Creation Museum

[Crimson King]

And CK I never said the Church didn't apply an iron fist. Any wrongdoing or corruption by the Church was the fault of the people inside it (who the Church never calimed were infallible), not its Faith and Morals doctrine (which is considered infallbile, and has never been changed for the bad, the one Pope who tried to died just before he could).

Umm... yes, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

 

[adumbrodeus]

Jefferson was barely a deist. A lot of early writings (the gospels he wrote that took out all mysticism) were more atheistic. He had bouts where he recognized a god too, but most of his professional interaction came as ear atheistic because he hated religion.

"Barely a deist" is still a deist.


Why do people feel the need to reach to include respected people in their view, it's not like it makes the view any more justified. Heck, I've heard atheists claiming MOTHER TERESA because she had crises of faith (which btw, pretty much every religious person goes through, and if you don't, something's generally wrong).


Atheists claiming Jefferson is no better then fundamentalists claiming him, they're both attempts to harmonize a worldview with theirs by ignoring the nuances.

Umm... yes, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

No, you're supposed to cite this.


The infallibility of Ecumenical councils (and their basis for authority) is actually a far stronger counter-point since papal infallibility is derived from this.



Regardless, it's a deceptive point, infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals (and points where infalibly established matters of faith and morals rest), and not even to the interpretation of infallibly established facts, and it can only be invoked in exceptional circumstances.


It certainly doesn't apply to policy actions taken due to non-infallibly established beliefs that are the general view of the church by groups within the church.

Or to the actions of individuals or groups within the church in a personal capacity.

 

[Crimson King]

"Barely a deist" is still a deist.


Why do people feel the need to reach to include respected people in their view, it's not like it makes the view any more justified. Heck, I've heard atheists claiming MOTHER TERESA because she had crises of faith (which btw, pretty much every religious person goes through, and if you don't, something's generally wrong).


Atheists claiming Jefferson is no better then fundamentalists claiming him, they're both attempts to harmonize a worldview with theirs by ignoring the nuances.

Actually, if you read quotes by him, he's closer to agnostic than to being a deist. Some quotes attributed to him:

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where his belief that state and religion must remain separate comes from:

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Said when Atheism was considered a hush thing and that all atheists were immoral.

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

This quote, in conjuncture with his creation of the Jefferson Bible, proves he accepts few ideas from religion itself, and goes on his own.

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

Quotes suggesting Deism:

Dumas Malone says the charge most often made against Jefferson was atheist: "it was not only made in the public press, it was hurled from pulpits in various places, most of all probably in Connecticut. ... Actually, he was a deist" (Jefferson and His Time, 3:481).

Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary (1952) includes in the definition of Deist: "One who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation." There is no question Jefferson rejected the Bible as divine revelation and rejected the divinity of Jesus. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson's appeal was to the God of the Deist, "Nature's God," not specifically to the God of Christianity (see letter dated Sep. 14, 1813, to Jefferson from John Adams equating "Nature's God" with "the revelation from nature").

Why is this important? Because ANY argument that goes into separation between church and state always brings up that our founding fathers were Christians. Jefferson was the most staunch of all of them, but he varied his opinion through his life between atheist and deist. The point of all this: Jefferson, like many state founders, were against organized, state-sanctioned religion.

As for infallibility: his claim was the church never claimed infallibility. In matter of faith, morality, or civil issues, it HAS claimed just that.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Actually, if you read quotes by him, he's closer to agnostic than to being a deist. Some quotes attributed to him:



Where his belief that state and religion must remain separate comes from:


Said when Atheism was considered a hush thing and that all atheists were immoral.


This quote, in conjuncture with his creation of the Jefferson Bible, proves he accepts few ideas from religion itself, and goes on his own.


Quotes suggesting Deism:

So, I'm gonna be branded an atheist if I ever become important enough for it to be relevant?


Lord knows I've made quotes with the exact same content, essentially word for word with the exception of the "sect of his own" one, which still fits with deism.



But here's his actual arguments in regards to God.



That's deism, plain and simple. Your suggestions of agnosticism are him using rhetorical devices to comment things, the same sort of rhetorical devices I myself have used, many of which I have used on this forum.


So if those quotes automatically make Jefferson agnostic, so am I.

Why is this important? Because ANY argument that goes into separation between church and state always brings up that our founding fathers were Christians. Jefferson was the most staunch of all of them, but he varied his opinion through his life between atheist and deist. The point of all this: Jefferson, like many state founders, were against organized, state-sanctioned religion.

As for infallibility: his claim was the church never claimed infallibility. In matter of faith, morality, or civil issues, it HAS claimed just that.

CK, you know better then that, that's appeal to authority fallacy, plain and simple, there's a massive body of historical evidence to suggest that it's a bad idea, ESPECIALLY for religious people.


Even if the founders HAD supported it, the words they put on paper didn't. It's a useless argument, it serves no purpose.




And no, you're completely misrepresenting Dre's point. Reread:

And CK I never said the Church didn't apply an iron fist. Any wrongdoing or corruption by the Church was the fault of the people inside it (who the Church never calimed were infallible),

And then he goes on to say it's only the church's faith and moral teachings are infallible. The pope can teach infallibly ON THOSE ISSUES (and not civil issues btw), but saying that the church believes that it's people are infallible is a gross exaggeration.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

And CK I never said the Church didn't apply an iron fist. Any wrongdoing or corruption by the Church was the fault of the people inside it (who the Church never calimed were infallible), not its Faith and Morals doctrine (which is considered infallbile, and has never been changed for the bad, the one Pope who tried to died just before he could).

If the church isn't the people inside it, what is it?

 

[Aesir]

If the church isn't the people inside it, what is it?

Kinda like how people blame the government but never the hacks inside of it.

CK, you know better then that, that's appeal to authority fallacy, plain and simple, there's a massive body of historical evidence to suggest that it's a bad idea, ESPECIALLY for religious people.

Not seeing exactly how it's bad. There's a difference between separation of church and state. (secular countries like the United States, and other Western Democracies) and Atheist Countries like China.

I could maybe see how it could be a bad idea for religions if a run away majority wants it's narrow minded view to become law. But generally speaking the separation protects everyone, by not having the state favor any religion you're preventing serious problems that arises when the state now has authority over religion.

Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[Dre89]

CK that reference said exactly what I said- That the Pope is only infallible in Faith and Morals doctrine, but not in his personal life.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Not seeing exactly how it's bad. There's a difference between separation of church and state. (secular countries like the United States, and other Western Democracies) and Atheist Countries like China.

I could maybe see how it could be a bad idea for religions if a run away majority wants it's narrow minded view to become law. But generally speaking the separation protects everyone, by not having the state favor any religion you're preventing serious problems that arises when the state now has authority over religion.

Maybe I'm missing something here.

You interpreted my argument to be in support of the exact opposite of the position that I supported, I count that as missing something.

CK, you know better then that, that's appeal to authority fallacy, plain and simple, there's a massive body of historical evidence to suggest that it's a bad idea, ESPECIALLY for religious people.


Even if the founders HAD supported it, the words they put on paper didn't. It's a useless argument, it serves no purpose.

If it's unclear that this was considering unification of church and state a bad idea (which I admit, wasn't completely clear from the first line) the fact that I never disagreed with CK's assertion that the founders supported separation of church and state and referred to their position on the issue (granted, dismissing the relevance, even if they held the opposite stance due to the actual wording of the relevant legal documents).

 

[Aesir]

I'm having issue with the fact that you're saying "Historical evidence suggests that it is a bad idea, especially for religious people." I wanted you to explain that, because maybe I'm not understanding it.

If I'm misunderstanding you then fine, but it almost sounds like you believe the separation of church and state is bad.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm having issue with the fact that you're saying "Historical evidence suggests that it is a bad idea, especially for religious people." I wanted you to explain that, because maybe I'm not understanding it.

If I'm misunderstanding you then fine, but it almost sounds like you believe the separation of church and state is bad.

What I'm saying is that the appeal to authority is unnecessary because historical evidence alone is more then enough to defend separation of church and state.


As I said, the first line's target might have been unclear, but the second line is quite clear in terms of what it targets, it firmly establishes the post as being opposed to unification of church and state, but also being opposed to using the founders as an appeal to authority.

 

[Aesir]

What I'm saying is that the appeal to authority is unnecessary because historical evidence alone is more then enough to defend separation of church and state.


As I said, the first line's target might have been unclear, but the second line is quite clear in terms of what it targets, it firmly establishes the post as being opposed to unification of church and state, but also being opposed to using the founders as an appeal to authority.

I definitely misunderstood you then and got hung up on that one line without noticing it.

Sorry to put you on the spot like that.

 

[adumbrodeus]

S'alright, we're smash debators, we're supposed to put each other on the spot.