I’m glad you are recognizing, like the Founders, philosophers, and ministers they followed, that in order to justify rebellion, you have to look outside of the text of the Bible to “the law of nature.”>>
Thomas Jefferson called himself a Christian, so the law of nature is Yahweh, the God of Israel.
Regards
“Thomas Jefferson called himself a Christian, so the law of nature is Yahweh, the God of Israel.”
Sorry, but this is a logical error. The law of nature defines as what man can discover from reason. And Jefferson in particular believe reason showed various parts of the Bible to be errant.
Jefferson, btw, called himself a “Unitarian” more than a Christian. Indeed, the term Adams used to describe himself was “liberal unitarian Christian.”
Since God created nature, so Jefferson and Adams believed, He authored the law of nature. However, theirs was a benevolent unitarian deity, which as has been shown many times on these threads, was as much the God of the Muslims, Native Americans, Ancient Greeks and Romans, as He was the God of Israel.
Jefferson, btw, called himself a “Unitarian” more than a Christian.>>
Sorry, Jefferson called himself a Christian, this proves he was deceived, because by calling him himself a christian, he simultaneously rejected the first commandment, which is the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity or Judaism. Poor guy.
The law of nature defines as what man can discover from reason.>>
The law of nature is from the bible as John Locke said:
In his most famous political work, his Two Treatises of Government, Locke set forth the belief that successful governments could be built only upon the transcendent, unchanging principles of natural law that were a subset of God’s law. For example, he declared:
[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God.
John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: J. Whiston, etc., 1772), Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, §135.
[L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made
John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (London: J. Whiston, etc., 1772), Book II, p. 285, Chapter XI, §135, n., quoting Hooker’s Eccl. Pol. 1. iii, sect. 9.
John Locke defines the law of nature as “reason.” If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand Locke or Founding philosophical thought; it is useless to argue with you further if you can’t get your definitions straight.
The quotation from Hooker distinguishes the law of nature and scripture as two separate sources.
See Two Treatises. As Thomas West put it:
“Reason,” which “is that law,” that is, the law of nature, discovers the rules that promote the general good of all (2.6). In sum, the “laws of the society, made conformable to the laws of nature,” are “for the public good, i.e. the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules, it can be provided for” (1.92).
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WT01F1
As I noted here:
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2007/05/theistic-rationalism-from-the-pulpit.html
4 ways to view reason & revelation, according to Founding thought:
1) The first is traditional orthodox Christian/Protestant view ala Luther and Calvin: Scripture is infallible, man’s reason, while perhaps useful in support of revelation, is clearly subservient to it; indeed Luther once called man’s reason, “the Devil’s whore.”
2) The second is Aquinas’: Scripture is still infallible; yet, man, by the use of his reason can discover truths that are equal to scripture; this is the natural law. Such discoveries, however, will never contradict revelation because reason and revelation always perfectly agree.
3) The third is the theistic rationalists’: Scripture is not infallible; yet some scripture was legitimately revealed by God. As Dr. Frazer puts it, “revelation was designed to complement reason (not vice versa). Reason was the ultimate standard for learning and evaluating truth and for determining legitimate revelation from God.” This is the view of our key Founders including Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and I would argue Washington as well.
4) The fourth is the strict deists’: Revelation is useless. Truth is only to be found from man’s reason/nature.
Locke may have been #2 (though there is dispute); he was no greater than 2 (some would put him at 3 or 4).
Our key Founders like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, & Wilson were number 3. Notice in the Declaration, they say nothing about “revealed” law, but only invoke the law of nature, or reason.
John Locke defines the law of nature as “reason.”>>
Locke believed reason and the Divine Law derive from the bible, that’s why he affirms Hooker, not refutes him, Locke agrees with Hooker that the bible(God, Yahweh) is the law of nature.
The framer’s believed the bible is supreme at all times and all places.
“Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick.”
James Wilson-THE
WORKS
OF
THE HONOURABLE
JAMES WILSON, L. L. D.
The quotation from Hooker distinguishes the law of nature and scripture as two separate sources.>>
With reason being separate, and subordinate to the bible in all cases and at all times.
Our key Founders like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, & Wilson were number 3.>>
Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Wilson called themselves Christians not number 3. Their flawed interpretation is their problem not the bible’s.
Locke may have been #2>>
Locke was a unitarian.
4 ways to view reason & revelation, according to Founding thought:>>
Flawed.
“Locke believed reason and the Divine Law derive from the bible, that’s why he affirms Hooker, not refutes him, Locke agrees with Hooker that the bible(God, Yahweh) is the law of nature.”
That’s not what either of them say. Rather they say reason and revelation agree. Natural law remains what man can ascertain from reason unaided by the Bible.
“The framer’s [sic] believed the bible is supreme at all times and all places.”
Still don’t know how to spell plural words I see.
The theistic rationalists Founders — Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Wilson, Hamilton, G. Morris and others — elevated man’s reason over revelation.
“With reason being separate, and subordinate to the bible in all cases and at all times.”
Not what any of those key Founders believed.
“[T]he scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supersede the operations of reason and the moral sense.”
James Wilson
The theistic rationalists Founders — Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Wilson, Hamilton, G. Morris and others — elevated man’s reason over revelation.>>
Is man the author of natural law or man?
Do you mean “[i]s man the author of natural law or God?” They believed God authored natural law, but man’s reason was the tool for determining such. Man’s reason, they also believed, was the tool for determining which relevations of the Bible were legitimate.
They believed God authored natural law, but man’s reason was the tool for determining such>>
Doesn’t that seem strange to you? Does man determine what is true or not true of what God created? Man must affirm what God says IS truth, not what it seems to be true. The problem is taken care of by allowing the Creator of natural law to determine what is true, not what man believes is true by his own opinion. If that is rejected, then problems in logic present themselves. These problems only happen because of the postion you are taking. Most of the founders rejected this warped definition of reason because of the logical problems it makes. Besides those three framers, the rest believed the supernatural was consistent with reason because of the miracle of creation contradicts the other definition of reason, as well as the presuppostion without any evidence to the contrary.
Man’s reason…, was the tool for determining which relevations of the Bible were legitimate.>>
Do you see the contradiction? You are affirming God created natural law, but claiming man is God, by knowing more than God knows, by claiming God was wrong. That is wrong, and illogical. Only 3 of the main group of 250 framer’s claimed this belief in their own words, for their only reason is that they couldn’t personally accept it. It’s arbitrary selection, which there is no basis for, only a presupposition that there is no supernatural, which is a contradiction, since the creation is a greater miracle than the revelations Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin denied.
Their argument is flawed by common sense and logic, as well as contradicting themselves with their selection of what is a miracle and what is not.
There are logicians who would pick them a part much more than I could dream of.
Regards
“Do you see the contradiction? You are affirming God created natural law, but claiming man is God, by knowing more than God knows, by claiming God was wrong. That is wrong, and illogical.”
I’m not affirming anything. I think a problem you have is that you are supposing that the Founders’ theology must agree with yours or that there must have been some type of divine inspiration behind our Founding, and the men who wrote those documents.
Rather, I’m trying to understand how they understood themselves, regardless of whether I think their beliefs are sound. My own beliefs are far more deistic and agnostic than Jefferson’s and Adams’.
I never said I believe God created the natural law or even that there is a God. Rather, I said Adams, Jefferson et al. believed God created the natural law. They also believed the Bible was errant and that man’s reason was the test of which parts of the Bible were true, which weren’t. If you think this not to be sound or logical, take it up with them, because that’s what they believed.
When Jefferson took his razor the to the Bible, he was not, so he believed cutting out “God’s word,” but what he believed MAN’s word which had corrupted the Bible.
Indeed, Gregg Frazer who himself is an evangelical who believes the Bible to be infallible sometimes does so criticize them while he describes the views of our “theistic rationalist” Founders, in the PhD thesis where he coins the term! He thinks Jefferson’s taking his razor to the Bible and his belief that his reason was so keen he could “spot” the error there to have been astoundingly arrogant.
But the logical problem is easily solved by accepting their premise that the Bible is only partially inspired and God endowed men with reason as the penultimate device for ascertaining truth, even truth contained within the Bible. They believed that NATURE was God’s primary revelation to man, and that scripture was God’s secondary revelation.
Most modern philosophers, btw, reject the notion that *any* part of the Bible was revealed as illogical and irrational.
“Only 3 of the main group of 250 framer’s claimed this belief in their own words, for their only reason is that they couldn’t personally accept it. It’s arbitrary selection, which there is no basis for, only a presupposition that there is no supernatural, which is a contradiction, since the creation is a greater miracle than the revelations Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin denied.”
Well no, we’ve only analyzed 3 in detail. Some Founders like Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were less religious and more “strictly deists.” Other lesser well knowns like George Wythe and Henry Dearborn were likewise deist or unitarians. David Holmes suggests that James Monroe was either a Deist or what we would call a theistic rationalist. Though there are some “gaps” in their record, Madison and Washington never said anything inconsistent with theistic rationalism.
Absent a meticulous examination, of which there has not been done of the 200+ Founding Fathers, there is no good reason to de facto lump them in the orthodox Christian box.
I think a problem you have is that you are supposing that the Founders’ theology must agree with yours>>
As long as it is consistent with the bible, which is the far majority of the founding fathers, as well as the key framer’s of our nation.
or that there must have been some type of divine inspiration behind our Founding, and the men who wrote those documents.>>
I believe the only inspired book is the entire bible in the original autographs.
When Jefferson took his razor the to the Bible, he was not, so he believed cutting out “God’s word,” but what he believed MAN’s word which had corrupted the Bible.>>
He took the razor without any solid evidence to do so, only a presuppostion, which is actually a contradiction based on the creation.
But the logical problem is easily solved by accepting their premise that the Bible is only partially inspired>>
If they can show doctrinal errors, which I would agree with, but they can’t. What do call belief in something with evidence, faith? Logically, it doesn’t work out for them, for without the contrary evidence, they are saying God lied.
They believed that NATURE was God’s primary revelation to man, and that scripture was God’s secondary revelation.>>
Another problem of their logic, which doesn’t make sense, of which I’ve already showed. The Creator of Reason cannot be subservient to it. Totally illogical.
Some Founders like Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were less religious and more “strictly deists.”>>
Right, but we were talking about key, important framer’s.
Madison and Washington never said anything inconsistent with theistic rationalism.>>
What would you call someone claiming Christianity the best religion to a bunch of Christians? Without defining his defintion of Christianity, it surely isn’t affirming unitarianism, it’s affirming Christianity, correct?
If Madison pointed out what his beliefs were, then you may be right, but he never does.
What would you call a guy who says that Yahweh, the God of the bible is the God of all of us? He certainly doesn’t deny the first commandment of God, correct? That doesn’t make sense either. Why would he believe that Yahweh is God, and deny that God’s first, and basic commandment, “Have no other Gods” He would clearly violate that command by believing Yahweh is the God of us all. Yahweh is a specific God, not a god from someone else’s ideas.
That man is George Washington.
Logic overcomes these problems.
“What would you call someone claiming Christianity the best religion to a bunch of Christians?”
Using comparative words like “better” or “best” to describe Christianity is not orthodox because evangelicals believe Christianity is the ONLY true religion. “Better” or “best” implies that other religions are valid. As I’ve explained many times in the posts, since they believed the key purpose of religion was to promote morality, they thought Christianity was better, not because it was the only way to God, but because it did a better job promoting morality. And this is confirmed by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin describing Jesus, as a man, being the greatest moral teacher the world has seen. THAT’s what they thought best about Christianity.
“Without defining his defintion of Christianity, it surely isn’t affirming unitarianism, it’s affirming Christianity, correct?”
Nope: After Joseph Priestly, Jefferson and Adams believed that unitarianism was true Christianity and that Trinitarianism is Christianity corrupted.
“What would you call a guy who says that Yahweh, the God of the bible is the God of all of us? He certainly doesn’t deny the first commandment of God, correct? That doesn’t make sense either. Why would he believe that Yahweh is God, and deny that God’s first, and basic commandment, “Have no other Gods” He would clearly violate that command by believing Yahweh is the God of us all. Yahweh is a specific God, not a god from someone else’s ideas.
That man is George Washington.
Logic overcomes these problems.”
Wrong again. The only time Washington refers to God as Jehovah is in an address to the Jews. This perfectly fits with unitarian universalism where they accept God comes to various peoples through various names. Washington also referred to God as “The Great Spirit” when talking to native Americans and “The Great Architect of the Universe” when talking to his fellow Freemasons. Is the GAOTU the God of the Bible?
“Another problem of their logic, which doesn’t make sense, of which I’ve already showed. The Creator of Reason cannot be subservient to it. Totally illogical.”
If you want to criticize their beliefs, fine. That’s the topic of a whole ‘nother discussion. I am primarily concerned with determining WHAT they believed.
I might criticize Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin for believing ANY revelation is legitimate. Though, I, at least, reserve that *some* of the Bible may have been divinely inspired (which makes me practically a religious nut compared to my co-bloggers). But I agree with Ben Franklin that parts of the Bible are impossible to have been given by divine inspiration. Though, as noted, I am not certain that any of the Bible is divinely inspired.
I’d rather not get into my personal theology which is far more agnostic-deist than that of the key Founders.
But, in any event, you still haven’t demonstrated their illogic. They are not saying that the Creator of Reason is subservient to it.* Rather they are saying that since God’s prime attribue is rationality, any scripture that flunks the test of reason must not have been divinely inspired. And indeed, since they presumed that the Bible was only partially inspired (and thus fallible), I see no logical problem, given their presumptions. They didn’t blame the Bible’s fallibility on God, but rather on men whom they argued corrupted the Bible.
According to Jefferson, Paul was one of the biggest corrupters of Christiantiy.
* Though, Adams noting that even if he were on Mt. Sinai with Moses and God revealed the doctrine of the Trinity there Adams still wouldn’t believe it because man’s reason proves 1+1+1 = 3 comes pretty close to asserting the “Creator of Reason is subservient to it.” I think he would argue that 1) since God is rational by nature, 2) and since the Trinity flunks the test of reason, 3) God must have been unitarian and would never thus reveal the doctrine of the Trinity. And any revelations that attempt to show this must have been from corrupt man and not God.
Using comparative words like “better” or “best” to describe Christianity is not orthodox because evangelicals believe Christianity is the ONLY true religion. “Better” or “best” implies that other religions are valid.>>
Not necessarily. You are presuming, and since you don’t know for sure, you cannot presume. If you weigh the evidence, it favors my view. Check Webster’s definition, that will give you your answer.
And this is confirmed by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin describing Jesus, as a man, being the greatest moral teacher the world has seen. THAT’s what they thought best about Christianity.>>
You can prove only those three believed that, and they weren’t the most important framers. The evidence shows Sherman, Hamilton, Morris, Wilson, and Washington were more important for the Constitution.
After Joseph Priestly, Jefferson and Adams believed that unitarianism was true Christianity and that Trinitarianism is Christianity corrupted.>>
Big deal, that’s only two guys, out of two hundred and fifty founders.
This perfectly fits with unitarian universalism where they accept God comes to various peoples through various names. Washington also referred to God as “The Great Spirit” when talking to native Americans and “The Great Architect of the Universe” when talking to his fellow Freemasons. Is the GAOTU the God of the Bible?>>
Which proves you cannot be right, as someone believing that, is violating the first commandment of God. Yahweh is not the God of other nations, or the pagan “Great Spirit” or the god of anything else. He has a specific name, by attributing him as the same god with other cultures, violates the first commandment. That cannot be done.
Take your query to any logics professor if you don’t believe me.
But I agree with Ben Franklin that parts of the Bible are impossible to have been given by divine inspiration.>>
It’s more unreasonable to disregard eyewitness testimony without sufficient evidence to the contrary.
They are not saying that the Creator of Reason is subservient to it.* Rather they are saying that since God’s prime attribue is rationality, any scripture that flunks the test of reason must not have been divinely inspired. And indeed, since they presumed that the Bible was only partially inspired (and thus fallible), I see no logical problem, given their presumptions. They didn’t blame the Bible’s fallibility on God, but rather on men whom they argued corrupted the Bible.>>
Like I said, without evidence of corruption, it is illogical. It’s calling God a liar.
and would never thus reveal the doctrine of the Trinity. And any revelations that attempt to show this must have been from corrupt man and not God.>>
That is a contradiction because the trinity is in hundreds of verses in the bible. It’s impossible for the hebrew scriptures to have been corrupted because they are dated before the Apostles could corrupt them. Like I said, poor Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. Madison, Wilson, Washington, and the rest weren’t that stupid.
You should know there is evidence the trinity is perfectly logical. Jefferson and Adams did not know this information.
Since numbers can be finite as well as infinite, therefore, sets of numbers can demonstrate that parts could be just as large as the whole. The concept of the trinity is perfectly possible and rational. Jefferson and Adams were too smart for their own intelligence.
http://www.acmsonline.org/Matsumoto.pdf#search=%22Had%20you%20and%20I%20been%20forty%20days%20with%20Moses%20on%20Mount%20Sinai%20and%20admitted%20to%20behold%2C%20the%20divine%20Shekinah%2C%20and%20there%20told%20that%20one%20was%20three%20and%20three%2C%20one%22
– Which proves you cannot be right, as someone believing that, is violating the first commandment of God. Yahweh is not the God of other nations, or the pagan “Great Spirit” or the god of anything else. He has a specific name, by attributing him as the same god with other cultures, violates the first commandment. That cannot be done.
– Take your query to any logics professor if you don’t believe me. –
James I think you need to take a course in elementary logic. Whatever the soundness of their beliefs, they did believe that Yahweh, Allah, the Great Spirit, the GAOTU, were all different names of the one true God.
This is exactly what Freemasonry teaches and such illustrates how Freemasonry’s universalism impacted the beliefs of our key Founders.
See the following comment on the matter.
http://positiveliberty.com/2005/11/george-washingtonliieeeeeeeeed.html#comment-1552
“Oh, and the GAOTU isn’t a different God from the other ones. Freemasonry believes in the existence of one and exactly one god; by definition it has to be the same one for everyone, no matter how It is named.”
Whether Freemasonry or the Founders’ universalism violates the First Commandment I’ll let you and the others judge. But if it does it does. Arguably speaking, their God — their benevolent unitarian deity — was not the same God you worship — the Truine God of the Bible. If that means they violated the first commandment, they violated the first commandment. That they sometimes claimed their God was the God of Abraham proves nothing for your point as Muslims also claim Allah is the God of Abraham. You could respond, “well Allah is not the God of Abraham even if the Muslims claim him to be,” I could respond “the Founders’ benevolent unitarian deity is not the God of the Bible even if they claimed him to be.”
They believed Allah, Jehovah, the Great Spirit, the GAOTU and arguably Jove and Vishnu were all different names of the same one true God of the universe.
If their unitarian God was a false God and they violated the first command in your eyes, so be it. You seem to be operating under the erroneous premise that our Founders could not have violated the first commandment.
If their unitarian God was a false God and they violated the first command in your eyes, so be it. You seem to be operating under the erroneous premise that our Founders could not have violated the first commandment.>>
Maybe you’re understanding this a little better. Ask an expert on the founding fathers to see if the Jefferson was so ignorant of violating the first commandment of God, at the same time calling themselves a Christian. You’re the only one who buys that. It has nothing to do with what I believe, it’s common sense.
They believed Allah, Jehovah, the Great Spirit, the GAOTU and arguably Jove and Vishnu were all different names of the same one true God of the universe.>>
This is obsurd as any expert on the framers would admit. Jefferson and Adams were deceived about the bible, that’s all.
their benevolent unitarian deity — was not the same God you worship — the Truine God of the Bible.>>
It is the same God, the God of the bible, not any pagan deity. That is ridiculous. Since they learned about this God from the bible, proves they were deceived in their definition.
That they sometimes claimed their God was the God of Abraham>>
Proving my point. With the ignorance you’re proscribing to Jefferson and Adams, they would never have been allowed to serve in Govt. That Yahweh is the same god as Jove just shows you’re reaching for anything to support your point, but besides Jefferson and Adams, you’re dreaming, with no substantial evidence on your side.
This is exactly what Freemasonry teaches and such illustrates how Freemasonry’s universalism impacted the beliefs of our key Founders.>>
One was a freemason, big deal.
they did believe that Yahweh, Allah, the Great Spirit, the GAOTU, were all different names of the one true God.>>
Three guys max, keep dreaming about the others.
The bottom line is you are deceiving the public in claiming the founders were called “theistic rationalists” when only three, maybe four of the key framers were wrong about their views on Yahweh, the God of the bible. They called themselves Christians, not theistic rationalists.
“Without defining his defintion of Christianity, it surely isn’t affirming unitarianism, it’s affirming Christianity, correct?”
Nope: After Joseph Priestly, Jefferson and Adams believed that unitarianism was true Christianity and that Trinitarianism is Christianity corrupted.>>
This is incorrect as well, without defining the definition of Christianity, claiming to be a Christian to other Christians is deception, not honesty.
James,
Your appeal to the “experts” is laughable as almost all of them are either on my side or to the left of me. Most “experts” on Jefferson and the other founding fathers are likely to categorize them as deists and nothing more.
“With the ignorance you’re proscribing to Jefferson and Adams, they would never have been allowed to serve in Govt.”
Most of their most heterodox thoughts came from their private writings. But even in a public book John Adams describes Greek and Roman God worship as “sound” religion and morality.
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2007/01/worshipping-zeus-apparently-some-folks.html
“That Yahweh is the same god as Jove just shows you’re reaching for anything to support your point,…”
That “anything” happens to be Adams’ own words on the matter.
“θέμίς was the Goddess of honesty, Justice, Decency, and right; the Wife of Jove, another name for Juno. She presided over all oracles, deliberations and Counsells. She commanded all Mortals to pray to Jupiter, for all lawful Benefits and Blessings.
“Now, is not this, (so far forth) the Essence of Christian devotion? Is not this Christian Piety? Is it not an Acknonowledgement [sic] of the existence of a Supream Being? of his universal Providence? of a righteous Administration of the Government of the Universe? And what can Jews, Christians, or Mahometans do more?
“…Moses says, Genesis. I. 27. [”]God created man in his own image.” What then is the difference between Cleanthes and Moses? Are not the Being and Attributes of the Supream Being: The Resemblance, the Image the Shadow of God in the Intelligence, and the moral qualities of Man, and the Lawfulness and duty of Prayer, as clear[l]y asserted by Cleanthes as by Moses? And did not the Chaldeans, the Egyptians the Persians the Indians, the Chinese, believe all this, as well as the Jews and Greeks?…I believe Cleanthes to be as good a Christian as Priestley.”
Adams to Jefferson, Oct. 4, 1813
http://positiveliberty.com/2005/10/john-adams-unitarian-universalist-seeker-of-the-truth.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/cleanthe.htm
– The bottom line is you are deceiving the public in claiming the founders were called ‘theistic rationalists’ when only three, maybe four of the key framers were wrong about their views on Yahweh, the God of the bible. They called themselves Christians, not theistic rationalists.” –
Well then start your own blog and see if you can impress enough people with your knowledge of the primary sources and reasoning ability to draw the kind of traffic and get the citations that I have.
Finally, I’ll remind you again, though I’m not a particularly religious fellow, it was one of your brothers in Christ — a prominent academic at a conservative Christian college — who came up with the whole idea of theistic rationalism as the dominant religious creed of the key Founders and so categorized Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Wilson, and G. Morris as such.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.394/pub_detail.asp
From his article:
“Although affiliated with various denominations, the major founders did not typically hold to the beliefs officially espoused by their denominations. Similarly, while Franklin and Jefferson are regularly listed as deists, they did not believe in the fundamental tenets of deism. The key founders shared a common belief which might be called theistic rationalism. Theistic rationalism was a hybrid, mixing elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, with rationalism as the predominant element. Accordingly, the founders believed in a benevolent, active, and unitary God who intervenes in human affairs. Consequently, they believed that prayers are heard and effectual. They believed that the key factor in serving God is living a good and moral life, that promotion of morality is central to the value of religion, and that the morality engendered by religion is indispensable to society. Because virtually all religions promote morality, they believed that most religious traditions are valid and lead to the same God.
“Though theistic rationalists did not believe that Jesus was God, they considered him a great moral teacher and held a higher view of him than did deists. They believed in a personal after-life in which the wicked will be temporarily punished and the good experience happiness forever. Although they believed that God primarily revealed himself through nature, they believed that some written revelation was legitimate. Finally, while they believed that reason and revelation generally agree with each other, theistic rationalists believed that revelation was designed to complement reason (not vice versa). Reason was the ultimate standard for learning and evaluating truth and for determining legitimate revelation from God.
“While many of these ideas are common threads running through Mapp’s account of the founders’ beliefs, he does not ‘connect the dots’ and call attention to commonalities which would upset his thesis. One part, at least, of his argument is correct: both the secular Left and Christian Right are wrong to claim most of the founders for their respective ‘teams.’ But he is far from proving that the other part of his thesis is correct: that their religious attitudes were as varied as their political opinions. As to their political opinions, it may be well to recall Jefferson’s reflection, some fifty years after the fact, on the essential ideas animating the American Revolution: ‘[T]here was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American Whigs thought alike on these subjects.’”
Finally, I’ll remind you again, though I’m not a particularly religious fellow, it was one of your brothers in Christ — a prominent academic at a conservative Christian college — who came up with the whole idea of theistic rationalism as the dominant religious creed of the key Founders and so categorized Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, Wilson, and G. Morris as such.>>
That doesn’t make him right or that you should believe it.
That post seems agreeable, although he and you are wrong about lumping the key founders as these rationalists. Washington was mason, so I agree with you, not Madison, Wilson, Morris, and Hamilton, unless you can provide solid evidence for it.
Regards