Lies and False Narratives of Christianity

As I stated, Thomas Paine had a checkered past and from what I read he was against all religion, so he was not a Christian. I believe he died in a French jail

As for Thomas Jefferson, I'm shocked at the spins about him. As an example; the Bible in which he had excluded certain parts was not a personal Bible. It was to be a primer for the American Indians and probably edited to facilitate their adoption of Christianity. Later on he supported priests financially to convert them, even though he was critical of priests in at least one of his writings.

Another fallacy is that Jefferson founded the University of Virginia as a secular school, when it was founded as a trans-denominational school at a time when all the universities were run by different Christian sects. The writers and professors saying these fallacies, are misplacing their current modes and beliefs into an era with totally different modes and beliefs.

There were no Unitarian professors at the University of Virginia. Professors were chosen on merit not on denomination, and each of the 4 denominations that were predominant in Virginia had their own chapel. A religious service was held every Sunday in the Rotunda of the college, and all the students were expected to attend.

Professors were paid by the students at that time, which was customary, expect for the ones that were training for the ministry. Their education was free. So much for it being a secular school

https://wallbuilders.com/thomas-jefferson-religion-university-virginia/

 

He was a deist, so it might be misleading to say he was a against all religion, but no, he wasn't a Christian. He was explicit about that. He went to a French jail, but he did not die there. He died in the US.

You are talking about the 1804 The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. I'm talking about the 1820 The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, which was indeed created for Jefferon's personal use. He compared weeding out the good parts of the Bible from the bad to sifting for precious gems in manure.

 

I don't have any problem with the fact that our founders respected Christianity.

The step I see as problematic is the notion that the design of our government was something other than an outgrowth of a long line of progress in secular government.

The concepts of a judicial branch constrained to a constitution, the rights of man (instead of the duties of man as prescribed by religion), the explicit divide between government and religion - these and others are fundamental to our form of government and can not be attributed to religion.

Our government is a continuation of the development of secular government that started long before America was "found".

 

What 'long line of progress?' America was unique and revolutionary, in promoting a 'non establishment' of religious belief. We have lost that moral compass, and now are under a state mandated, state indoctrinated belief system of Progressivism, which distorts history, smears Christianity as the 'competition', and forbids open inquiry and critical thinking, in favor of the mandated beliefs of progressive ideology.

Religious freedom is dying, as a principle of human governance, and we are returning to mandated homogeneity of belief, from the controlling worldview.

 

You seem to mean 'Christianity!', here, for 'religion!'

But i submit that ALL moralizing about governance, human rights, natural law, or 'justice and fairness!' are ALL 'religious', or philosophical concepts.

And of course, the Enlightenment philosophers, who laid the foundation for the American experiment, were deeply rooted in reformation ideology, and expanded and applied those principles to the sphere of governance. THAT was the primordial ooze that brought to life the unique experiment in self rule, known as America.

'Religion!', far from being irrelevant to, or hostile toward, the American Experiment, was essential to its existence. And 'Christianity!' was the primary philosophical worldview of the time, and birthed the dawn of freedom in America.

The current 'religion!', with its basis in marxism and atheistic naturalism, is hostile toward Christianity, as an opposing, competing worldview. But the religio/philosophical beliefs thst it indoctrinates are the basis for our shifting values in attitudes toward government and morality.

 

When the Founders said 'religion', they meant Christianity.

 

Paine seemed to be an angry man, like many atheists. This is what he said about Washington:

"Paine tried to ruin Washington's reputation by calling him a treacherous man who was unworthy of his fame as a military and political hero. He sent a stinging letter to Washington, in which he described him as an incompetent commander and a vain and ungrateful person. Paine never received a reply, so he contacted his lifelong publisher, the anti-Federalist Benjamin Bache to publish this Letter to George Washington in 1796. In this scathing publication, Paine wrote that "the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles or whether you ever had any".[83] He further wrote that without the aid of France, Washington could not have succeeded in the Revolution and had "but little share in the glory of the final event". He also commented on Washington's poor character, saying that Washington had no sympathetic feelings and was a hypocrite." Wikipedia

I would not call Jefferson or Franklin deists, who think God has no hand on man's affairs. Both of them didn't agree with that.

 

Not nearly as "angry" as the God depicted in the Bible that he expertly critiqued.

Jefferson did not believe in miraculous intervention, but I think he also rejected the label of "deist." He was his own animal. Whether you would call Franklin a deist or not doesn't really matter; he called himself a deist.

"My Parents had early given me religious Impressions, and brought me through my Childhood piously in the Dissenting Way. But I was scarce 15 when, after doubting by turns of several Points as I found them disputed in the different Books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some Books against Deism fell into my Hands; they were said to be the Substance of Sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an Effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them: For the Arguments of the Deists which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much Stronger than the Refutations. In short I soon became a thorough Deist." - Franklin

One other quote from Jefferson (not because it supports deism but because it rejects the thesis that natural rights are dependent on theism): "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Jefferson

Jefferson's idea that the concept of natural rights is akin to the axioms of the Epicureans (and he himself says as much), who did not believe morality had anything to do with God or gods.

 

100 % correct in relation to Romans. Jesus on the other hand did preach freedom of speech. The problem is that most Christians do not even know what the main teachings of Jesus are - never mind follow them.

The rock on which Jesus based his ministry was "the Golden Rule" ... do unto others as you would have done to you/Treat others as you would be treated.

In other words - if you don't want others restricting your speech then, do not do the same to others.

 

Whatever, Franklin and Jefferson were simply two of many Founders, with unrepresentative religious ideas.

 

Plus there's Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen. And then there were founders who didn't even really talk about their religion very much.

 

The separation of church was an active topic dating at least as far back as St. Augustine. During a lot of that period the issue was whether the state (as in the king) had power over the church - such as by having power over the selection of religious leaders, who got canonized. Today, I believe the UK still has seats in the House of Lords specifically reserved for representatives of the Church of England.

I'd point out that the UK is more progressive than is the US, even though they do have an established religion represented in the government. In many ways, I think progressivism is in concert with religion. I'd also point out that having a closer tie between the Church of England and the government of the UK has not led to having a more religiously devout nation. In fact, I doubt that a closer tie between Christianity and the church would be an advantage for Christianity. Such ties can't help but bind the church to decisions and methods that citizens don't accept - making the church be part of the opposition.

I know there are areas of disagreement in the US, where many staunch Christians take an opposing view of decisions made. But, having an established religion didn't prevent the UK from having same sex marriage before the USA. Also, abortion law in the UK has long been more liberal and less contentious than that of the US.


So in the US, contention has been higher. However, we've had a succession of presidential campaigns that have involved the active use of same sex marriage and abortion as wedge issues intended to divide the nation along religious lines. We still see Republicans pitch Democrats as anti-religion for no more than these issues.

I see that as HUGELY destructive. Besides, we should be looking for ways to work together on shared goals.

 

I don't believe we have any more meaningful freedom than a good number of other countries. So, I don't tend to be swayed by this claim to being the "dawn of freedom" in a country specific way.

You have NO basis for suggesting Marxism is a significant issue in America. You toss that in for effect alone.

And, your "atheistic naturalism" thing has long been a slogan of yours, with nothing behind if that could possibly threaten any religion, let alone Christianity. You also ignore "religious naturalism". I don't see anything here other than your attempt to drive a wedge.

What is this "shift" that you see?

 

I don't agree that Jesus preached freedom of speech as we understand the term today.

He DID preach that one should proclaim one's truth. But, it was more in the sense that it is a duty to god to preach the truth, regardless of whether death would be the penalty for doing so.

It wasn't in the sense that there should be a first amendment right of humans that government should be required to grant.

 

Just because the constitution does not list every single right - does not mean those rights do not exist. The general principle in the declaration of independence - by which law and the constitution is supposed to be interpreted - puts essential liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The general rule by which the teachings of Jesus are to be interpreted is "the Golden Rule" ... FULL STOP. Love Neighbor as self, Judge not lest you be judged, take log out of own eye before picking speck out of brothers, let ye who is without sin cast the first rock are restatements of the rule - Don't do to others what you don't want done to you.

If you don't want others restricting your speech then - do not do the same to others.

This rule is the rock on which Jesus based his teachings. Feel free to ask for a quote of Jesus saying this directly.

 

Your first paragraph is about today. I agree with today, for the most part.

However, the golden rule doesn't preclude restrictions on speech. In fact, the golden rule limits speech.

Christianity is about duty to God, not about the rights of man.

I agree that our duty to god has implications on how we treat others, but it doesn't specify rights of man.

 

The Golden Rule does not limit speech. The Golden Rule is the basis for the social contract - construct by which we the people give power to Gov't but also limit the power of Gov't. If this principle was followed as intended - the Gov't would not have the power to limit speech.

The teachings of Jesus are about the rights of man .. that is what the Golden Rule is all about. Our current "rights" come directly out of that rule .. as per the enlightenment thinkers.

I can get into the why's and wherefor's - and once wrote a Political Science Term Paper on this topic. The Golden Rule is deep.

 

Our limits on speech are there for sound reason.

I don't know what you mean by "followed as intended".

I do agree that people should follow the golden rule, turn the other cheek, and otherwise comport themselves as per the sayings of Jesus. But, a "should" that gigantic is pretty meaningless.

 

I agree that limits for speech are there for sound reason .
"Followed as Intended" means as per the Declaration of Independence and as per the principles of Classical Liberalism on which the founders based our system. In a nutshell - the Legitimate authority of Gov't is for protection of direct harm - one person on another.

Gov't is then not to make any law that messes with essential liberty - of its own volition. This follows from the social contract which is based on the Golden Rule. This is why in the DOI - individual liberty is put "Above" the Legitimate authority of Gov't and 2) that authority comes from "we the people" as opposed to divine right/God as was the case in the past.

I don't think that saying - "we should be following the founding principles" is meaningless - by any stretch. These principles are directly related to maintaining our liberty and limiting the power of Gov't.

 

Jesus wasn't promoting a social contract - he was directing personal behavior.

He didn't say anything about a social contract. He didn't suggest his directive would or should have an affect on the behavior of others or that it was contingent on the behavior of others.

He also said "turn the other cheek", again not implying a social contract.

Today, our first amendment rights allow us to do harm - harm that our government is not allowed to prevent.

 

I didn't say Jesus was promoting a Social Contract ? -- although, now that you mentioned - it could be said that Jesus was promoting a social contract.

You are wrong about the first amendment. Rights end where the nose of another begins. Obviously one can defend oneself - but this is different.

 

Maybe the point is that I don't see the golden rule as having been a requirement.

How I want others to treat me is only one possible measure.

Where we are is also derivable from the notion that we are equal as humans.

And, that human equality is a major theme throughout our founding documents and the laws of today.

When we discuss issues (for example, same sex marriage, discrimination in the workplace, etc.) we talk about equality - not about whether I want to be treated in some particular way.

 

No, I can legally say stuff that is injurious. The "where the nose" thing isn't the measure of our rights.

There are cases where I can't be LYING and do harm. But, that's a special case.

 

..as do modern critics and skeptics..

Obviously, everybody has a 'religion!' or worldview that colors their outlook..

 

You're downgrading religion with comments such as this.

You can't seriously consider a religion as having no more of an agenda than someone's "worldview".