Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

[stahrwe]

Oh like you don't use the stuff........Get a life Fundie! Your money keeps you here any place else you'd have been gone for trolling!

1) In A Man for All Seasons Sir Thomas More, on trial for treason is the victim of perjury by a former friend. The perjury is devastating to More and assures his conviction and execution. As the friend is leaving court More is granter permission to question him. The witness is wearing a emblem of power for a Wales. More asks the man if it is worth selling his soul for Wales. I believe Chris to me a man on integrity and conscience. Over the year I have been on Bt I have contributed what amounts to about $50 per month. I know Chris appreciates the contributions but I doubt that they are sufficiently large to influence his beliefs.

2) There are no formal rules against trolling posted on BT's rules. I grant you that trolling is frowned upon but from what I see of the definitions of trolling, I have not done so. I rarely engage in sarcasm, I don't believe I have ever said that a member was stupid or directly insulted someone though I have been the victim of a number of personal attacks. I submit that the comments I make are discomfitting because they are out of the normal confines of your comfort zone and cannot be refuted.

[Azrael]

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

Wilson: Deist, and Nothing More

"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27

Wilson: No Facts Prove Him a Christian

"I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of his character."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a letter to the Rev B C C Parker, dated December 31, 1832, from Wilson, Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 189-191, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 28

Bell: Stranger to Religious Prejudice

"[Washington was] a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another."
-- John Bell, in 1779, in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 118, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "

Washington was a Deists pure and simple....

[stahrwe]

This discussion is: "Epistemology and Biblical Evidence"

not: Epistemology and Christian Evidence.

If you wish I will be happy to start another thread on Christianty and America's founding fathers. I believe i can make a good case that your citations are not only biased but wrong.

I suggest that you visit the TEoG discussion of "What Did Jesus Do" for an example of the twisting of information and lack of knowledge of the Bible.

[Azrael]

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

You started it with this...................

[stahrwe]

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

You started it with this...................

I accept your challenge

[stahrwe]

Star Burst,

Do you support this definition of Deism as pertains to George Washington?

If not please provide your definition of Deism.

thank you.

Deists accept the existence of a Supreme Being who created the cosmos and who is responsible for all of life. They argue, however, that knowledge of religious truth can only be acquired through reason and observation, and not through creeds or dogmas. As a general rule, Deists reject (or are at least highly skeptical of) purported divine interventions in the day-to-day affairs of the human race. Consequently, Deists reject the deity of Jesus Christ and put little stock in prayer, generally preferring to see God as someone who created the universe and then more or less left it to its own fate.

[Azrael]

Star Burst,

Do you support this definition of Deism as pertains to George Washington?

If not please provide your definition of Deism.

thank you.

Deists accept the existence of a Supreme Being who created the cosmos and who is responsible for all of life. They argue, however, that knowledge of religious truth can only be acquired through reason and observation, and not through creeds or dogmas. As a general rule, Deists reject (or are at least highly skeptical of) purported divine interventions in the day-to-day affairs of the human race. Consequently, Deists reject the deity of Jesus Christ and put little stock in prayer, generally preferring to see God as someone who created the universe and then more or less left it to its own fate.

Yeah you pretty much nailed it. Washington, in my opinion was most likely not a hardcore Deist. Washington often said prayers with his troops and rarely if ever attended church, dropping Martha off and sending the carriage back later to get her. Hard line Deists such as Jefferson wrote or should I say re wrote the New Testament "The Jefferson Bible" which you can read online here http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBibe/ because he did not believe in the miracles that Jesus performed. Franklin was Deists but his views were often conflicting. Thomas Paine was the more hard line Deists of that time period. His book Age of Reason is a great read for anyone interested in Deists thoughts and views.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_ ... of_reason/ Deism presents an interesting insight and does not hinge primarily on the Christian vs Atheists debate and takes issue with both. I in a sense believe has they do, that no divine intervention plays any role in our daily life.

[DWill]

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

It's interesting that some of the founders were skeptical of religion or at least hard to pin down, yet probably all would agree with GW, even Jefferson did. They knew that the success of the new republic depended on the individual virtue of its people, and so any institution that appeared to foster that they wanted to strengthen. It's a great paradox for some: religion is to be excluded from our political decisions but is to be a foundation of the country in a civic sense. Was there then, or even now, a more influential grassroots institution?

And yet I don't think Washington is right, great man though he undoubtedly was. He underestimates the power of the very Constitution over whose creation he presided. He also doesn't take education into account as a force that can instruct people in morality. Since it appears inescapable that religion doesn't work anymore for perhaps a majority of citizens, the task is to build up secular institutions (including the family) and organizations and to make our democracy participatory again. The answer is not to insist on going back to a golden era of religion.

[stahrwe]

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.

It's interesting that some of the founders were skeptical of religion or at least hard to pin down, yet probably all would agree with GW, even Jefferson did. They knew that the success of the new republic depended on the individual virtue of its people, and so any institution that appeared to foster that they wanted to strengthen. It's a great paradox for some: religion is to be excluded from our political decisions but is to be a foundation of the country in a civic sense. Was there then, or even now, a more influential grassroots institution?

And yet I don't think Washington is right, great man though he undoubtedly was. He underestimates the power of the very Constitution over whose creation he presided. He also doesn't take education into account as a force that can instruct people in morality. Since it appears inescapable that religion doesn't work anymore for perhaps a majority of citizens, the task is to build up secular institutions (including the family) and organizations and to make our democracy participatory again. The answer is not to insist on going back to a golden era of religion.[/quote]

What is the basis of the statement in bold?
The idea of building up family and essentially the govt or NGO's as substitutes for religion is bogus. The family as a functional institution in the United States has declined in strength as the dedication of the population to religious institutions has. Much of this decline is the result of the portrayal of religion and family values in the media.

As for the government and NGO's has there ever been an efficient government?

thank you for the post.

[DWill]

It's interesting that some of the founders were skeptical of religion or at least hard to pin down, yet probably all would agree with GW, even Jefferson did. They knew that the success of the new republic depended on the individual virtue of its people, and so any institution that appeared to foster that they wanted to strengthen. It's a great paradox for some: religion is to be excluded from our political decisions but is to be a foundation of the country in a civic sense. Was there then, or even now, a more influential grassroots institution?

And yet I don't think Washington is right, great man though he undoubtedly was. He underestimates the power of the very Constitution over whose creation he presided. He also doesn't take education into account as a force that can instruct people in morality. Since it appears inescapable that religion doesn't work anymore for perhaps a majority of citizens, the task is to build up secular institutions (including the family) and organizations and to make our democracy participatory again. The answer is not to insist on going back to a golden era of religion.

What is the basis of the statement in bold?
The idea of building up family and essentially the govt or NGO's as substitutes for religion is bogus. The family as a functional institution in the United States has declined in strength as the dedication of the population to religious institutions has. Much of this decline is the result of the portrayal of religion and family values in the media.

As for the government and NGO's has there ever been an efficient government?

thank you for the post.

Churches do some very worthwhile things in our country. To deny that they do seems churlish. If, however, religion is not working anymore my concern would be in taking up the slack. Note I didn't say that government should be doing this, because I believe in limited government. I'm thinking more along the lines of Rotary International, which has some outstanding programs. So, actually the responsibility is still with the individual to support and participate in organizations that make the world better. I see the answer of bringing God back to wherever as a nonstarter. That's on the public side. On the private side, you and I will never agree on what is needed to make a morally observant person, so I'll stop here.

As for strong families, are you sure your correlation is also causative? If you look at countries where religion is much less a going thing than it is here, some of them show a higher value placed on the family.