Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas
NY Times ^ | 8/1/05 | Ralph Blumenthal and Barbara Novovitch

Posted on 08/01/2005 7:12:16 AM PDT by Crackingham

When the school board in Odessa, the West Texas oil town, voted unanimously in April to add an elective Bible study course to the 2006 high school curriculum, some parents dropped to their knees in prayerful thanks that God would be returned to the classroom, while others assailed it as an effort to instill religious training in the public schools.

Hundreds of miles away, leaders of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools notched another victory. A religious advocacy group based in Greensboro, N.C., the council has been pressing a 12-year campaign to get school boards across the country to accept its Bible curriculum.

The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church and state.

But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still.

In the latest salvo, the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group for religious freedom, has called a news conference for Monday to release a study that finds the national council's course to be "an error-riddled Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles."

The dispute has made the curriculum, which the national council says is used by more than 175,000 students in 312 school districts in 37 states, the latest flashpoint in the continuing culture wars over religious influences in the public domain.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: biblestudy; electives; odessa; publicschools; religiouseducation; schoolboard; schools
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last
Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: malakhi
Mars and Earth never get that close; the gravitational influence between the two planets is negligible.

No kidding. Could that be because of the altered orbits, they were talking about then, hmmm?

Anyway, thanks for the tip, I had never noticed before. /sarcasm.

52 posted on 08/01/2005 5:03:56 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Here's a link to the summary of the problems they have with the current curriculum.

* The curriculum cites a “respected scholar” who claims that archaeological evidence “always confirms the facts of the Biblical record” [page 170]. Yet that “respected scholar” claimed elsewhere to have seen Jesus’ school records in India, records from the lost continent of Atlantis and evidence that Egypt’s Great Pyramid of Giza was used to transmit radio messages to the Grand Canyon thousands of years ago.
* The curriculum uses a discredited urban legend that NASA has evidence that two days are missing in time, thus “confirming” a biblical passage about the sun standing still [pages 116-17].

* The curriculum misstates the length of the ancient Jewish calendar [page 14] and the years of the rule of Herod as king of the Jews [pages 193 and 196].
* The answer key to a quiz [page 87] identifies a pharaoh as “Hyksos.” Hyksos was the name of an Asiatic-Semitic people who once ruled Egypt.
* One passage [page 138] asks students to consider how the use of “simple monosyllabic words” in a passage of Old Testament poetry was typical of the Hebrews. Yet while the words in these passages may be monosyllabic in English translations, they are quite different in Hebrew and Greek. How English syllabification provides insight into the ancient Hebrew mindset is not explained.

Inadequate Citation
The curriculum is shockingly lax when it comes to properly crediting sources – inexcusable in any scholarly writing at either the high school or college level. For example, the wording of the sections titled “Pilate” and “Herod,” which constitute pages 195-196 in their entirety, is identical to that of passages from the articles “Pilate, Pontius,” and “Herod the Great” in Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. No source is cited. In fact, a considerable amount of the curriculum’s content – Dr. Chancey estimates one-third or more of its pages – is reproduced word for word from its sources (both cited and uncited), often for pages at a time, though the curriculum does not note this or indicate that permission has been granted to reproduce these passages.


If this is all true, I would want this course pulled simply because it looks so unprofessional and kooky that it makes Christians look wacky. Why would you want to give more ammunition to the libs to discredit Christianity?
53 posted on 08/02/2005 7:21:04 AM PDT by Tequila25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
No kidding. Could that be because of the altered orbits, they were talking about then, hmmm? Anyway, thanks for the tip, I had never noticed before. /sarcasm.

I was trying to be polite. The entire theory is, frankly, moonbat crazy. Maybe good for a segment on the Art Bell show, but not something taken seriously by actual scientists. If you think it has any sort of plausibility, you are seriously mistaken.

54 posted on 08/02/2005 7:45:08 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; DaveTesla; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; ...

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Note how those on the left hate and fear actual religion, any symbol, however small, like changing the city (or was it county) seal of Los Angeles?

Folks, this is an ELECTIVE course. Not mandatory. And when you consider the inroads that homosexual activists have made in the public schools, and this one small effort to give shoolchildren the opportunity to hear the word of God - in historical context, this is not a sectarian missionary project - this is a drop in the bucket.

But they can't stand it. I don't know about you, but I am sick and fed up. Really sick, and really fed up.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.


55 posted on 08/02/2005 9:06:19 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

And consider how much of the pro-homosexual (and what to speak of other leftist crap) teaching/promotion in schools is absolutely mandatory!


56 posted on 08/02/2005 9:07:20 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
...but not something taken seriously by actual scientists. If you think it has any sort of plausibility, you are seriously mistaken.

I really don't know much about it, so the comparison is unfair. But it seems about as plausible as macro evolution. But of course since I don't know much about it comparing it to something as ridiculous as macro evolution is unfair.

57 posted on 08/02/2005 12:38:32 PM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
Is Newton's theory of Universal Gravitational Attraction even up for debate? Come on now! It is a mathematical formula that has been demonstrated to be highly accurate in every situation tested. Your knowledge of science is EXTREMELY lacking.
58 posted on 08/03/2005 9:10:33 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still. "


Fear of funding cuts send critics off the deep end. Got to laugh when critics accuse somebody of concealment of a religious agenda.
59 posted on 08/03/2005 9:14:07 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mylo; Noachian
"DEISM?"

You need to get your facts straight. Check my profile page.

60 posted on 08/03/2005 9:28:49 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Is Newton's theory of Universal Gravitational Attraction even up for debate? Come on now! It is a mathematical formula that has been demonstrated to be highly accurate in every situation tested.

No problem with newton here. The theory, that mars and earth had a close pass by in the distant past has to do with resonant orbits. Off the topic But an interesting link

Your knowledge of science is EXTREMELY lacking.

Also to read in so much, from such few comments and even ignoring my caveats that I was trying to remember what the whole thing was proposed to be, neither buying in or discrediting it, shows you to be merely an a$$.

61 posted on 08/03/2005 9:36:47 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Facts?

OK. Ben Franklin claimed to be a Deist in his autobiography. Thomas Paine was also a Deist. Many claimed Thomas Jefferson was a Deist (those that didn't call him an atheist) however he considered himself a Christian (although he denied the trinity and the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ). Many other founders were greatly influenced by Deist (as well as Christian) thought; as evidenced by their referring to "Natural Law" and the "God of Nature" and the "Author of our Liberty" in their writings.
62 posted on 08/03/2005 9:37:05 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Mylo; Noachian
Noachian: "Just what basis for the Constitution do these so called "critics" think was the basis for that document? What is the "basis" of the Constitution if not the religious outlook of the men who wrote it?"

Mylo: "DEISM?"

Matchett-PI: "You need to get your facts straight. Check my profile page."

Mylo: Facts? OK. Ben Franklin claimed to be a Deist in his autobiography. Thomas Paine was also a Deist. Many claimed Thomas Jefferson was a Deist (those that didn't call him an atheist) however he considered himself a Christian (although he denied the trinity and the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ). Many other founders were greatly influenced by Deist (as well as Christian) thought; as evidenced by their referring to "Natural Law" and the "God of Nature" and the "Author of our Liberty" in their writings."

Two possibilities:

[1] You didn't read the facts on my profile page.

[2] You didn't comprehend what you read.

In addition to that, "...Thomas Payne and Ethan Allen, for example, were in no- wise intellectual architects of the Constitution. Rather, they were firebrands of the Revolution. Was that important? Sure, they made an important contribution, but they weren't Founding Fathers. Period. ..."

63 posted on 08/03/2005 10:12:05 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Two observations.

1) you cannot refute the facts I cited.

2) your profile page doesn't refute the facts I cited.

Thomas Paine (January 29, 1737–June 8, 1809), intellectual, scholar, and idealist, is widely recognized as one of the

Founding Fathers

of the United States. A radical pamphleteer, Paine anticipated and helped foment the American Revolution through his powerful writings, most notably Common Sense, an incendiary tract advocating independence from Great Britain. An advocate for liberalism and constitutional republican government, he outlined his political philosophy in The Rights of Man, written both as a defense against Edmund Burke's view of the radical revolution in France and as a general political philosophy treatise. Paine was also noteworthy for his defense of

deism,

taking its form in his theology treatise The Age of Reason, as well as for his eyewitness accounts of both the French and American Revolutions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine
64 posted on 08/03/2005 10:31:14 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin’s autobiography:
“Scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself ”

“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....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 quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin: London, 1757 - 1775
"If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England."


Ethan Allen

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

From "Reason: The Only Oracle of Man"
"Though 'none by searching can find out God, or the Almighty to perfection,' yet I am persuaded, that if mankind would dare to exercise their reason as freely on those divine topics as they do in the common concerns of life, they would, in a great measure, rid themselves of their blindness and superstition, gain more exalted ideas of God and their obligations to him and one another, and be proportionally delighted and blessed with the views of his moral government, make better members of society, and acquire, manly powerful incentives to the practice of morality, which is the last and greatest perfection that human nature is capable of."


65 posted on 08/03/2005 10:35:02 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

Deism / Deist: One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason. God is personal and transcendent but not immanent. He is a sort of "remote control" God. He "pushed a button" to create everythng and now passively watches what happens. This view acknowledges God but denies supernational intervention in the universe.

Providence: Divine guidance or care.

God of Providence: God conceived of as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny.

Ben Franklin is one of the 55 Framers of the Constitution - See my profile page.

Benjamin Franklin, Christian in his youth, Deist in later years, then back to his Puritan background in his old age (his June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist")

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that built it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, 6-28-1787.

*

"Thomas Jefferson, religious freak" by James Freeman - USA Today July 10, 2000
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/freeman/ncjf81.htm

On July Fourth, we celebrated the 224th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. This great document, of course, is not the law of the land. The Constitution, created in 1787, gives us the rules we live by. But it's hard to overstate the importance of Thomas Jefferson's brilliant work, which was adopted by the Continental Congress in 1776. The Declaration created the United States of America. It also explained why we were free to abandon British rule and articulated many of the basic principles that would later be expressed in our Constitution, such as government by the people and the right of trial by jury.

So what gave us the right to start our own country? Where did we get off saying that the people should rule instead of a king or a parliament representing the richest men of the country? How could we claim a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Where did our rights come from? Well, according to TJ and the guys who voted to start a new nation in 1776, they came from the man upstairs. That was the whole justification for the rebellion: Our rights came from God, not from the British crown, so it was up to us what kind of government we wanted to recognize. If you could sum up Jefferson's political views in one sentence, you would say: He believed that God and reason allow people to rule themselves.

As we reflect on the Fourth of July and recent cases in which the Supreme Court has tried to decide how much religion to allow in our public institutions, it's worth considering the opinions of the man who, as much as anyone, is responsible for the creation of the USA. And based on the standards of our time, I think you have to say that Thomas Jefferson was a religious nut. I'm not just talking about the first two paragraphs of the Declaration, although they do make the point:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. …"

Jefferson was a big believer in religious liberty, but he certainly wasn't shy about mentioning God in official proceedings. In the final paragraph of the Declaration (available at http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm), Jefferson asks twice for God's help in creating the country. And the Declaration was not the only work of Jefferson's in which he gave credit to a higher power.

Appropriately enough, the University of Virginia maintains several excellent Web sites about its "father" and chief architect. One of my favorites (http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/) includes this quotation from 1774: "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." In his Notes on Virginia of 1782, Jefferson writes: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?"

So, by modern standards, this guy sure seems as if he's a Bible-thumping fruitcake. And one great thing about the USA is that you're free to call him a Bible-thumping fruitcake. Jefferson would definitely approve. On his tombstone he wanted it recorded that he wrote the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom.

Still, if you toss out his religious faith, that does leave a pretty big hole in his philosophy and a difficult question for us: Where do our rights come from? Jefferson's crazy religious ideas, shared by crazy representatives from 13 crazy colonies, are the reason we have a United States and the reason that We the People are in charge.

*

America's Biblical Foundations

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity." Daniel Webster, 1821

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson, 1781.

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that built it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, 6-28-1787.

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits and to humbly implore His protection and favor." George Washington, Proclaiming a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving, 10-2-1789.

"This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make then rich indeed." Patrick Henry, "Last Will and Testament, 11-20-1798.

"I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy. Pray for me." Alexander Hamilton, shortly before his death on 7-12-1804.

"It is fit and becoming in all people, at all times, to acknowledge and revere the Supreme Government of God; to bow in humble submission to His chastisement; to confess and deplore their sins and transgressions in the full conviction that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and to pray, with all the fervency and contrition, for the pardon of their past offenses and for a blessing upon their present and prospective action." Abraham Lincoln, Declaring a National Day of Prayer and Fasting following the Battle of Bull Run.

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." U.S. Supreme Court, 1892


66 posted on 08/03/2005 12:18:58 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
"your profile page doesn't refute the facts I cited."

Yes it does. You either didn't read it or you didn't comprehend what you read due to cognitive dissonance.

"Thomas Paine (January 29, 1737–June 8, 1809), intellectual, scholar, and idealist, is widely recognized as one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. ... Paine was also noteworthy for his defense of deism.." [Source]: Wikipedia

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Any moral relativist may "edit" it with whatever his own personal "truth" is at any given moment.

The atheists who run this web site celebrate him, though, just as much as you do:

Positive Atheism For Those Seeking to Initiate or Invigorate Their Awareness of Their Own Freedom from Superstition and Theistic Faith SEE: The Works of Thomas Paine

67 posted on 08/03/2005 12:48:19 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Refutation? None.
Evidence that Franklin abandoned Deism? None.
Intellectual honesty? None.

Thanks for playing.
68 posted on 08/03/2005 1:33:25 PM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Mylo:"Refutation? None. Intellectual honesty? None. Evidence that Franklin abandoned Deism? None."

Deism / Deist: One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason. God is personal and transcendent but not immanent. He is a sort of "remote control" God. He "pushed a button" to create everythng and now passively watches what happens. This view acknowledges God but denies supernational intervention in the universe.

Providence: Divine guidance or care. God of Providence: God conceived of as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny.

Ben Franklin is one of the 55 Framers of the Constitution - (See my profile page). He was a Christian in his youth, Deist in later years, then back to his Puritan background in his old age

His June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist", to wit: "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that built it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, 6-28-1787.

I report; the reader may decide who refuted whom, who is intellectually honest, and whether or not Franklin's prayer for God's "aid" was the prayer of a "Deist", or that of a believer whose God is the God of Providence.

Mylo: "Thanks for playing."

As you have seen, I don't "play". bttt

69 posted on 08/03/2005 7:18:37 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
One needn't believe in supernatural intervention to believe in Providence. One must assume that an infinite God need not muck about with a universe he created in order for his plan to be fulfilled. Many Deists speak of providence, the plan of the great "author of the universe" and the "natural law" that he put in place that assures that all men are born free and with the desire for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So your refutation is NOTHING but you opinion about what a Deist can and cannot believe in; and it is wrong.

Franklin spoke of Providence in his autobiography (in regard for the Divine plan for the native Americans (he thought it was for them to kill themselves with whiskey)); shortly after admitting in his autobiography that he was a THOUROUGH DEIST.

So you are wrong about...

1) Paine and Allen were Founding Fathers. (you don't get to write a Constitution without first a revolution and the will to fight a revolution.)

2) Franklin was a Deist.

3) A Deist can believe in Providence.
70 posted on 08/04/2005 8:53:29 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
"One needn't believe in supernatural intervention to believe in Providence. One must assume that an infinite God need not muck about with a universe he created in order for his plan to be fulfilled. Many Deists speak of providence, the plan of the great "author of the universe" and the "natural law" that he put in place that assures that all men are born free and with the desire for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I'll go through this again slowly, and spell it out in ever more minute detail:

Dictionary definition of: Deism / Deist: One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason. God is personal and transcendent but not immanent. He is a sort of "remote control" God. He "pushed a button" to create everythng and now passively watches what happens. This view acknowledges God but denies supernational intervention in the universe.

Immanent: Remaining or operating within a domain of reality or realm of discourse.

God of Providence: God conceived of as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny. Providence: Divine guidance or care.

Ben Franklin's June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist", to wit:

"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that built it.' I firmly believe this [REVEALED truth]; and I also believe that without His concurring aid [Immanent: operating within by HELPING US TO BUILD THIS] (present tense), we shall succeed (future) in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." (past). ~~~ Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, 6-28-1787.

"So your refutation is NOTHING but you opinion about what a Deist can and cannot believe in; and it is wrong."

You continue to show yourself as one who deliberately rejects, or is incapable of, objective reasoning. You reject the true definitions of words and instead insist on using your personal definitions as the premises for your arguments.

There is a crash course in Critical Thinking for Dummies available for those who have the courage to want to learn how not to be illogical and emotion-driven.

WARNING: The more emotionally immature a person is, the more courage it will take to face objective truth - because he instinctively knows that it can "hurt" his feelings if the objective truth is different from the subjective truth he has concocted to make him feel good about himself. bttt

71 posted on 08/04/2005 9:53:25 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Your argument about Critical thinking should be addressed to Benjamin Franklin's' thinking because it was he who saw nothing incompatible with being a "Thorough Deist" (his words) and believing in Providence (his words in the same book, his autobiography)that there was a plan put in place by the author of the universe.


So your argument is with a dead man. Showing that you need a remedial course in critical thinking.
72 posted on 08/04/2005 11:19:27 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
"Your argument about Critical thinking should be addressed to Benjamin Franklin's' thinking because it was he who saw nothing incompatible with being a "Thorough Deist" (his words) and believing in Providence (his words in the same book, his autobiography)that there was a plan put in place by the author of the universe.So your argument is with a dead man. Showing that you need a remedial course in critical thinking."

If you insist on continuing to make a fool of yourself, I don't care.

Benjamin Franklin, Christian in his youth, Deist in later years, then back to his Puritan background in his old age (his June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist")

73 posted on 08/04/2005 11:25:05 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Repeating a lie without any proof or evidence doesn't make it any more true.

Critical thinking?


74 posted on 08/04/2005 11:37:01 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

Are you a woman?


75 posted on 08/04/2005 11:38:25 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law overarching rulers and ruled alike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Mylo

How do you define deist?


76 posted on 08/23/2005 12:29:40 AM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Apogee

I didn't. Ben Franklin defined HIMSELF as a Deist. Despite the previous posters naked and unsubstantiated lies that he had some sort of death bed conversion to Christianity; he described himself as a "thorough Deist".


77 posted on 08/23/2005 7:38:24 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
I didn't see that you did, that is why I was wondering.

The textbook definition of deism seems to not be consistent with Franklin's, as he both claimed to be a deist, and to believe that God intervened in the affairs of men.

Many of the doubters or deists of the day do not seem to have any beliefs that are not held on some level by much of the American church today, but in their time were considered aberrant.

Then there are the mis labelings of folks like Locke, and possible misrepresentation of Newton (Wikipedia seems to be hung on proving he was non trinitarian based upon his questioning of whether the original text in a certain passage was as we have it today, something that many moderns do in many places without in any sense thinking themselves nonbelievers, deists, or even serious doubters - for the record, the sources in their articles are Muslim, and they seem to have a vested interest in imputing non-trinitarian beliefs to people). All in all, I would like to see some scholarly research and distinctions made on the topic.
78 posted on 08/26/2005 7:11:53 PM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Apogee

Belief in Providence is not necessarily belief in devine intervention. One might assume that all God needed was the initial conditions, and then all would unfold as HE had forseen it.

Intellectual contradictions abound in the theological beliefs of men; and the language of the time was steeped in religious phrases.

Thomas Jefferson had this to say of the Trinity.

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803


79 posted on 08/27/2005 6:30:43 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
So when I went to high school, it was ok to learn about Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and the rest of the lot. We never touched Christianity and the principles upon which this country and legal system are grounded.

I see no problem with adding Jesus Christ and the Bible to a classroom forum. No one is required to pray. No one is required to believe.

The left fears God. Marx feared God. A docile public believes in no God, and will thus believe in anything. You put the pieces together yourself.

80 posted on 08/27/2005 6:40:27 AM PDT by YoungKentuckyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson