USA Founded on Deistic Beliefs

[DRMIZER]

I have heard it said so many times, particularly on talk shows, that this country was founded on Christian beliefs. This is simply not true!

The founders of this country were Diests, not Christians. No where in any founding papers do you find scripture quotes, the 10 commandments or personalities of the Bible. Their belief was in God, by virtue of reason, not by dogma.

[up2date]

I have argued many times, here and elsewhere, that this country was not founded on Christian beliefs. Yet you always run into people who feel this way.de·ism n.

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.I'm not sure if there's evidence of this, but you certainly have my agreement that our nation was not founded on Christianity.

[Eliot]

Well, I belive God created the Universe all things in it, but I do not believe he has abandoned it.

[The Man]

Originally posted by Eliot
Well, I belive God created the Universe all things in it, but I do not believe he has abandoned it.

Take a look around. I think he took off while the getting was good, so to speak.

[Destined]

Im an aetheist and i see religions as irrational. Does this make me wrong?

[up2date]

Originally posted by The Man
Take a look around. I think he took off while the getting was good, so to speak. Perhaps so, perhaps not. Either way, there's no evidence that's what "our nation was founded on." ;)

[Eliot]

Originally posted by The Man
Take a look around. I think he took off while the getting was good, so to speak.

Could you explain your meaning? God never "took off." And please explain to me when the "getting was good."

Originally posted by Destined
I'm an atheist and I see religions as irrational. Does this make me wrong?

Well Destined, you're allowed to believe anything you want, and entitled to your own opinions. I, of course, as a Christian, believe that if you're not saved, you're on the road to Hell. But, that's just my belief, no way to prove that. So, if you want to, be an Atheist. It's your choice.

[up2date]

This discussion is taking an interesting turn. If we'd like to discuss the existence of God and whether he stuck around, that's a great idea for a new thread...

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by up2date
I have argued many times, here and elsewhere, that this country was not founded on Christian beliefs. Yet you always run into people who feel this way.I'm not sure if there's evidence of this, but you certainly have my agreement that our nation was not founded on Christianity.

I think you said it best when you said poeple who feel this way. Wouldn't they be like saying people who don't feel this way? Like your self?

[DRMIZER]

For those who would like to know more about what the founding father's believed read Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason". Thomas Jefferson also wrote extensively on the subject. Here are some excerpts from Thomas Paine's works.

"Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a DEIST in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from the Latin word Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man's creed.

It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.

....... when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God. Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.

The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence?

There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.

But in Deism our reason and our belief become happily united. The wonderful structure of the universe, and everything we behold in the system of the creation, prove to us, far better than books can do, the existence of a God, and at the same time proclaim His attributes.

It is by the exercise of our reason that we are enabled to contemplate God in His works, and imitate Him in His ways. When we see His care and goodness extended over all His creatures, it teaches us our duty toward each other, while it calls forth our gratitude to Him. It is by forgetting God in His works, and running after the books of pretended revelation, that man has wandered from the straight path of duty and happiness, and become by turns the victim of doubt and the dupe of delusion.

Except in the first article in the Christian creed, that of believing in God, there is not an article in it but fills the mind with doubt as to the truth of it, the instant man begins to think. Now every article in a creed that is necessary to the happiness and salvation of man, ought to be as evident to the reason and comprehension of man as the first article is, for God has not given us reason for the purpose of confounding us, but that we should use it for our own happiness and His glory."

cont'd

[DRMIZER]

"The truth of the first article is proved by God Himself, and is universal; for the creation is of itself demonstration of the existence of a Creator. But the second article, that of God's begetting a son, is not proved in like manner, and stands on no other authority than that of a tale.

...the New Testament tell us that Joseph dreamed that the angel told him so, (Matthew i, 20): "And behold the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph, in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

The nations who never heard of such books, nor of such people as Jews, Christians, or Mahometans, believe the existence of a God as fully as we do, because it is self-evident. The work of man's hands is a proof of the existence of man as fully as his personal appearance would be.

When we see a watch, we have as positive evidence of the existence of a watchmaker, as if we saw him; and in like manner the creation is evidence to our reason and our senses of the existence of a Creator. But there is nothing in the works of God that is evidence that He begat a son, nor anything in the system of creation that corroborates such an idea, and, therefore, we are not authorized in believing it.

What truth there may be in the story that Mary, before she was married to Joseph, was kept by one of the Roman soldiers, and was with child by him, I leave to be settled between the Jews and Christians. The story however has probability on its side, for her husband Joseph suspected and was jealous of her, and was going to put her away. "Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was going to put her away, privately." (Matt. i, 19).

... "whenever we step aside from the first article (that of believing in God), we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty," and here is evidence of the justness of the remark, for it is impossible for us to decide who was Jesus Christ's father.

But presumption can assume anything, and therefore it makes Joseph's dream to be of equal anthority with the existence of God, and to help it on calls it revelation. It is impossible for the mind of man in its serious moments, however it may have been entangled by education, or beset by priestcraft, not to stand still and doubt upon the truth of this article and of its creed.

But this is not all. The second article of the Christian creed having brought the son of Mary into the world (and this Mary, according to the chronological tables, was a girl of only fifteen years of age when this son was born), the next article goes on to account for his being begotten, which was, that when he grew a man he should be put to death, to expiate, they say, the sin that Adam brought into the world by eating an apple or some kind of forbidden fruit.

But though this is the creed of the Church of Rome, from whence the Protestants borrowed it, it is a creed which that Church has manufactured of itself, for it is not contained in nor derived from, the book called the New Testament.

The four books called the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which give, or pretend to give, the birth, sayings, life, preaching, and death of Jesus Christ, make no mention of what is called the fall of man; nor is the name of Adam to be found in any of those books, which it certainly would be if the writers of them believed that Jesus was begotten, born, and died for the purpose of redeeming mankind from the sin which Adam had brought into the world. Jesus never speaks of Adam himself, of the garden of Eden, nor of what is called the fall of man.

But the Church of Rome having set up its new religion, which it called Christianity, invented the creed which it named the Apostles's Creed, in which it calls Jesus the only son of God, conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary; things of which it is impossible that man or woman can have any idea, and consequently no belief but in words; and for which there is no authority but the idle story of Joseph's dream in the first chapter of Matthew, which any designing imposter or foolish fanatic might make.

"It then manufactured the allegories in the book of Genesis into fact, and the allegorical tree of life and the tree of knowledge into real trees, contrary to the belief of the first Christians, and for which there is not the least authority in any of the books of the New Testament; for in none of them is there any mention made of such place as the Garden of Eden, nor of anything that is said to have happened there.

But the Church of Rome could not erect the person called Jesus into a Savior of the world without making the allegories in the book of Genesis into fact, though the New Testament, as before observed, gives no authority for it. All at once the allegorical tree of knowledge became, according to the Church, a real tree, the fruit of it real fruit, and the eating of it sinful."

[DRMIZER]

"As priestcraft was always the enemy of knowledge, because priestcraft supports itself by keeping people in delusion and ignorance, it was consistent with its policy to make the acquisition of knowledge a real sin.

The Church of Rome having done this, it then brings forward Jesus the son of Mary as suffering death to redeem mankind from sin, which Adam, it says, had brought into the world by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. But as it is impossible for reason to believe such a story, because it can see no reason for it, nor have any evidence of it, the Church then tells us we must not regard our reason, but must believe, as it were, and that through thick and thin, as if God had given man reason like a plaything, or a rattle, on purpose to make fun of him.
Reason is the forbidden tree of priestcraft, and may serve to explain the allegory of the forbidden tree of knowledge, for we may reasonably suppose the allegory had some meaning and application at the time it was invented. It was the practice of the Eastern nations to convey their meaning by allegory, and relate it in the manner of fact. Jesus followed the same method, yet nobody ever supposed the allegory or parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the Prodigal Son, the ten Virgins, etc., were facts.

Why then should the tree of knowledge, which is far more romantic in idea than the parables in the New Testament are, be supposed to be a real tree? The answer to this is, because the Church could not make its new-fangled system, which it called Christianity, hold together without it. To have made Christ to die on account of an allegorical tree would have been too barefaced a fable.

But the account, as it is given of Jesus in the New Testament, even visionary as it is, does not support the creed of the Church that he died for the redemption of the world. According to that account he was crucified and buried on the Friday, and rose again in good health on the Sunday morning, for we do not hear that he was sick. This cannot be called dying, and is rather making fun of death than suffering it.

The belief of the redemption of Jesus Christ is altogether an invention of the Church of Rome, not the doctrine of the New Testament. What the writers of the New Testament attempted to prove by the story of Jesus is the resurrection of the same body from the grave, which was the belief of the Pharisees, in opposition to the Sadducees (a sect of Jews) who denied it.

Paul, who was brought up a Pharisee, labors hard at this for it was the creed of his own Pharisaical Church: I Corinthians xv is full of supposed cases and assertions about the resurrection of the same body, but there is not a word in it about redemption. This chapter makes part of the funeral service of the Episcopal Church. The dogma of the redemption is the fable of priestcraft invented since the time the New Testament was compiled, and the agreeable delusion of it suited with the depravity of immoral livers. When men are taught to ascribe all their crimes and vices to the temptations of the devil, and to believe that Jesus, by his death, rubs all off, and pays their passage to heaven gratis, they become as careless in morals as a spendthrift would be of money, were he told that his father had engaged to pay off all his scores.

It is a doctrine not only dangerous to morals in this world, but to our happiness in the next world, because it holds out such a cheap, easy, and lazy way of getting to heaven, as has a tendency to induce men to hug the delusion of it to their own injury.

But there are times when men have serious thoughts, and it is at such times, when they begin to think, that they begin to doubt the truth of the Christian religion; and well they may, for it is too fanciful and too full of conjecture, inconsistency, improbability and irrationality, to afford consolation to the thoughtful man. His reason revolts against his creed. He sees that none of its articles are proved, or can be proved.

Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests."

-Thomas Paine

This is what the founders believed to keep us away from religious persecution. But again, to the point, the USA was not founded on beliefs found in Christianity.

[TomAZ]

Article 11. Treaty with Tripoli. 1797


"The United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE founded on the christian religion."

Endorsed by President John Adams and the entire US Congress.

[DRMIZER]

Well, there you go! And, I also hear it repeated a great deal by preachers of all faiths that America was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. IT AIN"T SO!

[Captain America]

USA Founded on Deistic Beliefs

A huge portions of our forefathers and framers of the constitution were Freemasons. I cannot imagine them founding this country any other way.

Our Forefathers (http://mason.itgo.com/who.html)

[up2date]

They may have been Freemasons, and it certainly influence who they were and their thinking, but the Constitution is remarkably devoid of religion.

[Captain America]

but the Constitution is remarkably devoid of religion.

Yes, and we can thank our Masonic forefathers for that. Certainly, you don't consider Masonry to be a religious organization do you? The opposite is true. In fact, religion, as I have stated before elsewhere, is a taboo topic of discussion in Masonic lodges.

"Harmony and strength is the support of all institutions, more especially of ours." (Masonic tenent.)

Everyone knows that the discussion of religion and politics leads to unharmonic discord. Not good dinner table topics either.

[Cedars]

I, of course, as a Christian, believe that if you're not saved, you're on the road to Hell.
That is not a belief of ALL Christians. As a Catholic, I believe that God wants that every man be saved; but He has given us our own will to choose. Belief in his love in sending Jesus to save us is certainly on the right path to salvation; but God in His mercy and love does not want one, even one, to perish. I would not speak for God and say who is to be saved or who is not. Jesus Himself said that many would say they are His, but they were not. Only our Lord can judge who is saved and who is not.

[Cedars]

Everyone knows that the discussion of religion and politics leads to unharmonic discord. Not good dinner table topics either.
This is only true if you are trying to force your belief on another. There is no reason that people cannot discuss religion in a harmonic way. We are not savages.

[Captain America]

There is no reason that people cannot discuss religion in a harmonic way. We are not savages.

Welcome Cedars. This is certainly true. However, for some reason, a LOT of people CANNOT discuss religion and politics without getting personal and angry when the person who they are talking to does not agree with them.

To prove this point, I invite you to stick around and follow the threads. Albeit, this forum is pretty civil as far as forums go, but there are a few posters in here that are hard righties that can't seem to make it through a topic without becoming irrate and resorting to personal insults.

In time, you will come to identify them.

Again. welcome aboard. Overall, this is a VERY GOOD forum.

[Eliot]

Hehe, welcome Cedars. :)

EDIT: As a Baptist....

[up2date]

Originally posted by Captain America
Certainly, you don't consider Masonry to be a religious organization do you? The opposite is true. In fact, religion, as I have stated before elsewhere, is a taboo topic of discussion in Masonic lodges. Confession: I know very little of the Masons.

[Cedars]

Greetings, all! Thanks for the welcome.

[Cedars]

However, for some reason, a LOT of people CANNOT discuss religion and politics without getting personal and angry when the person who they are talking to does not agree with them.

Man, you don't have to tell ME! I understand your point.

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Captain America
USA Founded on Deistic Beliefs

A huge portions of our forefathers and framers of the constitution were Freemasons. I cannot imagine them founding this country any other way.

Our Forefathers (http://mason.itgo.com/who.html)

Well, they did! Thomas Paine was there and recorded many ideas about Christianity of the time which were not favorable.
http://www.deism.com/

http://www.scaevola.com/deism/ You will find that Madison was a Deist.

Keep in mind that a Deist does not have to be contrary to any dogma. Deism is belief in God through Reason rather than Dogma. And the forefathers understood this much better than we do today.

I am not interested in the Free Masons which I believe was borne out of craftsmen uniting in Europe. I know it's religon-based and quite Christian oriented. But the ones who were Masons were also Deists which is not necessarily a conflict.

Fortunately it did not interfer with founding this country. And, the country was NOT founded with Judeo-Christian preachers in mind as they believe!

[Captain America]

I know it's religon-based and quite Christian oriented.

A very common misconception. Mason's profess a belief in a "supreme being" but that's as far as it goes. The mason sitting next to you may be Buddist, the one next to him may be Catholic, the one next to him may be Wiccan. The simply refer to the diety as "The Great Architech of the Universe" which is symbolic for saying "Whatever particular belief system or diety you choose to follow."

Upon examination, prospective masons are NEVER asked what god or religion they believe in. They simply ask, "Are you an atheist?" So Masonry is Deistic through and through. Trust me on this one.;)

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by Captain America
I know it's religon-based and quite Christian oriented.

A very common misconception. Mason's profess a belief in a "supreme being" but that's as far as it goes. The mason sitting next to you may be Buddist, the one next to him may be Catholic, the one next to him may be Wiccan. The simply refer to the diety as "The Great Architech of the Universe" which is symbolic for saying "Whatever particular belief system or diety you choose to follow."

Upon examination, prospective masons are NEVER asked what god or religion they believe in. They simply ask, "Are you an atheist?" So Masonry is Deistic through and through. Trust me on this one.;)

I do!

[Captain America]

So mote it be;)