Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community., page 27

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 11:32 PM

link

reply to post by Annee

Erm, okay. So you are saying that an author is claiming that gender is a "gray area." I'm always a bit skeptical of new claims, because they are so often wrong (and influenced by politics and cultural issues.) I'm sure you can understand my skepticism. It will be interesting to see if the mainstream community picks up on Olson's theory. I'm not a "brain expert," so I'm not really in a position to comment authoritatively on his hypotheses, although speaking reflexively, I think that there can be guys that tend to be more culturally aware (which would seem to suggest right hemisphere dominatation?) without being homosexual. Again, it will be interesting to see where this theory goes, and I'm no expert on brains

However, moving away from the brain, I tend to disagree that gender is a "gray area." I think I can state with some authority it is a rather straightforward biological fact. (Perceptions are another matter.) Speaking from the point of view of natural selection, nature (God, evolution, ancient aliens, take your pick

) has tailored humankind to reproduce in a certain way. I think getting rid of all gender distinctions in society is an untenable position because it is simply untrue--like most other living beings in creation, men and women have with different roles to play in life.

(BTW, you did not state that you think gender distinctions in society should cease--please don't think that I'm accusing you of something you didn't say! I try to avoid that. I'm just stating my position.)

edit on 8-8-2012 by StalkerSolent because: Because I don't believe God AND evolution AND ancient aliens all had a hand in human design!

Annee

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:57 AM

link

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
reply to post by Annee

Erm, okay. So you are saying that an author is claiming that gender is a "gray area."

I said geneticist. Can't remember her name. But that is her profession. I think she's a lesbian too. I never said she wrote a book.

Gender and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

Thanks for the polite and interesting post. Unfortunately - - its late and I'm nodding off.

Hope we get some more interesting comments from others.

LadyGreenEyes

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:48 AM

link

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by jimmyx
maybe bible-thumpin', scripture-quotin',confedrate flag-wavin' christians would understand, if their own kids were killed, maimed, brutalized, bullied, shunned, made fun of, just for being christian...
maybe being an elite, just means you have critical-thinking skills combined with a degree of tolerance.

Look up a group called Voice of the Martyrs. Christians are attacked and killed, around the world, on a regular basis, because they are Christian. It happens in the US, too, just not (so far) to as deadly a degree. Workplace sanctions, school children penalized, lawsuits - that's all condoned by anti-freedom, Christian-hating people.

In Uganda, Christians made being gay a crime punishable by death.

Name one country where gays were able to do the same to Christians.

I am aware of that, and agree it isn't right. However, I am also aware that many gays have in fact attacked churches, and are virulently hateful against Christians. Plus, the actions of Uganda (and the same thing happens in some Muslim countries) don't make attacks on Christians right.

nunyadammm

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:53 AM

link

reply to post by AwakeinNM

Deut 22
22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

There is a biblical definition of marriage.
You can have the town kill your wife if she is not wifely enough.
Your bible has some really #ed up # about marriage in it.

nunyadammm

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:55 AM

link

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I am aware of that, and agree it isn't right. However, I am also aware that many gays have in fact attacked churches, and are virulently hateful against Christians. Plus, the actions of Uganda (and the same thing happens in some Muslim countries) don't make attacks on Christians right.

Some gay people hating Christians is the same as an entire country putting gay people to death because it is not Christian?

Tell me you are seriously comparing the two.

Now tell me why you did not answer my question.

edit on 9-8-2012 by nunyadammm because: (no reason given)

nunyadammm

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:58 AM

link

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
This whole thing is a joke.... "losing rights".

We don't lose rights.
They are endowed by our creator.

Are you sure about that?
What rights are given to you by your creator?
How strong is your creator?
I bet I can stop you from any enjoying any right you think you got from god.
So I wonder what that says about your god.

LadyGreenEyes

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:01 AM

link

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

In your opinion. However, claiming it isn't accurate, while also claiming it promotes this or that, is a bit less than honest, isn't it? Either you accept it, or you don't.

Initially, I planned to point to the fact that your framing of my argument was less than honest, but then it hit me, you apparently cannot comprehend my argument.

So let me rephrase it for you.

I stated that one's understanding of biblical intent is based upon translation.

I did not say that it promoted polygamy, as a matter of fact this is my actual quote-

One's perception of the legitimacy of polygamy in the bible depends on how words are interpreted.

*snip*

The issue of polygamy in the Bible is ONLY in the OT, and only in reference to what was standard practice of the times, same as slavery was.

Yes... Only in the old testament, but yet STILL in the bible.
Are you saying that the old testament is wrong?
If so, then why is it a part of the bible?

I understood your point just fine, and you know it. I also pointed out the fallacy in it. Convenient that you mention that I stated the Bible talks about polygamy, but left out where I stated that this was because it was standard practice at the time, and NOT because said practice was in any way condoned. People can choose to "interpret" the Bible as they wish, but when they deliberately distort the actual meaning to promote a lie, they are less than honest. Many religious leaders have done just that.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes*snip*For that matter, so does Genesis. God, after all, made the first marriage between Adam and Eve.

That is not true.

You should reread your own bible.

TWO creation stories exist.
In one, man and woman were made at the same time, but in another, woman was made from man's rib.

This is why the Jews refer to the character of Lilith, but what confounds me is....
That this creation story that you speak of is only in the old testament.
And according to you, if it's in the old testament, then it is not legit.

Nope, that belief, while widely held in some circles, is not accurate. Genesis gives a summary of events, then goes into more detail after the summary. That doesn't make "two" stories. Also, I never stated that things in the OT were not "legit".

Originally posted by kyviecaldgesIsn't that what you just said about polygamy and slavery?

Look... You will not win an argument against me trying to justify the bible.
The bible is itself a contradiction.
You are basing your belief on a book that is inherently contrary in what it presents as a belief.
The only reason that it makes sense to you is because you have been beaten into submission by your church overlords.
They like to beat things... into submission.

This is why so many are closet perverts.

And unsurprisingly, why so many also engage in same sex behaviors and pedophilia.
edit on 8/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: Don't know if Eve is in Genesis

Sorry, wrong again. My beliefs were never forced on me, or "beaten into" me. What a ridiculous statement to make about people you don't even know! I have never had any "church overlords", either. I learned about the Bible, but nothing was forced. A decision to accept Jesus is a CHOICE, and no church I have ever attended has ever forced anyone, or coerced anyone, into making that decision. The information is shared, and people do with it as they will.

Also, there aren't "contradictions", either. The MANY that I have seen claimed have all been refuted, by simple and accurate study of the language, the words in context, and simple common sense.

As for my belief? That's based on God loving me, a God I know personally. I can't explain that to you, and won't even try. You have to decide what you believe on your own. All I can do is share what I know.

LadyGreenEyes

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:06 AM

link

Originally posted by nunyadammm

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I am aware of that, and agree it isn't right. However, I am also aware that many gays have in fact attacked churches, and are virulently hateful against Christians. Plus, the actions of Uganda (and the same thing happens in some Muslim countries) don't make attacks on Christians right.

Some gay people hating Christians is the same as an entire country putting gay people to death because it is not Christian?

Tell me you are seriously comparing the two.

Now tell me why you did not answer my question.
edit on 9-8-2012 by nunyadammm because: (no reason given)

No, I am NOT comparing the two - that was you. Typical tactic, to try and avoid the actual issue by bringing something else into it. If you want to discuss the laws of Uganda, start a thread for that.

blueorder

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:06 AM

link

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

In short: people need to stop whining. The majority should be spoken for, while the concerns of the few squelched.

Majority rule - huh? That's your stand.

Well - - sucks for you America is a Democratic Republic not a Democracy.

I am not talking about just the polotical stance of America. I am talking about the laws of nature, and natural selection.

Look around: do you see America becomming more ordered, or more chaotic?

The natural order is being removed, and the new order forced upon us when we are not mentally ready for it.

Have no idea what you are talking about.

However - - I think humans are progressing as they should - - - putting intellect as the top priority.

yes the mindless and infantile worship or pop stars along with popular "reality" tv would back this up......

LadyGreenEyes

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:08 AM

link

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by murphy22

Then, where and in what way do they get unequal rights? I really do not understand, in what way are they not equal?

In America. When LGBTQ have Full Legal Federal Marriage - - - and are included on the Federal Protection list of minorities.

Then they are Equal. Not until.

So when do Christian whites get added to that list?

Religion is already protected.

I am so sick of the persecuted Christian whining. You are NOT persecuted.

You just can't control everything.

Freedom of religion is supposed to be protected, but anyone with eyes to see knows that Christianity is targeted these days. You can deny this fact all day long, but your denial won't change the truth. So, when are you answering the question?

LadyGreenEyes

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:18 AM

link

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
*snip*
Perhaps I am wrong and this is another issue entirely, but I think it goes deeper, to the identity of a man and a women. I'm fine with men and women having equal voting rights and whatnot, but I sometimes think perhaps we have taken "equality" too far? It seems to me that some may want to reach the point where gender distinctions entirely disappear. Men and women are different, and when we deny this, we deny a truth of nature. I think denying truth is dangerous. What say you? Am I right? Do some people want to entirely eliminate gender distinctions (and I don't just mean legally, I mean culturally)? Everyone, please, feel free to chime in on this.
edit on 8-8-2012 by StalkerSolent because: Because I like "chime" better than "chip."

You aren't wrong, and that is indeed a goal. Some people might not realize this, but homosexuals got involved in the women's clothing industry and started pushing more "male-looking" fashions, or "genderless" ones, to promote and encourage the feminist movement. The simple fact is, we ARE different, and those differences are a good thing, not a bad one. Equal rights doesn't mean identical people.

Personally, I LOVE being female. I have no desire to be treated like a guy. Also adore men. Sure, they can be annoying (and yeah, so can we girls), but there is a lot to appreciate. Like watching them move, listening to them talk, and even some of the "typical male" behaviors that some find annoying. A world with everyone treated as the same would be a terrible place to live.

acmpnsfal

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 02:25 AM

link

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
reply to post by Annee

Erm, okay. So you are saying that an author is claiming that gender is a "gray area." I'm always a bit skeptical of new claims, because they are so often wrong (and influenced by politics and cultural issues.) I'm sure you can understand my skepticism. It will be interesting to see if the mainstream community picks up on Olson's theory. I'm not a "brain expert," so I'm not really in a position to comment authoritatively on his hypotheses, although speaking reflexively, I think that there can be guys that tend to be more culturally aware (which would seem to suggest right hemisphere dominatation?) without being homosexual. Again, it will be interesting to see where this theory goes, and I'm no expert on brains

However, moving away from the brain, I tend to disagree that gender is a "gray area." I think I can state with some authority it is a rather straightforward biological fact. (Perceptions are another matter.) Speaking from the point of view of natural selection, nature (God, evolution, ancient aliens, take your pick
) has tailored humankind to reproduce in a certain way. I think getting rid of all gender distinctions in society is an untenable position because it is simply untrue--like most other living beings in creation, men and women have with different roles to play in life.

I feel like you are mixing two things together. Sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is biological, scientifically observable differences between sexes. Gender is a construct that society creates, thats fluid. For example, girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks.

LadyGreenEyes

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:00 AM

link

Originally posted by acmpnsfal

Originally posted by StalkerSolent
reply to post by Annee

Erm, okay. So you are saying that an author is claiming that gender is a "gray area." I'm always a bit skeptical of new claims, because they are so often wrong (and influenced by politics and cultural issues.) I'm sure you can understand my skepticism. It will be interesting to see if the mainstream community picks up on Olson's theory. I'm not a "brain expert," so I'm not really in a position to comment authoritatively on his hypotheses, although speaking reflexively, I think that there can be guys that tend to be more culturally aware (which would seem to suggest right hemisphere dominatation?) without being homosexual. Again, it will be interesting to see where this theory goes, and I'm no expert on brains

However, moving away from the brain, I tend to disagree that gender is a "gray area." I think I can state with some authority it is a rather straightforward biological fact. (Perceptions are another matter.) Speaking from the point of view of natural selection, nature (God, evolution, ancient aliens, take your pick
) has tailored humankind to reproduce in a certain way. I think getting rid of all gender distinctions in society is an untenable position because it is simply untrue--like most other living beings in creation, men and women have with different roles to play in life.

I feel like you are mixing two things together. Sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex is biological, scientifically observable differences between sexes. Gender is a construct that society creates, thats fluid. For example, girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks.

Nice little politically correct attempt there, but it doesn't match even what the dictionary states. Gender is simply a way to refer to the different terms for the sexes. it is biologically determined, and no amount of pretending will change that. Gender isn't determined by behavior; behavior is determined by gender.

the actual definition

I have five children, and they were not forced into any mold, yet they have all gravitated towards the usual toys and activities typically associated with their gender. Even when sharing toys, they way they play isn't the same. Three of one, two of the other, for the record.

Annee

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:08 AM

link

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by murphy22

Then, where and in what way do they get unequal rights? I really do not understand, in what way are they not equal?

In America. When LGBTQ have Full Legal Federal Marriage - - - and are included on the Federal Protection list of minorities.

Then they are Equal. Not until.

So when do Christian whites get added to that list?

Religion is already protected.

I am so sick of the persecuted Christian whining. You are NOT persecuted.

You just can't control everything.

Freedom of religion is supposed to be protected, but anyone with eyes to see knows that Christianity is targeted these days. You can deny this fact all day long, but your denial won't change the truth. So, when are you answering the question?

In America religion has the same protection it always had.

The difference is non-religious have challenged their control.

Christians in America are not less protected - - - they simply have less control. And it pisses them off - - and they cry persecution.

StalkerSolent

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 08:19 AM

link

Originally posted by Annee

I said geneticist. Can't remember her name. But that is her profession. I think she's a lesbian too. I never said she wrote a book.

Oops, you are right. I was conflating that and the author in the link you embedded. My bad.

Gender and sexual orientation are not the same thing.

Thanks for the polite and interesting post. Unfortunately - - its late and I'm nodding off.

Hope we get some more interesting comments from others.

Right, I understand about gender and sexual orientation (or perception of that gender.) And thank you--hopefully we'll have some others join the conversation.

nunyadammm

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
No, I am NOT comparing the two - that was you. Typical tactic, to try and avoid the actual issue by bringing something else into it. If you want to discuss the laws of Uganda, start a thread for that.

Why did you bring up Muslims then?
I am confused.
I brought up Uganda because it was pertinent in my response. Then you said

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
However, I am also aware that many gays have in fact attacked churches, and are virulently hateful against Christians.

You know it was AMERICAN CHRISTIANS who helped get that Ugandan law in place, right?
So if you want me to feel bad for them, let's consider all the wonderful things they do.

If you go back the post I originally responded to and see why I posted why I posted then this would all make sense to you. If you just shift the conversation a post and ignore context, we get this. I guess then I do not understand what your point is. So some gay people have done some bad stuff to some churches? So have teenagers.

You want me to cry for some churches that some bad stuff happened to? How many churches have been burned down by gay people? How many have been burned down by racists? How many Christians have been put to death because of legislation put in place by American homosexuals?

Now tell me how far I shifted.
edit on 9-8-2012 by nunyadammm because: (no reason given)

LeSigh

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Interesting that your quotes talk about laws of nature and "Nature's God". There's nothing inherently Christian in those quotes. The founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. You can deny that all you want, but there is too much evidence in favor.

freethought.mbdojo.com...

Actually, you're wrong. All of the founding fathers weren't Deists. Some were, sure. The Founding Fathers of this nation were a diverse group of men who held differing religious views. Even those who allegedly were part of the same group (Anglican, for example) were all over the place over the course of their lives. Some were deist, some refused to take communion their whole lives, some only became religious as they were older, some became much less/more religious, and they even disagreed with each other, etcetera.

Honestly, anyone who tries to paint them all as Christian and then any detractors who try to paint them all as Deists are simply very misguided.

Regarding some of the Founding Fathers:

Jefferson was certainly a deist, but looking at the man throughout his life, we see the evolution from atheist to liberal heterodox christian (not believing in the trinity, the virgin birth, and discounting all miracles of the NT). Despite this, he was a supposed vestryman in the Anglican church and attended services regularly at Burton parish church in Williamsburg, VA (while he lived there). He hated denominationalism and loved it when various christian groups met together. (It should be noted that being a vestryman didn't have all that much to do with being particularly religious.)

Benjamin Franklin was raised with the idea that he might go into the ministry in the Congregationalist Church. He later developed somewhat of a polytheistic worldview for himself. Yes, really. However, he was quite good at making people think that he was one of them and believed what they did.

James Madison was religious, but was never confirmed in the Anglican Church. He apparently was fed up enough with the Anglicans not to attend the College of William and Mary and opted to go to the Presbyterian Princeton instead. James Madison completed opposed the setting up of the chaplaincy in Congress.

George Washington believed in God and went to church faithfully. He was even a vestryman in the Anglican Church. However, he was never confirmed and refused to take communion his whole life.

George Mason was quite religious, but that didn't stop him from being one of THE most influential writers of the Virginia Bill of Rights. This man was brilliant.

Patrick Henry became a lot more religious as his life went on and fought against Jefferson in his separation of Church and State campaign.

Charles Carroll was extremely religious. Actually, his life would have been much easier if he had simply given up his Catholicism to become Anglican. He grew up in Maryland where (even though he was a land owner) he wasn't allowed to vote simply because he was Catholic. He was also extremely well educated for his time. His biggest fear was that his religious freedom would once more be suppressed, which was why he was a big proponent of the separation of church and state, who at the same time also worried about a state forming that would be too anti-religious (he wanted balance).

Alexander Hamilton was another who had his moments of being off and on regarding religion. However, in his later years, he was genuinely very active in the Anglican/Episcopal Church. He was even grudgingly allowed communion after receiving a mortal wound in his fatal duel with Aaron Burr.

Regarding the topic of Church, State, and how it was set up:

Pre-independence, the particular religious views that were tolerated depended entirely on which of the colonies one happened to be talking about. More than one completely supported and enforced the British State Church. Also, it is factual that the oppressed groups who started their own colonies completely suppressed dissenting opinions/beliefs within their jurisdictions, pre-independence. In other words, colonists did not have true freedom of religion.

The First British Colony in North America was Virginia. It was started by a company called The Virginia Company. The goal wasn't religious freedom, but to make money for the shareholders. Groups liked the Baptists may have come to the Americas for religious freedom, but they were stoned in places like Virginia. Just like the later colony in Massachusetts (c. 1620), who weren't Anglican and didn't allow anyone to dissent from their beliefs (persecuting and killing them). In other words, many who came for religious freedom didn't want to extend the same courtesy to those who didn't agree with them once they had their own little colonies.

The Founding Fathers were very concerned with making sure people weren't taxed for a state church (as they certainly had been in Virginia). This is why the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom (1786) was such an important and innovative piece of legislation.

I finished reading The Faiths of our Fathers: What America's Founders Really Believed by Alf J. Mapp, Jr. recently and it gave some well researched insight with documented primary sources from various of our founding fathers. The Constitution was written with the idea in mind of the separation of Church and state. These men were both religious and irreligious in their thinking and were influenced by the Enlightenment, their own upbringings, and sometimes persecution for their faith (as was the case with Charles Carroll of Carrollton in that as a Catholic, even though he was extremely wealthy and superbly educated, he wasn't allowed the rights of a citizen in pre-Revolutionary Maryland; despite this he became respected and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence). The idea was freedom of religious belief (though rights of atheists lagged behind the rights of theists in general), but there was a certain virtuous morality that they thought society should adhere to in general, which they thought Judeo-Christian ideas to encompass, but many times these men held that these same ideas were espoused by the Greeks, and at times held them in even higher esteem.

Anyway, if you could imagine, Virginia (being formerly under British rule with the people taxed for the State Church Anglican/Episcopalian) still had such taxation in place shortly after the Revolution. Those such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were responsible for the passing of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom (by the Virginia General Assembly in January 1786). Groups such as the Baptists and the Presbyterians were all for it for obvious reasons (they had been persecuted heavily as they weren't part of the state church). The Jews and Catholics welcomed such news as well.

Some of the founding fathers disagreed with each other and some hoped that the government wouldn't take the same turn as the French did with their outright disdain and hatred of religion. Most were more content to form a government that allowed everyone to hold to their own beliefs. They were a diverse group of men religiously (even those who were officially Anglican/Episcopalian) and they could all agree that they should have the right to disagree without being persecuted or taxed for it.

Annee

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link

Originally posted by LeSigh

Honestly, anyone who tries to paint them all as Christian and then any detractors who try to paint them all as Deists are simply very misguided.

No they were not all Deist. However the Deist concept won out in the over all.

Thank you for a very informative post - - BTW

The thing is - - - you have to go back in time to how the culture was at the time to help understand. People try to relate things as they are today - - and that just doesn't work.

Neighborhood church was a social event everyone in the neighborhood went to - - whether they believed or not. The believers - non-believers - different believers all mingled together.

There wasn't internet - - - there was letter writing. These were very intelligent men - - who discussed politics - religion - philosophy etc. If a Deist was having an involved letter writing discussion with a Fundamental Christian - - - there could be excerpts in those writings that might make someone believe he is Christian.

Anyway - - I'm just saying - - unless someone seriously studies this time - - - it can be confusing.

edit on 9-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

StalkerSolent

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LeSigh

Honestly, anyone who tries to paint them all as Christian and then any detractors who try to paint them all as Deists are simply very misguided.

No they were not all Deist. However the Deist concept won out in the over all.

Thank you for a very informative post - - BTW

The thing is - - - you have to go back in time to how the culture was at the time to help understand. People try to relate things as they are today - - and that just doesn't work.

Neighborhood church was a social event everyone in the neighborhood went to - - whether they believed or not. The believers - non-believers - different believers all mingled together.

There wasn't internet - - - there was letter writing. These were very intelligent men - - who discussed politics - religion - philosophy etc. If a Deist was having an involved letter writing discussion with a Fundamental Christian - - - there could be excerpts in those writings that might make someone believe he is Christian.

Anyway - - I'm just saying - - unless someone seriously studies this time - - - it can be confusing.

edit on 9-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Just a point--nothing really major, but I can be a stickler at times.

I don't think a Deistic concept "won out," because I don't think there was really a battle between Deists and Christians. I think that the concept of keeping the federal government out of church orthodoxy won out, but I believe both Christians and non-Christians worked together towards that goal. I think that the Founders were building their federal government in light of their immediate history, and they were intimately acquainted with the religious wars that took place in Europe and even the persecution of some denominations in America. They (wisely) chose to separate the government of man's bodies (federal government) from the government of man's souls (the church.)

And I completely agree that without study, it can be confusing. Jefferson's works alone stretch through tens of weighty volumes, and he was only one of many intelligent men that, as you said, discussed many different topics.

StalkerSolent

posted on Aug, 9 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link

Originally posted by LeSigh

Honestly, anyone who tries to paint them all as Christian and then any detractors who try to paint them all as Deists are simply very misguided.

Jefferson was certainly a deist, but looking at the man throughout his life, we see the evolution from atheist to liberal heterodox christian (not believing in the trinity, the virgin birth, and discounting all miracles of the NT). Despite this, he was a supposed vestryman in the Anglican church and attended services regularly at Burton parish church in Williamsburg, VA (while he lived there). He hated denominationalism and loved it when various christian groups met together. (It should be noted that being a vestryman didn't have all that much to do with being particularly religious.)

I completely agree with the first bit. Too often people generalize. I also appreciate how specific you were with Jefferson. He was a very complicated man, and I think that "Deist" is too simplistic of a description for him, honestly.