SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PROLIFE who wrote (30223)4/25/2000 12:00:00 PM
From: haqihana  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39621
 
WAY TO GO, dan!!!!!

~;=;o --haqi



To: PROLIFE who wrote (30223)4/25/2000 1:05:00 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39621
 
According to this link, Paine and Franklin were Deists:
deism.com
However, that's still not quite the same as Christian.



To: PROLIFE who wrote (30223)4/26/2000 9:06:00 AM
From: nihil  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 39621
 
This is a very slippery slope. Politicians who were atheists nearly always tried to conceal their disbelief, because in many places being an atheist was a hanging or burning offense. Wisdom (even for Masons) required expression of believe in a higher or supreme being, but not adherence to a particular church doctrine. Deists were for the most part what we now call Unitarians -- i.e. they rejected the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. One of the first was Isaac Newton who had to keep his beliefs secret to hold his government jobs. The fundamental idea of Deism was the "great clockmaker" who found up the world and let it run without interfering with it. Most reasonable men of the Enlightenment were Deists, rather than Christians. Washington, Payne, Jefferson, Lincoln, Newton for example. In the late 18th and 19th century there was a resurgence or protestantism, and Darwin and Husley moved on to a middle position that rejected Creationism (knocking the blocks out of both Christianity and Deism. Scientific materialism rejected the necessity of a god, but agnostics (a weasel term invented by Huxley) could believe anything they wished about god as long as it rejected supernaturalism. Scholars recreated a history of Jesus as an influention human being, without saying anything at all about his divinity.
IMO most healthy, rational people feel no necessity to accept or reject the divinity of Jesus. Forced by an emotional, religious, or mental crisis they may decide one way or another solely on their subjective opinions. Most agnostics don't want to anticipate the crisis, and dodge the question. Very few people admit to being atheists. Aside from annoying religious people, there is nothing to be gained from being an atheist. IMO, most atheists think the public atheists are jerks for flaunting their disbelief. Personally, I believe that many religious leaders are actually atheists or at least agnostics. It is certainly expedient to express a belief in god. It is difficult for me to believe that Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Gore actually believe in a just and avenging god. If there is, they are certain to roast in hell for all of the killings they are responsible for.