Archaeologist Finds Tomb of King Herod

Thomas Jefferson
1781 - Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18
Category: God
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.
Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (352)

James Madison
1785 - A Memorial and Remonstrance
Category: God
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.
Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (327)

Ben Franklin:
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power,'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
[Ben Franklin,_Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754

Mary-CO wrote:

Benjamin Franklin
1771 - Autobiography
Category: Human Nature
In reality there is perhaps no one of our natural Passions so hard to subdue as Pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will now and then peek out and show itself.
Reference: Autobiograhpy, Franklin (158-60)[Sheehan (3:3)]

In case you didn't notice, this is about "nature's god"--a Deist concept, not a christian one.

Mary-CO wrote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared,“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” The “separation of church and state” phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

Gentlemen,-The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction.... Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. 9

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a brain. Over the years I have learned things like logic, scientific reasoning the scientific method of advancing knowledge, and a wide assortment of facts. Verifiable facts that do not contradict themselves two pages further down the book. With these tools I gain an understanding of the real world around me. If your myths conflict with reality, which do you think I should trust? Hmm, myth? Or reality?

Oh, I don't know. Reality? Who's reality? Yours? Mine? The ones who still try to advance the belief the world is flat? After all, a round world is only a myth. Myths seem to have tendencies to show themselves as fact. Like, the "myth" that the universe doesn't really revolve around the Earth. Like the "myth" of the city of Troy, because, after all, there was no physical proof. Like the "myth" of evolution. If evolution is real, why are there not creatures around now that are half bird half fish, or half human half bear, or any other living creature that is somewhere in between what it was and what it will become? Why is it always called The Theory of Evolution? Why isn't it called The Fact of Evolution? Please, explain for me here what defines a theory and what differentiates a theory from fact.

For whatever reason, you seem to have gotten the idea that I am trying to convert you to something you're not. You're mistaken. You see, I don't determine what path you are to walk. It is not my choice. My path is my choice. Yours is yours. Who's path is correct? Both. Mine is correct for me, yours is correct for you. Grandfather taught me that everyone I meet is a teacher. Some will teach me how to be, others will teach me how not to be. My research, which has led me to the physical locations many of the events discussed in this thread have occurred, has shown me that what I believe is true. Does that mean you have to believe it as well? Why should it?

However, what gives you the right to try to decide what path is correct for me? How are you able to judge that my path is wrong? You have no more right to tell me my path is false, that my path is foolishness, than I have to tell you what city to live in or what job you are to have.

Tell you what... you prove to me that God does NOT exist, and I'll stop believing. You will have to provide physical proof of the same criteria that you seem to be requiring others to provide that God DOES exist. Anyone on this thread... prove to me that God does NOT exist with the same caliber of evidence that you require to prove that He does. I look forward to reading your evidence.

Standing Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you rather live as if there is a God and be right, or live as if there is NO God and be wrong? If I live my life expecting to see God on the other side, and I'm wrong, what have I lost? If I live my live expecting to find nothing on the other side and I'm wrong, what have I lost?

What if you believe in the wrong religion and the God of Abraham is just a myth?

Cpetr13 wrote:

In case you didn't notice, this is about "nature's god"--a Deist concept, not a christian one.
<quoted text>

Mary Co. is wrong and uneducated. I got bored with her arguments.

Mary-CO wrote:

What other "Nature's God" is named as such if not for the God of the Bible? What other religion were we founded on that was monotheistic?

Try doing a little research beyond your own religion. All of the founders that you quoted were Diests - not Christians. "Nature's God" was a term used to describe the Deist belief in the divinity of the Universe itself, not your Christian god.

To simply ascribe your religion to people simply because you believe their words imply it is pretty arrogant.

-pb

Mary-CO wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you really study apologenics?

Well, actually, I studied apologetics... And it was the study of reasons for doubt and the rebutals that helped me see the falseness of Christianity. While the reasons for doubt were there, the rebutals were consistantly weak, jsut like here.

Liam R wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, actually, I studied apologetics... And it was the study of reasons for doubt and the rebutals that helped me see the falseness of Christianity. While the reasons for doubt were there, the rebutals were consistantly weak, jsut like here.

Are you an atheist? Do you believe in evolution? Please tell me what you believe.

pbagosy wrote:

<quoted text>
Try doing a little research beyond your own religion. All of the founders that you quoted were Diests - not Christians. "Nature's God" was a term used to describe the Deist belief in the divinity of the Universe itself, not your Christian god.
To simply ascribe your religion to people simply because you believe their words imply it is pretty arrogant.
-pb

What is the foundation for the "deists" god? On what monotheistic religion did they base their ideas?

I agree that not all founding fathers were Christians. Deism has its roots in the Judeo Christian God. It may be a morphed idea but, just like Jehovah's witnesses, or Mormonism there is a root in the original Judeo Christian God. The three monotheistic religions are: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The ideas of the founding fathers were not found in Islam.

Supreme Court Decision 1892, Church of the Holy Trinity b. United States

But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the [496] ocean will be discovered," etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith," etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned Desires."

Church of the Holy Trinity V. United States continued...
Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc.,- and also provides in article 1,§ 7,(a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; *** not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order.*** The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right.

That is but a small part of the decision. The rest can be found at

http://home.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinityOp1-2...

Standing Wolf wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, I don't know. Reality? Who's reality? Yours? Mine? The ones who still try to advance the belief the world is flat? After all, a round world is only a myth. Myths seem to have tendencies to show themselves as fact. Like, the "myth" that the universe doesn't really revolve around the Earth. Like the "myth" of the city of Troy, because, after all, there was no physical proof.

Wrong, there was physical evidence before Schielmann (?) started looking. The tels were long said to contain antiquities. It was the Europeans that didn't know what they signified. Reality is objective. It does not require belief to exist.

Standing Wolf wrote:

Like the "myth" of evolution. If evolution is real, why are there not creatures around now that are half bird half fish, or half human half bear, or any other living creature that is somewhere in between what it was and what it will become?

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/evolution/tikt...
See also Stephen Jay Gould and the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Esentially, most of the time, a species is stable, and only when Something Happens is there much room for new species. Also, new species tend to show up in smaller, isolated populations.

Standing Wolf wrote:

Why is it always called The Theory of Evolution? Why isn't it called The Fact of Evolution? Please, explain for me here what defines a theory and what differentiates a theory from fact.

It is the difference in the use of a word as jargon with an exact technical meaning and the word in vulgar useage. What a scientist means when he uses the word "theory" is about the same as what a layman means when he uses the phrase "proven fact". Most laymen use "theory" to mean "I've got a wild ass guess." For a scientist it means that all available facts have been gathered and examined, and the best explanation is this "theory".

Standing Wolf wrote:

For whatever reason, you seem to have gotten the idea that I am trying to convert you to something you're not. You're mistaken. You see, I don't determine what path you are to walk. It is not my choice. My path is my choice. Yours is yours. Who's path is correct? Both. Mine is correct for me, yours is correct for you. Grandfather taught me that everyone I meet is a teacher. Some will teach me how to be, others will teach me how not to be. My research, which has led me to the physical locations many of the events discussed in this thread have occurred, has shown me that what I believe is true. Does that mean you have to believe it as well? Why should it?
However, what gives you the right to try to decide what path is correct for me? How are you able to judge that my path is wrong? You have no more right to tell me my path is false, that my path is foolishness, than I have to tell you what city to live in or what job you are to have.
Tell you what... you prove to me that God does NOT exist, and I'll stop believing. You will have to provide physical proof of the same criteria that you seem to be requiring others to provide that God DOES exist. Anyone on this thread... prove to me that God does NOT exist with the same caliber of evidence that you require to prove that He does. I look forward to reading your evidence.

I am not saying that there is no Divine. I AM saying that the Bible, as written is not and cannot be the inerrant inspired word from that Divine. There are factual errors and contradictions. Among these are the inclusion of a Bronze Age creation myth, and the myth of a world covering flood and the contradictions in geneologies in the Gospels and the OT.

I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs. My church does not proselytize. I am merely working to erradicate ignorance in our society.

Mary-CO wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you an atheist? Do you believe in evolution? Please tell me what you believe.

As I posted back on page 9:

Liam R wrote:

Your comments are based on some erronious assumptions. Once upon a time, I was a Christian. Then I read the Bible, had some classes in apologenics and became an atheist. After a time, I realized that atheism requires as great a leap of faith as any religion, and began to call my self an agnostic, saying that noone is capable of knowing the truth, that it cannot be proven in an objective way.
Some time after that, I found the key to the door that was closed between me and the Divine. It is MY key, and maybe it could work for you, maybe not. For over 14 years now, I have been an ordained priest, I have taught seminary for my church, I teach my own son in the hope that he will follow my path as his own.

The Skeptics Bible is a great site, for the way they present the information, even if not for all the info itself. I have not yet caught them in an error, but I'll keep my eye open. It has been a great many years since I have let anyone think for me.
I have no fear of death, no fear of what is to be my fate once I die.
You claim that Jesus is true, but you have only ink spots on a page as proof.

So no, I am not now an atheist although I did pass through that as a stage on my path. Just over 14 years ago I was ordained as a priest in my church, which is Celtic Pagan in nature.

I am not attempting to disprove the Divine, only an erronious interpretation of the Divine.

As far as "believing" in evolution... do you "believe" in gravity? Electricity? Magnatism? Science teaches us the "what" and "how" about the real world.

Mary-CO wrote:

Supreme Court Decision 1892, Church of the Holy Trinity b. United States
But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the [496] ocean will be discovered," etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith," etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned Desires."

And in Europe during the time those quotes were first uttered, there was an ongoing series of wars fought over trivial differences in religion, wars with Christian fighting Christian. THAT is exactly why our Founding Fathers put the separation clause into the Constitution in the first place. And while the Supreme Court is good, they have made errors in the past, for example, afirming the "right" to own slaves, and to have that "property" returned.