Is It Our Fault That We Christians Think We’re Superior?

Objective!

Ha, ha, ha. That joke title was just my way of saying, “I overdrank this weekend.” (I’m kidding. I didn’t.)

But yes, now that you mention it, overdrank is a word.

Well, it is now, anyway.

If you keep up on the world of  book publishing, you know that with blinding speed the industry is becoming radically and almost unimaginably decentralized; the entire business as we’ve just about ever known it is vaporizing before our eyes.

So soon that effectively it’s already now, every author will have to also become his or her own publisher.

Which means (at least for those authors who don’t have money to burn and/or don’t trust their own editorial capabilities) no more professional editors.

Which—and especially if for some reason at this very moment you just so happen to be me—means that overdrank just became a real word.

Sweet!

Power to the people!

Historically-wise, this is sooooo not a good time to be the ghost of Noah Webster.

But whatever. Webster was an oppressive tight-ass. (KIDDING! Young people: Learn who NW was. You’ll be glad you did. If you do, and aren’t, please don’t hesitate to write me for a refund.)

Oh, before I dash off to continue my life as an avant garde bon vivant (by which I mean I believe I’m going to be spending tonight at the Manchester Grand Hyatt in lovely downtown San Diego, which, since you asked, is, in fact, the manner in which I rolleth), lemme say this, relative to some of the discussions lately happening here on my blog: Of course no Christian should ever assume they’re superior to non-Christians.

Well, duh.

That right there is the Eat Pray Love of religious advice: too inanely, insultingly obvious for words.

So. How to communicate what I mean in a more largerly fashion?

Well, let’s say this (and then promise to pick it up next time, please?): Every person exists within the context of their own experience.

And thus does it follow, like night follows the day, that every person necessarily believes that they are as wise as it’s possible for any human to be.

Thus does the subjective so seductively masquerade as the objective.

And thus are wars begun.

(Or you tell me: How is it possible to believe that you are right, and, so, that anyone who doesn’t believe what you believe is wrong? And if you are objectively, truly, absolutely right about something very, very important—like, say, about God—then how are you not superior to those whose beliefs do not accord with your own?)

About John Shore

John Shore (who, fwiw, is straight) is the author of UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question, and three other great books. He is founder of Unfundamentalist Christians (on Facebook here), and executive editor of the Unfundamentalist Christians group blog.  (In total John's two blogs receive some 250,000 views per month.) John is also co-founder of The NALT Christians Project, which was written about by TIME,  The Washington Post, and others. His website is JohnShore.com. You're invited to like John's Facebook page. Don't forget to sign up for his mucho-awesome newsletter.

  • Mary

    Yep, it’s clear that you overdrank. I’m still jealous about the Chris Isaak sweat. Let me know the court date.

  • Gina Powers

    I…..huh? You know what, I’ll try reading this again later when I DON’T have a screaming headache. Holy Schmoley…..it’s me, not you, John…no worries. Have fun tonight!!

  • ManimalX

    Couple of thoughts:

    1) Confidence does not equal arrogance, though confidence can easily become arrogance. Also, what is sometimes (often?) labeled "arrogance" is often (sometimes?) just simple confidence. Speaking in "us/them" (Christians/non-Christians), I think a lot of unbelievers THINK the believer is being arrogant when it is actually just the believer stating the truth and being confident in it.

    2) Truth with a capital "T" is not relative. In other words, objective truth is true regardless of the relative experiences and thoughts of the individual. If something is objectively true, then the opposite of that truth is error. If the animal sleeping beside me right now is a dog, then the person who comes along and calls it a cat is wrong. I can state with confidence, "this is my dog." All of the protests and hurt feelings of a million people who say it is a cat will do nothing to change that it is a dog. It can't be a dog and a cat at the same time.

    Likewise, if the truth is that God is real, then God can't be unreal. If the truth is that there is one God, there cannot be ten-thousand Gods. If the truth is that Yahweh is God, then Allah cannot be God. If the truth is that Jesus is God, then Jesus can't be merely an error prone prophet. If the truth is that the Bible is the truth, then the Koran cannot be the truth because they contain mutually exlusive teachings.

    3) I don't mean to start a debate on pre-destination vs. free-will or Calvinism vs. Arminianism, but if the Christian adheres to biblical truth, then the Christian should not be arrogant regarding their salvation because they had nothing to do with their salvation.

    Ephesians 3:8-10, "8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

    God wanted to make SURE no Christian could boast about getting themselves saved. Nobody gets saved because they are smarter, faster, stronger, taller, shorter, skinnier, fatter, more logical, made better choices, born into a better family, or whatever claim they make about their own works/efforts.

    And, so we can avoid arguing Calvinism/Arminianism, even if you dismiss Ephesians 2:8-9 as meaning something else, for whatever reason, you still have passages such as:

    1st Corinthians 13:4, "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud."

    2nd Corinthians 11:30, "If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness."

    Galatians 6:14, "May I never boast except in the cross of our LORD Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."

    …and myriad others.

    Bottom line: We Christians shouldn't brag because we are told not to, and because we have nothing to brag ABOUT except that our Holy God is great and Jesus saves (we can brag that up all day long). There is nothing wrong with we Christians being extremely joyful that we are saved, and nothing wrong with pointing out the difference between being saved and being lost. There IS something wrong with pointing and laughing at the unsaved, with bragging about one's salvation as if one earned it by their own merit.

    • Jeanine

      :)

    • Mel

      100% agree with you. Excellent way of explaining it!

    • Kara

      If the animal sleeping beside me right now is a dog, then the person who comes along and calls it a cat is wrong. I can state with confidence, “this is my dog.” All of the protests and hurt feelings of a million people who say it is a cat will do nothing to change that it is a dog. It can’t be a dog and a cat at the same time.</i?

      Okay. But what if all we know is that there's a big box behind you? There might be something in it, there might not. If there is something in it, we don't know what it is. We don't know how many. Now, there are lots of books that say they know what's in the box, and what it's like, and how it got there. But they disagree.

      Now let's say someone comes along and says there's a cat in the box. If you state with confidence, that no, there's a dog in the box, and it looks a specific way and behaves a specific way and you know so because a book you think is true told you so?

      They have no reason to believe you.

      Especially if (and here the metaphor breaks down) your belief that there's a dog, not a cat, in the box means that you feel entitled to pass judgment on their personal lives and pass laws restricting their rights.

      • Kara

        Gah! Borked the HTML. Sorry about that.

  • http://skerrib.blogspot.com skerrib

    Yes, I agree. And yes, you overdrank.

  • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

    You know, something tells me I’ve been entirely too subtle with this post. So. Lemme go … add stuff.

    • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

      I got it John…and I agree. There is no way to be objective with one has swimming around in the electro-chemical soup of their brain. The ignorant don’t know that they are ignorant. The schizophrenic can’t tell that they are schizophrenic. Those that are absolutely sure don’t know what they don’t know. That’s why we have the scientific method to help mitigate the gross failings of any one individuals’ perceptions.

      It is absolute confidence in ones theology that starts wars. A little doubt lets a person ask …. but what if I am wrong?

      …and what is the rule on possessives and apostrophes?

      • Megan Hallam

        I LOVED reading this, John! Your really-my-thoughts-are-barely-coherent-I-promise style was brilliantly and hilariously done. And at the same time you struck right to the core of one of my very favorite fundamental convictions: There is a vast difference between what it is to “believe fully” and to “know with certainty” that leads to all kinds of badness when people fail to make the distinction.

        In case you’re really asking, Mike:

        For singular nouns with ownership, add apostrophe-s to the end, regardless of final letter:

        a dog’s ball; the bus’s exhaust (though some conventions allow for the final “s” to be omitted)

        For plural nouns ending in “s”, add an apostrophe at the end:

        two dogs’ dinner bowls; two buses’ exhaust

        For plural nouns not ending in “s”, add apostrophe-s to the end:

        children’s books; people’s personalities

        For pronouns, add an “s” with no apostrophe: yours, theirs, its

        • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

          I was seriously asking. I remember getting my [figurative] hand slapped over some possessive of a word ending in 's'. Thanks. (Of course I probably won't remember the variants!)

  • Robert Meek

    Ouch! Why did you make my brain have to fart, John? Now it hurts, and stinks. ;)

  • donna

    I have always taken issue with Christians that acted so proudly. I

    was a committed Believer and part of the church and they still turned

    me off to most Christians, in fact they completely turned my kids off

    to Christians, so imagine the impact that PRIDE has on the non-believer.

    I am so thankful to have been redeemed, I cannot imagine gloating about it!

    I’m glad you brought it up.

    have a great weekend :o)

  • http://mysteryshrink.com Barbara DeShong

    John,

    Yes, on the Eat, Pray, Love. I found it a bit difficult to commit to a weathly attractive New Yorker preoccupied with her lack of fullfillment.

  • http://www.HandwritingThatWorks.com Kate Gladstone

    When you mentioned Daniel Webster, didn’t you mean his cousin Noah Webster?

    • http://www.johnshore.wordpress.com John Shore

      Oh, duh. Yes. Of course. Changed. Thanks!!!!!!

  • DonP

    “Superior” is in the eye of the beholder or, hand of the holder and depends a great deal on the time of day it finds itself.

  • http://dianer.blogspot.com DR

    When there is hardly any Christian speaking out against this? Yep.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/24/florida.burn.quran.day/

    • Diana A.

      Both sad and ugly.

    • DonP

      I did. I wrote the pastor personally. Naturally, he did not reply.

      I hope Glenn Beck is reading this one today. He would have Christians and Christian law ruling our land. I wonder what he would say if these poor ignorant folks were in charge. This is the perfect example of why this country was made for us to have the freedom to choose our own way, not force our way on our fellow citizens. . I do not agree with these people’s beliefs but I do support their freedom to exercise them. Nevertheless, I can just imagine these people being in charge of the country. Beware of what you wish for Glenn Beck.

      • http://www.thefathatcat.vox.com themadjewess

        Glenn Beck is pushing Mormonism. NOT "Christianity" HUGE difference.

        However, it is Judao Law that is supposed to 'rule the land'. FAITH and RELIGION are 2 different things.

  • http://www.thefathatcat.vox.com themadjewess

    All of the founders were Christians and presented a valid government that was based on Christianity.

    Our laws are based on the 10 Commandments. This is why America was so great for such a long time. There was never a 'seperation of church and state' …. the founders did not want RELIGION playing a role, just faith, which is different.

    I dont think Christians are 'superior', but radical satanic, left wingers certainly treat them as if they are nothing, and an 'enemy', and that is sad to me.

    All of my friends are Christians, one of my friends was been put on suspensions at schools just for wearing a cross while teaching.

    That is "Jesus" persecution and saddens me terribly.

    As far as the Qu'ran burning, if Jews and Christians are doing that, then they should not get angry if the Moslems burn their books.

    To be quite frank about the Qu'ran, it is a terrible book that was bought by Mohammed from the Jews, and they perverted it. But, that is religious freedom and precisely the reason why RELIGION should NOT be involved in government, but only FAITH.

    • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

      Get over it 'themadjewess'. You should actually read something about our founding fathers. An excellent, even-handed book on the founders and their beliefs is Founding Faith by Steven Waldman (founder of BeliefNet.com) http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Faith-Providence-P…. You will learn how the early colonies became little theocracies and how that recognition that religion and government needed to be separate.

      Other than "In The Year of Our Lord", there is not a single Christian reference in our constitution. If you think that our laws are based on the 10 commandments, what then to make of civilization having prohibitions against murder and thievery before Moses' tablets? These are natural laws that we don't need a god to clue us in on.

      Our founders were a mix of Christians, agnostics, deists and non-believers. In the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796 it specifically states:

      "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

      You are entitled to your own opinon 'themadjewess', but you are most certainly NOT entitled to your own facts.

      • EL

        If you're only saying that Christians should not be arrogant, then I agree with you 100%. The Bible teaches us that spritual pride is a sin. But, I get the feeling that you're arguing for relativism, moral and otherwise, and condemning Christians for believing that Christianity is the only truth when it comes to religion. If I;m wrong about your intentions please let me know. However, f you don't believe that Jesus is THE Savior and provides the only path to heaven like he said, then you must think he was a liar and/or a raving lunatic and you are by definition not a Christian. If there were other ways of being saved there would have been no point in what he did.

        "If you think that our laws are based on the 10 commandments, what then to make of civilization having prohibitions against murder and thievery before Moses’ tablets? These are natural laws that we don’t need a god to clue us in on. "

        Apparently we do. It was only after the arrival of, and because of, Christian missionaries that some society's quit engaging in headhunting and cannibalism. And have you seen any statistics on crime lately. Apparently a lot of people don't think there is anything wrong with murder and stealing. As we have become more secular, crime has increased dramatically. In 1960, per 100,000 people, there were 5.1 murders, 9.6 rapes, 60.1 robberies, and 86.1 aggravated assaults. In 2008 there were 29.3 murders, 145.3 rapes, 274.6 robberies, and 730.8 aggravated assaults.

        I don't want to get in a war of quotes. I realize that many of the founders, like

        Jefferson, were not Christian or religious in any way. But most still had a great deal of respect for scripture and the teachings of Christianity. Jefferson stated that, "The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty…students' perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands."

        George Washington said "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." John Adams believed that "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people…so great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens in their country and respectful members of society."

        If we still had 1950s medical technology and no 911 system, many of those aggravated assaults would have been murders. Who knows what our crime rate today would be if we didn't spend billions of dollars on alarms, guards, dogs, guns, etc., and avoid certain areas to avoid becoming a victim. And yes. I'm familiar with how blacks were treated in 1960 but that's one issue among many. I'm also aware of the 5000 blacks who were lynched in the US from 1865 to 1960. But, 5000 is about half the number of blacks murdered by other blacks EVERY YEAR in this country. (Something that didn't come about until the 1960s.)

        I once read a statement by a man from India. He stated that when the various religions came to India they brought nothing but their religion Whereas, when the Christian missionaries came, they set up a number of educational institutions, hospitals, community centers, etc. Many of these institutions catered to the minorities that were social pariahs: people stricken with leprosy and tuberculosis, untouchables, low caste females, etc. . The missionaries established numerous health care and educational facilities of repute. Some of the better known institutions the evangelists founded include the Ludhiana Hospital, the Gordon Christian College in Rawalpindi, the Baring Christian College in Gurdaspur, the Forman Christian College, and Ewing Hostel in Lahore, and the famous Christian Medical College and Hospital in Vellore. The missionaries played a significant role, not only in fighting ignorance and illiteracy, but also in improving the standard of existence in India.

        Also in India, through their INFLUENCE ON THE GOVERNMENT, the Protestants were able to stop a number of undesirable social practices such as the sati, human sacrifice, temple prostitution, child marriage, etc. Some of the missionaries, like C.F. Andrews who was closely associated with Mohandas Gandhi, became intimately involved in the freedom struggle. Yes, the English did mistreat the Indians. But it was the English government who was responsible for this. In spite of what you've been told it's not religion, with the exception of Islam, that causes wars-it's secular governments and economics, aka money.

        • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

          @EL

          Well it is easy to find anecdotal evidence of religion/a-religion doing good bad (as in the case of your cannibals). As a scientist, I am concerned only with the statistical trends and actual studies have shown that less religious societies are healthier…and dramatically so. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html. If you can provide actual studies that show religious societies have lower murder rates…then we have something to talk about. Until then; your contention that our societal ills are because we are straying too far from the supernatural (despite the U.S. being much more religious than other democracies) is just religious blather that invariably spawns from dogma. Some of what you cite in terms of murder rates you baselessly attribute to moving away from God, but you don't seem to even consider other factors such as racism, poverty and failing educational systems. I can't stand it when the likes of yourself look at something bad and just … poof…claim it is because of the lack of religion…or your brand of religion. It's totally vacant from an intellectual standpoint.

          As far as a war quotes from our founding fathers….

          Both the far-left and the far-right have the Christian Nation issue wrong. The founding fathers were majority Christian certainly, but they ran the religious gamut from atheist to hard-core theocrat. I have cited it before, but pick up Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Faith-Providence-P….

          This is the best book I have read about the religious positions of our founding fathers. It seem very even handed. It was well recognized how the ugly it got between the colonies as they self-segregated into mini-theocracies. The conclusion is that the right and the left are both wrong about the issue, but the right is much more wrong than the left.

          • http://dianer.blogspot.com/ DR

            Mike with all due respect, I don't agree with EL but to call anyone's counter "blather" is pretty disrespectful. You might believe you're simply being candid and/or direct and it's clear you aren't going to accept any kind of data if it doesn't meet your specific terms (which is fine, that's not a slam we all have our filters we truest). But that kind of thing seems a little odd from someone who is asking for some objective criteria.

          • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

            Nobody benefits from feigning respect for an invalid argument. EL states as fact that which is merely opinion … and completely unsupported. Maybe it is my mood at the moment, but I have zero tolerance for such shallow ideological arguments. Your point is well taken, but I am not motivated to soften what I said.

          • http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/ Sentinel

            I am concerned only with the statistical trends and actual studies have shown that less religious societies are healthier…and dramatically so.

            Wow, you call that rubbish science??

            The most atheist states are not in Europe – the whole of Western Europe is historically Christian (and still reaping the benefits of that). The authors of that study arbitrarily decide to limit their study to historically Christian countries (plus Japan, because that happens to help their argument).

            The least religious societies are not the healthiest: the atheist nations of China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos are much less religious than the historically Christian nations of Europe. And life expectancy and infant mortality in those countries is dreadful.

            If that’s how rigorous you are with testing your data, I shudder to think of the quality of your research…

          • https://questionablemotives.wordpress.com tildeb

            Two problems with your reasoning, Sentinel: the first is the twin assumptions you make – that health is somehow related to the benefits of a christian heritage without a shred of evidence to back that up – and that MB is claiming (when he is not) that atheist states are healthier. Of course, I fault MB for not clarifying that he was referring to the conclusions of the study about the countries most like the United States for which there is reliable data. The point is to help explain why the US is such a remarkable outlier in that it spends the most on health but ranks quite poorly, and the correlation seems quite strong that religion plays its part in this discrepancy. From the conclusion:

            There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).in the study

            The fact is that the statistical trend really does show that the higher the religiosity, the poorer the general health of the population… regardless of this magical faith-healing christian heritage you so easily throw into that mix. How you twist his point to misrepresent what MB is actually arguing while promoting your own unfounded religious bias by means of misplaced criticism and assumed underhanded motives that exist only in your own mind is rather telling about how you come at purposefully misunderstanding what the data actually represents.

          • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

            Tildeb already covered what I was going to add…but of course there is a bit more I feel compelled to add for your edification:

            From a scientific perspective; it is very important and necessary to select the countries as they did. They chose "prosperous democracies" to eliminate variables. It doesn't make sense to compare a rich, educated, democratic country to a poverty-stricken, uneducated socialist country. You would get some results, but you couldn't tell whether it was because of their education, wealth or political system that effected those results.

            [thanks tildeb]

            To the extent that they could; they eliminated all the variables that they could to see if religion, specifically, was correlated. This is the scientific method…get familiar with it.

          • http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/ Sentinel

            You're right, it doesn't make sense to compare countries with have been dominated by Christianity for centuries to countries which have been dominated by other worldviews for centuries. I mean, there certainly isn't any justification to think that current prosperity could be connected to historical trends on a multi-decadal timescale. Current socio-economic condition most obviously be entirely dependent on current demographics.

            Oh, wait. That's ridiculous.

            They chose their subset of countries based on unjustified assumptions. Valid sampling techniques: get familiar with them.

          • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

            You know that the study was conducted by a Christian university, right?

          • http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/ Sentinel

            I don’t really care who conducted it. The methodology is lousy and the conclusions are rubbish.

            And the further conclusion that you drew from it, that “less religious societies are healthier” is not even a valid extension of the work that you cite.

          • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

            @Sentinal

            Let’s be clear. I (and the study) don’t claim causation, merely correlation…and there is a clear statistical correlation. Mathematically, this is beyond dispute.

            The proper retort is to provide well controlled and objective studies that show different results (maybe you will have better luck than I did finding such data) I don’t know how far you think you can get with the argument NUH-UH!!! I THINK IT’S A STUPID REPORT!!

          • http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/ Sentinel

            “Mathematically, this is beyond dispute.”

            You know that putting something in bold typeface doesn’t make it true, right?

            You call yourself a scientist. Hopefully that means that you have some understanding of statistics.

            For instance, I hope you realise that if you start off with a biased sample set, statistical correlation is meaningless.

          • https://questionablemotives.wordpress.com tildeb

            Give it up, MB. Even if you quote him back to himself he will tell you you’re wrong, that you have no idea what you’re talking about, and that you have failed in some personal or professional way. If you’re really lucky, he’ll eventually come around to blame Dawkins for your fundamentalist errors.

          • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

            @Sentinal

            Here is a more graphical representation of the Creighton report: http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_arti

            @Tildeb

            Give it up MB.

            Your point is well taken.

  • Tim

    Great post, John. Good subject for introspection.

    If we have truly given up the helm of our lives to Christ, why would we consider ourselves superior in any way to our non-believing buds? If anything, a Christian handing the helm over to God/Christ could be seen as inferior or more "wuss" to sole coxswaining.

    The serenity prayer helps me to see the reality of living in a world of unbelievers.

    God, grant me the serenity

    To accept the things I cannot change;

    Courage to change the things I can;

    And wisdom to know the difference.

  • themadjewess

    Mike Burns said 1 week ago:

    Get over it ‘themadjewess’. You should actually read something about our founding fathers.

    I dont need to 'get over anything'

    I am a collector of antiquities, among them, patriotic books with founding fathers quotes and docs.

    Books, I, personally have are over 150 years old. I am a JEWW, Even I know that this nation was built on Christian principles.

    You have a rough time believing this, because you are only a sheep, brainwashed by Communist/atheists, go take a visit around America sometime.

    Most- probably 85% of the graves have CROSSES on them, and the churches in USA would really astound you.

    "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

    - Patrick Henry, Patriot 1776

    This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”

    - Patrick Henry (Last Will and Testament)

    "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

    - Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father, 1801

    "I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

    - Thomas Jefferson (inscribed around the inside of the dome of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington)

    there are THOUSANDS from my books, if you need more, i can email them.

    Thanks,
    :D

    • Kara

      They were almost all Deists, actually.

      "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." – Thomas Jefferson

      "…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." – US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796

      "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." – James Madison

      "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." – John Adams

      "God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world." – John Adams

      "…Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." – Benjamin Franklin

      "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half of the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." – Thomas Paine

      "The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar." – Thomas Paine

      "I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not." – Ethan Allan

      From a letter, referring to a minister who knew George Washington personally: "[He] often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."

    • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

      @TheMadJewess

      you are only a sheep, brainwashed by Communist/atheists,

      It might reassure you to know that I am a free-market capitalist (but recognize the need for pragmatic regulation).

      probably 85% of the graves have CROSSES on them, and the churches in USA would really astound you.

      Do you think I need to dispute that?…or that somehow shuts down my thesis? There is a great difference between a Christian Nation and a Secular Nation with a Strong Christian Tradition. Our founding documents define us as a government and nation…and Christianity is missing from those documents. References to a ‘Creator’ are at best deistic or metaphorical. Dating documents with “In The Year of Our Lord” was convention at the time. Moreover the calendar that most of the world uses aligns the years based on the death of Jesus. Even if one thinks the whole thing fiction; most all of us use a calendar based on a ‘Lord Jesus’.

      Even I know that this nation was built on Christian principles.

      “Christian principles” seems amorphous and meaningless to me. Are you saying entreaties against murder and perjury are Christian principals? What of other pre-Christian societies that had entreaties against the same? Where in our founding documents and laws to we cite specifically biblical law? It would be helpful if you defined just what you mean by “Christian principles”.

    • http://fvthinker.blogspot.com Mike Burns

      I forgot to mention….

      The original colonies had a very strong Christian influence…and our founders recognized just how ugly that got. Our nation (as defined by our Declaration and Constitution) stripped all that out.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X