|
|
OldLich
Hired Hero
|
posted June 11, 2016 08:15 PM |
|
Edited by OldLich at 20:16, 11 Jun 2016.
|
markkur said:
OldLich said:
...but it means they are the ones who least underestimate him, because they don't reduce God down to a book, like christians do.
Good grief; someone that does NOT believe has a better estimate than someone who does. That is irrational and horribly devoid of merit. Try thinking; "Creator of the universe" "Miracles" etc.
I do see tendencies that christians have a defined and detailed description of God that they use in their daily lives as if there were any such small little details about God that could be used for that.
Christians reduce God down to patterns, so they must be the ones who underestimate God the most.
And I repeat myself; criticizing God is not opposing God, it's actually embracing God because in that critique you endorse a much more mysterious God that he haven't reduced down to a book.
So technically, philosophically and logically, non-christians are much more likely to get heaven than christians.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 12, 2016 11:56 PM |
|
|
God is a person, not a patern or a book
God can't be reduced to a pattern or a book. Though he is described in a book, the Bible. God fills and transcends all that is. In This life we can't perceive him in all his glory.
God is alive. A living person. Is he a human person. Yes and no. God has always been the eternal all-powerful Spirit who existed before all things and who is the First Cause of all things. Two thousand years ago that God began to also exist as a single celled human in Mary's womb. He was born as a helpless baby in a manger. They named him Jesus. Jesus grew bodily and in knowledge and in favor with the Spirit who is God.
In "the fullness of time" Jesus began to preach and teach. His earthly ministry was short. Perhaps three and a half years. This man who is God taught us to call God Father. He told us God loves each of us, not just humanity as a whole.
This God in flesh laid down his life in love for us though we spat in his face, tore his beard from his face, and nailed him to a cross. This man rose from the dead. God still lives as Spirit and as man.
After Jesus ascended to heaven he "poured out his Spirit" on his disciples. He is pouring out his Spirit still today.
God is "I AM" not "I once was" or words in a book. The still small voice of God can still be heard by those with ears to hear. The Spirit of Jesus can still teach His disciples.
Christianity is a relationship with the living God.
|
|
OldLich
Hired Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2016 05:58 AM |
|
|
Elodin said:
Christianity is a relationship with the living God.
The reason it's easy to have a relationship with God is because it's easy to love nothing. What you can't see, touch or be with, it's very easy to love them, because it doesn't involve any responsibility, all you have to do is to fantasize about anything really, and then apply it, without any side effects.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2016 06:08 AM |
|
|
|
OldLich
Hired Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2016 09:11 AM |
|
Edited by OldLich at 09:17, 15 Jun 2016.
|
Give the world a religion so they can pretend to be good for him, rather than create a good world so they could be good for him. 
I'd like 100,000 churches on TOP of the earth, rather than have one big earth as a big church.
"I will let them feel like they are good, but not more than that, I need them to act differently for my personal cause"
"To make them feel like they are morale beings, we need an artificial cause, a religion for example"
|
|
Sleeping_Sun
Promising
Famous Hero
Townscreen Architect
|
|
posted June 15, 2016 09:53 AM |
|
|
OldLich said:
Elodin said:
Christianity is a relationship with the living God.
The reason it's easy to have a relationship with God is because it's easy to love nothing. What you can't see, touch or be with, it's very easy to love them, because it doesn't involve any responsibility, all you have to do is to fantasize about anything really, and then apply it, without any side effects.
From the point of view of a Christian, you always have some relationship with God, whether you are believer or not. You either have a good/bad relationship, or you are simply indifferent towards Him, etc. Of course, as a believer, the relationship that you have is deepened, if you are true believer, and not just a brag-about-it-believer.
However, the issue of love towards God is a separate one from the relationship that one has with God. For example, while I do believe in God and I believe that we have an ok relationship (speaking from my perspective), I do not think that I have ever loved Him. Or more exactly I do not know how to love Him. I tried to figure it out, but it never resulted in me loving Him, at least that is what I believe. I love World Trigger manga, and the joy it brings me when I read it or when I find a spoiler, it cannot be put into words. I also love some other things, but never in my life has that love been directed towards God himself. I do not really know why. For me, maybe it is difficult to love him because I cannot see him. I do not really know.
On the other hand, maybe I do love Him, but not as much as other things, such as manga, for example. :sigh: Who knows, and who cares... The point is that it is difficult to claim such things.
EDIT: Also, I believe that there is some form of responsibility in that relationship with God. And what you mentioned about fantasizing is a bit ridiculous to me. Do you say that when you love someone that you actually just have to fantasize about the one you love and that is love? For me, love is love and fantasizing is fantasizing. You can actually do both with God and with people, but the actions are not the same, despite the fact that some people may mistake one for the other.
|
|
OldLich
Hired Hero
|
|
posted June 15, 2016 10:04 AM |
|
Edited by OldLich at 10:23, 15 Jun 2016.
|
..and sushi
It goes the opposite way around, people are obsessed with hatred and mistake that for the other guy being obsessed with love. Do you see the difference? One of them don't lack anything and has some extremely amazing unseen privileges. To me, If I were to analyze things a bit from a distance, my relaxed opinion about carelessness makes people see care where there need not be any.
When I first saw, what I saw some time ago, I was fully engaged in being interested in the cause, rather than in the God, but it was quite difficult when I had to face God too in that process. Believe me, the last thing I need is anything but the cause. I detected the "muddy" stuff a long time ago.
I've already detected the universal difference in, the way we utilize our thoughts when it comes down to the real thing. I'm just careless, and in that you come to conclusions that makes other people see care where there are absolutely none. It wouldn't even be interesting to try to place the idea of using our thoughts, in a comparative way to come to a conclusion whats true or not, it's pointless in a way that i've seen how thoughts have manifested itself.
When I see something I like, a thought, an idea or anything really. I take the best thing I can see without standing in line, I won't stand in a queue and wait to see what idea of life is the better one. Some people see that as a sign of care, it's (again) carelessness.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 01:28 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 01:32, 04 Jul 2016.
|
i'm posting this in the appropriate thread, since my politics thread is full of stuff that needs moved to this thread:
Elodin said:
The God of the Bible is nature's God.
the "bible's god" is the exact opposite of "nature's god". in religion, you are told that anything you do by nature(that is, naturally) is wrong, morally(nudism, murder, sex just for the snow of it, etc.). in nature, there IS no right or wrong. nature doesn't HAVE a morality. that's what makes it natural, and not man-made.
|
|
Homer171
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 03:30 PM |
|
Edited by Homer171 at 15:30, 04 Jul 2016.
|
Oldlich you assume too much and too little. Bible is ofcourse the source how we see and identify God but no way it stops there. Philosophical thinking is part of what makes us humans, certainly the questions and ideals emerge even when "we have the Book, that says it all". No, that we can evolve we ask new questions everyday and every solved puzzle will open new complex part of the mystery we call life. You said idea that it's easier to fantasy the reality rather than living in it. This always bugs me when people mix Imagenary from creative thinking. Think about architect who has a vision what kinda building it will come. He makes plans and sketches how it all could come together. After all factors has taken care of "he start to build". Now if you don't have this imagery in your mind it's very hard to build anything. When it comes down to philosophy, religion ,political you need to have vision. You start to build from the foundation what you know are true and carefully build quality from there. Imagenary is great gift, don't mix it whit absurd ideals fantasing something what is not realistic.
____________
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 09:17 PM |
|
|
fred79 said:
i'm posting this in the appropriate thread, since my politics thread is full of stuff that needs moved to this thread:
Elodin said:
The God of the Bible is nature's God.
the "bible's god" is the exact opposite of "nature's god". in religion, you are told that anything you do by nature(that is, naturally) is wrong, morally(nudism, murder, sex just for the snow of it, etc.). in nature, there IS no right or wrong. nature doesn't HAVE a morality. that's what makes it natural, and not man-made.
Fred, just one question; "IF" God exists and did create the Universe and subsequently our Natural world we stroll, how exactly is God not the God of Nature?
Sorry about the "IF"s Fred but it seems I cannot make that neutral condition near enough today in any discussion. Non-believers too often fly quickly on by and perceive sentences like that as...Declarations.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 04, 2016 09:26 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:28, 04 Jul 2016.
|
When you click that you will see:
Deism, derived from the Latin word "deus" meaning "god", is a theological/philosophical position that combines the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe.
Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany and the United States—who, raised as Christians, believed in one God but became disenchanted with organized religion and notions such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy and the supernatural interpretation of events such as miracles. Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 05, 2016 04:21 AM |
|
|
Oh my, some guy somewhere wrote the Declaration of Independence portrays a deist view of God so that must be true, huh? Not. In fact it is astonishing that anyone who has carefully and thoughtfully read it claims the DOI descriptions of God are deist. Shall we engage our brains and examine the phrases for ourselves?
A. "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”;
Ok, deists say God created everything and then turned a blind eye to his creation because he does not give a rat's butt about what he created. That means a deist God would not care how I treated anyone. Yet the Declaration of Independence says we all have the same rights and our rights come from God. The rights include but are not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So God wants me to let you live, to let you live freely, and to let you pursue happiness in your life. Sorry, this passage does not describe an aloof, uncaring God. Not. One. Bit.
B “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”;
Now, I will grant you that this phrase could theoretically refer to a God that set everything in motion and then ignored his Creation. But the problem is this little phrase can only mean that if it is isolated from the rest of the Declaration. God described in the Bible created an ordered universe with natural laws. He sometimes intervenes in history. The phrase "“the laws of nature and of nature’s God” fits that description of God too.
C “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world”;
Uh oh. This ain't looking so good for deism. "Appealing" as in praying to the Supreme Judge of the world. Looks like the DOI says God can be prayed to so they did not believe in an aloof uncaring unfindable God. They also believed God is Judge of the world. Nope. No deism here. Not. One. Bit.
D “reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”
Oh my. A God who can be relied on. A God who can protect. Not a deist God. Not. One. Bit.
I regret to inform you that the fellow who wrote in the article you quoted that the Declaration of Independence described a deist God was clueless. But I have read others write the same thing and it always makes me wonder where they learned to read!
This is why we must engage our own brains when we read anything. Be it the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, or a cartoon. That is what I have tried to do my whole life. I do not want to believe what I believe. I want to believe what is true.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 05, 2016 10:28 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:44, 05 Jul 2016.
|
It's not about being uncaring or caring. And it's not about "some guy" writing this or that." Nature's God is a terminological phrase which refers to a deistic God and even when you enter the term in an encyclopedia, that's where it will direct you.
The deistic cosmology sees the very laws of nature as a manifestation of God, God reveals himself through a nature that can be explained rationally. Let me quote another of your founding fathers, Thomas Paine:
"The scientific principles that man employs to obtain the foreknowledge of an eclipse, or of anything else relating to the motion of the heavenly bodies, are contained chiefly in that part of
science which is called trigonometry,or the properties of a triangle, which, when applied to the study of the heavenly bodies, is called astronomy; when applied to direct the course of a ship on the ocean, it is called navigation; when applied to the construction of figures drawn by rule and compass, it is called geometry; when applied to
the construction of plans or edifices, it is called architecture; when applied to the measurement of any portion of the surface of the earth, it is called land surveying. In fine, it is the soul of science; it is an eternal truth; it contains the mathematical demonstration of which man speaks, and the extent of its uses is unknown. It may be said that man can make or draw a triangle, and therefore a triangle is a human invention. But the triangle, when drawn, is no other than the image of the principle; it is a delineation to the eye, and from thence to the mind, of a principle that would otherwise be imperceptible. The triangle does not make the principle, any more than a candle taken into a room that was dark makes the chairs and tables that before were invisible. All the properties of a triangle exist independently of the figure, and existed before any triangle was drawn or thought of by man. Man had no more to do in the formation of these properties or principles, than he had to do in making the laws by which the heavenly bodies move; and therefore the one must have the same Divine origin as the other.
(Age of Reason is a very good book to understand the spirit of the Enlightenment, btw. The whole book can be found here.)
This is the late 1700's, there's no chaos theory, there's no theory of evolution, people including astronomers think the universe has a static order, with planets in stable, never-changing orbits etc... So, from their perspective, it makes perfect sense.
But such a God will betray his own manifestation if he steps down and intrudes in events by miracles and bending the very natural laws he manifests himself in. Because, then, you don't have a universe that can be rationally explainable, who knows what is a miracle and what is not? How will you calculate anything if God may be changing these laws according to this prayer or that? For example, if you have a loved one with a truly incurable illness and you pray for that person to survive, "Nature's God" wouldn't step down and miraculously save them because everybody would be doing the same and people unnaturally healing over prayers would mean the science of medicine can't operate anymore. It would no more have a rational basis to detect what is curable or not, if God can change the rules any minute. Biology would be moot.
Now, Elodin, since you ignore everything I explained and make me repeat it ten times as usual, let me emphasize again: The world of 1700's is not the world of 2016, it will not produce Richard Dawkinses. This is an age of transition, all those deist thinkers were strictly raised as theist Christians, when people heard the word atheist, they didn't think of academicians or philosophers, they thought of "godless bandits who rape and murder." Most deists of that time have a real baggage of theism in their way of thinking and expression, it's their upbringing, it's the overwhelmingly pressing social norm and such things don't change overnight.
However, Franklin is a self-declared deist, Jefferson wrote a version of Jesus' life, "weeding out" the miracles and super-natural events, why would someone do that?
Jefferson believed most aspects of the creator could not be known. He rejected revealed religion because revealed religion suggests a violation of the laws of nature. For revelation or any miracle to occur, the laws of nature would necessarily be broken. Jefferson did not accept this violation of natural laws. He attributed to God only such qualities as reason suggested. "He described God as perfect and good, but otherwise did not attempt an analysis of the nature of God." Also in a letter to Adams, Jefferson said, "Of the nature of this being [God] we know nothing." Source
These are the very people who wrote the Declaration of Independence. Why did they prefer a term such as Nature's God that is directly associated with deism? Why did they feel the need to replace "sacred and undeniable" by "self-evident?"
The influence of deism in the leaders of the American Revolution is not something I've just read in Wikipedia, it is a fact I came across in many books and articles over the years and my brain doesn't have the irresistible desire to picture them as devoted miracle-believers like yours do, so the conclusion is quite clear to me.
Btw, to assume that God must be caring if he exists is incredibly self-centered and anthropomorphic. That can also be seen like you caring about the bacteria in your cheese. Religion IS "to believe what you want to believe."
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted July 05, 2016 11:14 AM |
|
|
William Blackstone
His Legacy
A statue of Sir William Blackstone by Paul Wayland Bartlett in front of the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C.
Blackstone's primary legacy is his written work, specifically the Commentaries on the Laws of England. Demand for reprinted, abridged and translated versions was "almost inexhaustible" in the 18th and 19th centuries, although the Commentaries' emphasis on the sovereignty of Parliament drew ire. Alexis de Tocqueville described Blackstone as "an inferior writer, without liberality of mind or depth of judgment". Other commentators differ; one described him as "the core element in the British Enlightenment", comparing him to Montesquieu, Beccaria and Voltaire. Academics have said that the Commentaries were crucial in changing English Law from a system based on actions to a system of substantive law. At the time of publication, the common law of England was still, in some ways, in its infancy, with people uncertain as to what the law was. The Commentaries helped to solidify legal thinking. At the same time, legal education had stalled, and Blackstone's work gave the Law "at least a veneer of scholarly respectability". William Searle Holdsworth, one of Blackstone's successors as Vinerian Professor, argued that "if the Commentaries had not been written when they were written, I think it very doubtful that [the United States], and other English speaking countries would have so universally adopted the [common] law".
The Commentaries had a particular influence in the United States; James Iredell, an original Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States wrote that the Commentaries were "Books admirably calculated for a young Student, and indeed may instruct the most learned . . Pleasure and Instruction go hand in hand". When the Commentaries were first printed in North America, 1,400 copies were ordered for Philadelphia alone.Academics have also noted the early reliance of the Supreme Court on the Commentaries, probably due to a lack of US legal tradition at that time. Robert Ferguson notes that "all our formative documents – the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the seminal decisions of the Supreme Court under John Marshall – were drafted by attorneys steeped in Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. So much was this the case that the Commentaries rank second only to the Bible as a literary and intellectual influence on the history of American institutions".Even today, the Commentaries are cited in Supreme Court decisions between 10 and 12 times a year.
Within United States academia and practise, as well as within the judiciary, the Commentaries had a substantial impact; with the scarcity of law books on the frontier, they were "both the only law school and the only law library most American lawyers used to practise law in America for nearly a century after they were published". Blackstone had drawn up a plan for a dedicated School of Law, and submitted it to the University of Oxford; when the idea was rejected he included it in the Commentaries. It is from this plan that the modern system of American law schools comes. Subscribers to the first edition of Blackstone, and later readers who were profoundly influenced by it, include James Iredell, John Marshall, James Wilson, John Jay, John Adams, James Kent and Abraham Lincoln.
Note this next part: In advocating for American independence, Alexander Hamilton cited Blackstone for the proposition that "the law of nature, 'which, being coequal with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately, or immediately, from this original."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 05, 2016 06:49 PM |
|
|
Some people act as though the Bible never speaks of nature or God creating All things. Crack open a Bible and turn to the first page. God created an ordered creation with natural material and spiritual laws. God being the Creator and ruler of all things is a constant refrain in the Bible.
"Nature's God" is not a trademarked phrase that only deists could use. And I already showed how the other references to God in the Declaration of Independence are inconsistent with deism. God in the Declaration of Independence is endower of natural rights and the Judge of the world. He also protects by His "Providence." He can be appealed to and relied on. His law is that all be treated equally, have a right of live, have a right to live freely, and have a right to peruse happiness in their lives. Those are some of the laws of nature and nature's God that the Declaration is refering to. The moral laws, not thermodynamics.
Moreover, some seem to think that deism came up with the idea that God is revealed through his creation. This idea is expressed numerous times in both the Old & New Testament. But the Bible says natural revelation of God is not the only revelation. From time to time God directly reveals himself (special revelation.) Natural revelation can tell us much of God and his requirements but the material can only reveal so much.
John Locke was a Christian theologian, not a deist. He wrote of laws of nature being the will of God.
Quote:
[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.
[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.
Locke, Two Treatises on Government, Bk II sec 135. (quoting Hooker'sEcclesiastical Polity, 1.iii, § 9 )
See also http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/locke.htm
The Apostle Paul wrote of laws of God revealed through nature, as did Old Testament writers. That is part of the "general" revelation of God, something available to all. General revelation does not exclude "special" revelation, the Bible for instance.
The conclusion must be God in the Declaration of Independence is a God active in his creation. Not an uninvolved deist God.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 05, 2016 07:17 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:37, 05 Jul 2016.
|
I wouldn't call John Lock a theologian, he's a philosopher who was also interested in theology but he lived like a century earlier than the period we're talking about anyway. The 1600's are very different from the 1700's, in this regard.
I already told you that it was a period of transition, theistic heritage still affected the expressions, and a constitutional document will, of course, talk about citizen's rights. But a God who creates a natural order which the constitution's citizens can "appeal to and rely on" as you call it, is not necessarily a God that steps down for worldly affairs using super-natural intrusion. There is nothing significantly Christian or Biblical in anything you quote from the DoI and that is intentional, they wanted it to be that way. (Because state and church should be separate.) And I have already given you a link with proper references, which summarizes the world view of Jefferson, the original writer who used the phrase nature's god. Now, it's not much of a puzzle, is it:
He (Jefferson) rejected revealed religion because revealed religion suggests a violation of the laws of nature. For revelation or any miracle to occur, the laws of nature would necessarily be broken. Jefferson did not accept this violation of natural laws.
Notice how this is the exact position of deism like I explained earlier.
Jefferson is the person who mainly wrote the document, Franklin who also contributed in the process is a deist by his own word, he directly defines himself as one. So, I really think there's not much to discuss in here.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 05, 2016 08:49 PM |
|
|
I quoted Locke because he used "the laws of nature" phrase long before the Declaration. As I said, such expressions are not an indication of deism. Especially when on looks at the other references to God in the DOI.
You may not call Locke a theologian but he refered to himself as a theologian many times. He wrote commentaries on the books of the Bible and quoted other theologians extensively. Locke wrote "The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures" as a rebuttal to deists.
Christian theology and Christian philosophy are not mutually exclusive. Locke said if he reached a conclusion that contradicted Scripture he would know his conclusion was wrong, not Scripture wrong.
Quote:
The Holy Scripture is to me, and always will be, the constant guide of my assent; and I will always hearken to it, as containing the infallible truth relating to things of highest concernment.... Where I want the evidence of things, there yet is ground enough for me to believe, because God has said it; and I will presently condemn and quit any opinion of mine, as soon as I am shown that it is contrary to any revelation of the Holy Scripture."
As for which very few founding fathers were deists, it really does not matter. What matters is what the DOI says. The DOI language about God simply can't be squeezed into a deist world view. And it would really be quite unreasonable to think that the colonies, where 99+% identified as Christians would accept a DOI which presented a God different from the Christian understanding of God. The DOI language was understandably not denominational but it was language acceptable to all Christians.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 05, 2016 09:46 PM |
|
|
Yes, but a theist pronouncing laws of nature isn't exactly the same as emphasizing nature's god, is it? Imagine this, you meet a new person, small talk leads to faith and you ask the person, if he believes in anything, now compare the effect of these two replies:
- I believe in God.
and
- I believe in nature's God.
The second answer spontaneously gives you a hint that the speaker is most probably a deist rather than a theist.
About the DoI and the founding fathers,
1- The origin of the discussion (in another thread) was me, objecting to an evangelical writer in a link, who was talking about the founding fathers. So, the founding fathers was the main subject in the beginning, not DoI.
2- Writer of the phrase nature's God from the document, being a deist is certainly not irrelevant to why it was emphasized like that in the document.
3- As I already said (how many times now  ), the deism of that age is not completely washed away from theistic tendencies. Yes, the God portrayed in the DoI is not one that will alienate the Christians and the declaration is not a theological study anyway. I never claimed that it's an anti-christian document, it was me who said that Christianity was an overwhelmingly pressing social norm of the age, remember? You don't have to remind me the 99%. But it's not specifically Christian either, which is a very good thing, because it's not only Christians who are living in the U.S. and the constitution shouldn't be addressing only them.
|
|
Baronus
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 06, 2016 12:55 PM |
|
Edited by Baronus at 15:51, 06 Jul 2016.
|
Elodin said:
As for which very few founding fathers were deists, it really does not matter. What matters is what the DOI says. The DOI language about God simply can't be squeezed into a deist world view. And it would really be quite unreasonable to think that the colonies, where 99+% identified as Christians would accept a DOI which presented a God different from the Christian understanding of God. The DOI language was understandably not denominational but it was language acceptable to all Christians.
Deism is an idea of God but not conrete. In XVIII was popular in high society, masons etc. Its right that US fathers are under rule XVIII ,,philosophies". Real philosophy is another thing. Socrates, Platon or Kant. Rather ideologies. In US there are a lot of denominations. So they write about non concretly "God".
But of course God in Holy Trinity is very, very concretly! Not a misty idea.
..
Name citations corrected thanks.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted July 06, 2016 03:35 PM |
|
|
artu said:
- I believe in God.
and
- I believe in nature's God.
The first is how I start saying it.
The second I call weaseling out.
I don't get why you are all in a fuss on the term "nature's God", semantically it's correct to use it to refer to the God of the Bible, as God created nature, He's the God of mankind, of the universe, of the world and of nature.
So, grammatically, nature's God is akin to saying God of nature.
Then of course, the term is more linked to Deists, but it's not wrong for a Christian to use the term to refer to our God.
@Baronus
You seem to have the wrong name in the quote
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
