Christian Revisionist History

No. That is most certainly *not* what constitutes Deism or Theism. Britannica:

Deism, an unorthodox religious attitude that found expression especially among a group of English writers beginning with Edward Herbert in the first half of the 17th century and ending with Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, in the middle of the 18th century. In general, it refers to what can be called natural religion, the acceptance of a certain body of religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason, as opposed to knowledge acquired through either revelation or the teaching of any church.

The proponents of natural religion were strongly influenced by three intellectual concerns: a growing faith in human reason, a distrust of religious claims of revelation that lead to dogmatism and intolerance, and, finally, an image of God as the rational architect of an ordered world.

Renaissance humanism had rejected the orthodox Christian emphasis upon the corruption of reason through sin and had affirmed a general faith that human reason could discern universal religious and moral truths apart from any supernatural revelation or specific church teachings. Similarly, Deists argued that behind the vast differences in modes of worship, piety, and doctrine of the world's religions and the Christian churches lay a common rational core of universally accepted religious and moral principles. The early Deists asserted that superficial differences of ritual and dogma were insignificant and should accordingly be tolerated.

So not only were Deists very broadly ecumenical; they also included other religions in their grand family. Thus, the Deist concept of God is far removed from the modern conservative/evangelical viewpoint. Moreover, the emphasis on Christian principles is not found in Deism. Instead, it is replaced with reason and nature.

 

Yes, I know. However, your definition of Deist/Theist is wrong. Deism does not depend upon, nor is it necessarily related, to Christianity. In fact, Deism is incompatible with orthodox Christianity.

You attempted to equate Deism/Theism with a belief in Christianity, or relying upon the Bible as a moral guide. That is not what Deism believed. They believed that a common set of moral rules could be found in every world religion, because there was a natural common-sense "obviousness" to the basic rules of human behavior. Again, from Britannica. Note the bold:

Renaissance humanism had rejected the orthodox Christian emphasis upon the corruption of reason through sin and had affirmed a general faith that human reason could discern universal religious and moral truths apart from any supernatural revelation or specific church teachings. Similarly, Deists argued that behind the vast differences in modes of worship, piety, and doctrine of the world's religions and the Christian churches lay a common rational core of universally accepted religious and moral principles.

First off, if you're going to have a serious discussion about this topic, you're going to have to do better than a one-line dictionary definition. Especially since the Britannica entry I gave was far more extensive and authoritative. In fact, the entry on Deism in Britannica went on for several more pages; I only quoted the first few paragraphs because they proved my point.

Here is another point that is incompatible with the Christian viewpoint:

In place of the orthodox Judeo-Christian conception of God as involved actively in shaping and sustaining human history, the Deists argued that after God's initial work of creation, He withdrew into detached transcendence, leaving the world to operate according to rational natural rules. Borrowing upon the general prestige of Isaac Newton's vision of the universe as a mechanism obeying stable rational laws, they propounded variations on the classic argument from design wherein the existence of a rational creator is inferred from the evidence of the rational ordering of the world.

So, we see that the Deist philosophy is compatible with many religions that are totally incompatible with Christianity. For example, Deism is compatible with Islam, Zoroastrianism, and even some native american religions. And obviously, none of these beliefs can co-exist with orthodox Christianity. Moreover, the Deists of the time did not themselves see Deism as being rooted in, or linked, to Christianity. They saw Deism as far broader than that. Britannica:

Similarly, Deists argued that behind the vast differences in modes of worship, piety, and doctrine of the world's religions and the Christian churches lay a common rational core of universally accepted religious and moral principles.

Had Deism merely been a super-liberalized version of Christianity, then the comment in bold above would be inappropriate and incorrect. But it indicates that the Deists believed that all world religions (the monotheistic ones, anyhow) had a piece of the ultimate truth.

Thomas Jefferson. That was easy.

 

Did Bob edit his post or did you make this up?? I don't see anywhere he he said either of these. He said that deism believed in the existence of God (which it does, though perhaps not in the God as revealed in Scripture) and believed in principles based in the Bible/10 commandments (which it does). These principles from the article you cite arose from the Bible, from teh image of God in man where he wrote his law on their hearts (Rom 2). The principles are based in the revelation of God although deists are unwilling to recognize that. He did not appear to say that they were Christians or that they believed in the Bible.

If you go back and read, you will find that you were wrong about what he said. At least it appears very clear to me that you were wrong.

As for Thomas Jefferson, there is considerable evidence that you are wrong about that too.

 

Then you didn't read carefully enough. He said:

That is they believed in God, moral principles based upon the Bible/Ten Commandments, etc.

They believed in moral principles, but *not* because those principles were found in the Bible or the 10C. They believed them because they arrived at them through natural reasoning of the human mind. Review the Britannica quote again:

In general, it refers to what can be called natural religion, the acceptance of a certain body of religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason, as opposed to knowledge acquired through either revelation or the teaching of any church.

In fact, there is no evidence that they believed in all the 10 Commandments; for example, the commandment about the Sabbath or the commandment against creating graven images. Why? Because neither of those would be naturally derived through human reasoning.

Which it does not. Deism does not look to the 10 Commandments or the Bible as the source of moral guidance. Deism believes -- as my reference indicates -- that by applying reason and common sense, we arrive at a general set of universal moral guidelines. The same general set of moral guidelines that can be found (in one form or another) in every world religion (monotheistic religions, anyhow).

No. They did not. They arose via the natural reasoning of the human mind. The Deists did not look to the Bible when trying to find that guidance. In fact, they deliberately rejected divine relevation as a source of truth. So it is inaccurate to say that the Deists took their cues to moral guidance from the Bible; in reality, they avoided using the Bible and the 10C.

Sorry; there isn't. I am correct on that point. Jefferson was a Deist, who questioned all the basic tenets of Christianity.

 

Jefferson went at his Bible with a pair of scissors to snip out all the miracles. Or so I've read.

 

This is, in fact, reported. However, it does not disqualify him from being a deist, which was the original assertion, which the Tuna denied, then affirmed. Whether or not it is true (that he was a deist) I have no idea. I rather suspect that he was, but I haven't studied in depth. My comment was to point out that thre is evidence that refutes Tuna's original statement that Jefferson did not fit into either the Christian or the Theist/deist categories. Of course, then Tuna comes back and asserts that Jefferson was a deist, supporting Bob's original point and disagreeing with Tuna's own assertion. </font>[/QUOTE]This, of course, is a simplistic version of what happened. The reality is that Jefferson does not qualify as a Deist, using the Bob Griffin definition of the term. Was Jefferson a Classical Deist? Of course; I admit as much. But this comment:

That is they believed in God, moral principles based upon the Bible/Ten Commandments, etc.

does not apply to Jefferson. He believed in moral principles which ran parallel to those in the Bible, but they were not based in the Bible.

The fact that you refuse to see the distinction points up your bias, Larry. You would be better off relinquishing it.

 

One other thing that seems to escape both Bob and Larry: if someone was a Deist, then (by definition) they were NOT a Christian -- at least not by the definition of "Christian" that most Baptists hold.

There are far too many incompatibilities between Deism and Christianity, for the two beliefs to exist in harmony, side by side. Christianity is incompatible with all the following Deist beliefs:

1. God created the universe, but then he ceased to interact with humans;
2. After God created the universe, he withdrew and let it run itself according to the laws of physics;
3. Divine revelation is not a source of religious enlightenment;
4. Scriptures are not a source of enlightenment;
5. There is a morality that all major religions share; i.e., "all roads lead to God";
6. human wisdom and reasoning can lead one to the proper religious views;

These are all diametrically opposed to orthodox Christianity. That is precisely why the Deists were in conflict with both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant churches in Europe.

So when Bob and larry imply that the Founding Fathers were OK because they were Deist; well, they might as well be saying that Moslem or Shinto Buddhists would have been acceptable as Founding Fathers, since both of those religions have moral codes that closely parallel the 10 Commandments. I.e., because both Islam and Shinto Buddhism disapprove of murder, stealing, etc. then a Moslem or Buddhist Founding Father would still count as evidence for the claim of "godly Founding Fathers".

 

You read it again ... find the word "because" in there. When you find it, point it out to us. I don't see it. To believe in principles based in the Bible/10 commandments is not to believe in them because they are in there. Again, you misread and then want to shift the blame. The point seems patently clear: The moral principles are based in teh Bible. He never said the belief was based in the Bible. That was obvious the first time I read it. I can't imagine how much work it took for you to miss it.

Careful reading of his quote and my quote would show that neither of us said this. Again, failure to read carefully led you to make a completely inaccurate statement.

But the Gentiles do by nature the thigns written in the Law as God tells us. This proves your point wrong. In a real sense, they did not reject divine revelation. They in fact responded to it, when they responded to the image of God in which the law is written on the human heart. They may well have rejected the Bible.

Again, careful reading would show that neither he nor I said that they believed in the Bible or derived these principles from the Bible. I did not say they "took their cues" from the Bible. That was simply shoddy work on your part. Critical thinking skills combined with careful reading prevent a lot of this type of stuff.

You contradict yourself. This is totally laughable. Bob defied you to find one of the "founding fathers" that wouldn't fit into Christianity OR the theist/deist categories. You answered Thomas Jefferson. I said there is evidence that Jefferson was indeed a deist (which fit Bob's category). You tell me I am wrong and then agree with me. ... Absolutely amazing ... How can you come up with this stuff?? Is this just because the hour is late?? I sure hope so.

For those who doubt that there is evidence Thomas Jefferson was a deist, just do a google search on "Thomas Jefferson deist." Whether you agree with the evidence or not, you will find my statement absolutely true that there is evidence that he was a deist.

True Blue Tuna, you seriously need to read better than you are. This type of forum does not have posts that are very long. There is no excuse for you to be missing these simple points.

 

This is, in fact, reported. However, it does not disqualify him from being a deist, which was the original assertion, which the Tuna denied, then affirmed. Whether or not it is true (that he was a deist) I have no idea. I rather suspect that he was, but I haven't studied in depth. My comment was to point out that thre is evidence that refutes Tuna's original statement that Jefferson did not fit into either the Christian or the Theist/deist categories. Of course, then Tuna comes back and asserts that Jefferson was a deist, supporting Bob's original point and disagreeing with Tuna's own assertion.

 

Unnecessary. I read it the first time.

That's really lame logic. Let me explain why: Shinto Buddhism also believes that killing is wrong. By your broken argument, Shinto Buddhists believe in the 10 commandments. That's nonsense. They have their own set of beliefs that -- in some circumstances, agree with the 10C. But they don't interesect the 10C in any way, shape or form.

The same holds true for Deism. There is a coincidence (an "occurring together") between the beliefs of Deism and the 10C. But there is no connection at all.

And I notice that you failed to address my point about Deists not caring about the commandments dealing with the Sabbath or graven images. If it's your contention that these moral guidelines are everywhere, then how come at least 2 of the 10 commandments don't surface in any religion except Judeo-Christianity?

Incorrect on both points.

And that's precisely why the "point" is wrong. The moral principles are not based in the Bible. They're based in human reasoning.

When a belief is "based" in something, that means that it springs forth from that something. But the beliefs of the Deists merely run parallel to the 10C; they aren't based in it at all. They may be echoed in the 10C, but they are not based there. They are based in human intellect and common sense - which is the root. So the 10C are just one manifestation of a common set of moral guidelines (i.e., the 10C are a branch that springs from the root of human intellect and common sense). There are other such list of moral guidelines, which are also branches. But the root is human intellect - not the Bible. Or at least, that is what the philosophy of Deism maintains.

In your personal religious view, those principles might be based in the Bible. But for the world in general, and for the Deists in particular, they are not based in the Bible at all.

Nonsense. Both of you claim that these moral principles are based in the 10C. That isn't correct.

He (and you) are both trying to make a claim for the Founding Fathers having some kind of Deist belief system that is compatible with Christianity. That's not historically correct, no matter how much you want it to be true.

On the contrary. You claim that these principles are based in the Bible. But everyone agrees that the Deists rejected the Bible, and arrived at their set of moral laws by natural religion and human reasoning. So your claim that these principles are "based in the Bible" is the actual piece of shoddy work here; since that claim doesn't hold true for anyone except yourself.

Funny; I was going to say the same thing to you.

No contradiction at all; what is laughable is how hard you're trying to find one, though.

The way that Bob defines Deism is the key point of dispute. When he asked for someone who wasn't a Deist, he was asking for an example of someone who wasn't a Deist, according to the definition he had given. But I objected to Bob's flawed definition of Deism in my very first post, remember? Given his flawed definition, and the attempt to base the moral guidelines in the Bible and the 10C, Jefferson was not a Deist (Bob Griffin version of the word). And that is what I responded with.

Now objectively, setting aside the flawed definition, was Jefferson a classical Deist? Of course he was. But Jefferson would have objected to being told that he derived his morals from the Bible or 10C, which was part of Bob's definition of Deist:

That is they believed in God, moral principles based upon the Bible/Ten Commandments, etc

I'm reading quite well. I suspect you are simply finding yourself overwhelmed, because you didn't expect someone to effectively question what you considered to be an established point.

 

Tuna,

You really struggle and I am not sure why. This is a simple discussion. You said some things that simply are not true. Step up and admit it and be done with it.

These moral principles did not come out of thin air and they are not based in human reasoning. They spring from the image of God in man. Since every man has the image of God, then every man has those principles in some form. According to the level of common grace, some are more manifest than others. Consider the very existence of false gods for whom idols (graven images) are made. Their existence is a testimony to the fact that every man knows that God exists. But since he fails to accept the one, true and living God, he creates his own God, as Paul says, from the imagination and art of man (Acts 17:29). The fact that deists found these principles in human life to be true is a testimony to what we have known all along. I am not arguing that they believed them becuase of the Bible. That was never a part of the discussion. The point is that they held moral principles that are based in the Bible and 10 Commandments, whether they would attribute them to that or not. That is where these moral principles came from -- they came from God. The fact that one might deny that God exists or that the God of the Bible exists does not change the originating point, just as the fact that someone might deny that a wall exists will not help him avoid running into if he walks that direction. You are under the mistaken impression that belief determines reality. It does not. The fact that deists believed something does not make it true. The "coincidence of belief" as you call it, occurs because of the image of God in man.

The 10C are not just one presentation of the moral reasoning of man. They did not come from man. They were revealed by God and they came from God. Other religions have similar things becuase, as I have said, the image of God in man brings it out.

You say, But everyone agrees that the Deists rejected the Bible, and arrived at their set of moral laws by natural religion and human reasoning. So your claim that these principles are "based in the Bible" is the actual piece of shoddy work here; since that claim doesn't hold true for anyone except yourself. But in so doing, you miss the bigger point. Regardless of how the deists came to the principles, they are based in the Bible. There are many facets of life in which we come to conclusions or actions without the benefit of fully understanding or accepting its basis. That does not change the fact. This is a place where you are simply not demonstrating critical thinking skills. The basis is always the same although men may come ot a position without realizing or accepting that basis.

Then you say, Now objectively, setting aside the flawed definition, was Jefferson a classical Deist? Of course he was. But Jefferson would have objected to being told that he derived his morals from the Bible or 10C, which was part of Bob's definition of Deist: That is they believed in God, moral principles based upon the Bible/Ten Commandments, etc. Jefferson was a deist, by any definition. Bob did not claim taht Jefferson believed in the Bible, as is clear from a careful reading of his post. He did say that the principles Jefferson believed in were based in teh Bible. Again, notice the distinction: The principle are based in the Bible; not the belief. Don't miss it this time.

You haven't even addressed the point. You keep missing it. The only thing overwhelming to me is that you still, after all this time, have not yet carefully read the post and thought through what was actually said. Your bias has led you to believe that somethign was said that was indeed not said. You cannot find the word "because" but nevertheless you have constructed your whole view around it. That is simply unacceptable. That would not pass muster in any philosophy class or serious writing assignment. Anyone checking original sources would very quickly point out the failure to actually say what the original writer said. You have constructed your objection on a faulty premise and it is you who needs to abandon it. It is more likely you that are not used to have someone carefully interact with your positions from an objective basis. The truth is that I don't care about deism and the founding fathers. I don't think they were okay. I don't think that most of them were Christians. I think most of them were immoral. But I can read what was said by Bob and I can read what was said and argued by you, and I can plainly see that you simply did not carefully read and interact.

The fact that deists were not Christians has not escaped me, and I don't think it escaped Bob. As a matter of fact, careful reading of Bob's post (a common theme ignored) would showed that he in fact contrasted Christianity with theism/deism. You have again attacked a straw man that simply doesn't exist. Once again, failure to carefully read led you to say something that simply isn't true.

 

No, I didn't. I don't struggle with the argument here; the facts are easy, and they don't favor your viewpoint. The only struggle I have is fending off the many errors of fact you've made, like your comment, above. You're quite skilled at tossing out nonsense; keeping up with it all takes work.

Yes, they did - at least for these individuals who do not believe in your version of religion, or your particular flavor of Deism. I already pointed out

That's your way of explaining it. However, the Deist will inform you that you are wrong, and they will patiently walk you through the rational steps that they used to find these common rules. No God is involved. And because they are using their human intellect and reason to create their personal moral guidelines, their list of moral guidelines isn't going to match the Bible - in fact, two Deists may not even match up;

Moreover, your attempt to try and find the source of all these rules in the "image of God" that every person carries has already been refuted. How? Because the 10 Commandments, etc. contain more rules than the Deists are following. I pointed out earlier that there is no evidence that the Deists believed in all the 10 Commandments; for example, the commandment about the Sabbath or the commandment against creating graven images. Why? Because neither of those would be naturally derived through human reasoning. So if you were correct about these rules being generated by the "image of God" in each person, then why didn't the Deists pick up on the sabbath commandment and the graven image commandment? If these laws are as universal and innate in every human being as you *claim* they are, then kindly explain why the Deists never picked up on the sabbath commandment or the graven image commandment? Maybe there are really only Eight Commandments, instead of 10? Maybe Moses should have dropped two of them off the tablets? I think I saw that in a Monty Python skit somehwere

Another thing you seem to be forgetting: since Deists arrive at their morality by reasoning, they believe in a "practical morality"; in other words, there don't have the absolute morality that an orthodox religion would have. So they might believe that lying was wrong (i.e., not bearing false witness), but they might engage in lying if they thought it had a practical purpose; i.e, the greater good of humanity was served by it. So unless you want to now start claiming that the "image of God" source of these moral standards will allow conditional, practical morality, then your argument fails on this point as well.

You might also want to perouse what Deists actually think, before trying to pontificate on *why* they think it, Larry. Notice how many of the following Deist articles of faith either:
1. contradict your claim that all humans have an innate set of moral laws; i.e., "image of God"; or
2. contradict beliefs of orthodox Christianity:

http://www.peacedalefellowship.com/statement_of_faith.htm

All the bolded areas contradict your "image of God" argument. Or, they contradict orthodox Christianity.

The problem here, Larry, is that you (and many other Christians) have always just assumed that Deists were a watered-down version of really liberal Christians. That isn't the case at all. Understandably, you're upset, because this means that all the Founding Fathers who were Deists can't really be classified as Christian anymore. But you need to have the maturity to accept an unpleasant fact.

You seem to think that I missed your point here. I did not. I fully understand what you're trying to say. What I'm telling you is that your explanation above is wrong, for the following reasons;

1. it would be rejected by the Deists, who could walk you through the steps they used to arrive at their rules of moral behavior - and they would never use "God" as a reason;

2. because the list of rules that the Deists would call the "common list of moral guidance" doesn't match the 10C in the Bible. So again: if these rules are somehow known to everyone because of the "image of God", then why did the Deists miss the commandments about the sabbath and the graven images?

3. The other beliefs (posted above) that the Deists hold also contradict orthodox Christianity and the innate "image of God" moral guidelines that you say everyone has;

Your next two paragraphs are just repetitions of your previous mistakes - since I have already addressed those mistakes above, I am clipping your paragraphs out.

No. I don't miss the point. I heard your claim several times. But for all the reasons I listed above, your claim has been refuted.

Not by the one that Griffin was proposing.

I know what he said. And that is precisely why he is wrong. The principles Jefferson believed in were not based in the bible. They were based in human reason, which is one reason that Jefferson's Deist beliefs differ from the 10 Commandments and the Bible. Had Jefferson's beliefs been based in the Bible -- which is what Bob claimed -- then Jefferson's beliefs would not have been in conflict with the Bible.

I mean, *really*, Larry - this isn't rocket science. The man disagreed with the Bible on key fundamental points. No one disputes that. Given that fact, you cannot pretend to say that Jefferson's beliefs were rooted in the same book that he disagreed with.

I never missed it the first time. You simply didn't realize that I had already given you the reasons why your explanation doesn't work. Once again:

1. it would be rejected by the Deists, who could walk you through the steps they used to arrive at their rules of moral behavior - and they would never use "God" as a reason;

2. because the list of rules that the Deists would call the "common list of moral guidance" doesn't match the 10C in the Bible. So again: if these rules are somehow known to everyone because of the "image of God", then why did the Deists miss the commandments about the sabbath and the graven images?

3. The other beliefs (posted above) that the Deists hold also contradict orthodox Christianity and the innate "image of God" moral guidelines that you say everyone has;

And to that I add the following two more points:

4. the fact that Deists do not agree with each other on moral guidelines -- if everyone has these "innate laws from the image of God", then Deists should all have the same basic moral guidelines - but they don't; and

5. Deists believe in a "practical morality"; and since Deism allows for conditional, relative morality, that is another reason why the source of Deism's moral guidance is at odds with your "image of God" argument.

No, I actually addressed it several days ago. In fact, at that time I also pointed out the following set of beliefs that are incompatible with orthodox Christianity:

1. God created the universe, but then he ceased to interact with humans;
2. After God created the universe, he withdrew and let it run itself according to the laws of physics;
3. Divine revelation is not a source of religious enlightenment;
4. Scriptures are not a source of enlightenment;
5. There is a morality that all major religions share; i.e., "all roads lead to God";
6. human wisdom and reasoning can lead one to the proper religious views;

You failed to respond to any one of them, or to my general point: that holding such views is *proof* that they did not get their moral guidelines from this innate "image of God" source that you have been so worked up about.

So yeah - I have addressed your point.

Utter nonsense.

The reality here is that I never missed your point, and I have already addressed it several days ago. However, for your educational benefit, I've stopped once again, slowed the argument down, and gone into a lot more detail over those three points. In addition, I've added two reasons why you are wrong.

I've deleted the rest of your post, since it appears you still think I missed your point. Since that's obviously a confused premise on your point, unfortunately the rest of your points are invalid.

 

Hm. Well, I like Wyoming, too. I think everyone should visit the great state of Wyoming and spend some tourist money. But please keep it clean and beautiful.

And I'm sorry that you misunderstand what Deism is, and I'm even more sorry that your misunderstanding has caused you to make inaccurate claims.

No, I am not.

However (and as I said to Larry), there is an unfortunate sloppiness on the part of many conservative Christians; i.e., they have always just assumed that Deists were a watered-down version of a really liberal Christian denomination. This wasn't just an innocent accident or mistake of confusion; changing what Deism means had a goal. By revising the definition of Deism, such individuals felt that the revisionist claim that the USA was "founded as a Christian nation" could still be supported. Unfortunately, the facts don't support that view of Deism at all.

Understandably, being informed that the national mythology has a rather large historical hole in it can be upsetting to people. It's rather the same reaction that people have, when they find out that the settlers at Plymouth weren't nearly as morally upright as we've all been taught since we were kids. In the case of Deism, correcting the definition of that philosophy, and pointing out what it actually says, well; it means that all the Founding Fathers who were Deists can't really be classified as an offshoot Christian denomination anymore. In fact, if they were alive today, they'd probably be classified as Unitarians or even New Agers.

Actually, if you read their writings, you'll find that they were --in the majority -- Deists as I have described the term.

And I would not put too much weight on the fact that they signed the Decl of Independence. If there is one thing that the study of history shows, it is that signing one's name to a political document doesn't give much hard evidence of what a person believes on a day-to-day basis.

I see you get my point.