Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
FRiend, I can only go by what I read in many sources: those words are not found in any ancient Greek text from before the 14th century.
That's what it says here (see the footnote).
Therefore, the correct translation is as I posted before:
Again, I grant that you can read it however you wish.
I am here to request that you grant forbearance and respect to those who -- especially our Founders -- may have understood it differently.
It may not have been a particularly good one, but the nature of traps is such that they usually have to be hidden or disguised to avoid detection if they're going to work at all.
Obviously, you use a different definition of the word "deist" than Franklin himself did:
Franklin was also very high amongst Freemasons.
Those are reasons why I consider Franklin, along with many other Founders, as Christians whose ideas were to-greater-or-lesser-degrees influenced by Enlightenment Age deism/theism, Unitarianism and/or Freemasonry.
I am here to ask that you treat such ideas with forbearance and respect.
According to this accounting, about one third of those who signed the Declaration, or the Constitution, or served as Generals in the Continental Army were Freemasons, including Washington himself.
Freemasonry's effect on men like Washington can be seen in my post above.
And the list of those today described as "deists/theists" includes nearly all the "top tier" of Founders -- Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton.
Both John Adams' (father & son) were Unitarians, the father deistically influenced.
Those are the Founders I am here to defend, and to request you treat their religious view with forbearance and respect.
The only "silence" here is your refusal to read what the Founders themselves wrote.
To cite one example, in 1771 Franklin described himself as a "deist", though he still considered himself Christian.
Your quote from the diplomatic language of the Treaty of Paris hardly tells us something about Franklin's or Adams' personal beliefs.
Of course, it does certainly reflect the religious beliefs of the last Founder listed: John Jay.
John Jay was exceptional in being a traditional Trinitarian Christian amongst our "top tier" Founders.
He was Washington's personal friend, and Washington later appointed him Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
That men of religious views as varied as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and John Jay all got along, and indeed were often close personal friends -- that is the level of forbearance and respect I am asking you for, here, on Free Republic's News/Activism forum.
Since BJK's invention bears a striking similarity to an impersonal divine creative substance, it becomes necessary to set a computer program in motion according to which the universe of matter unfolds as a continuous process."
As always, Ms irish, whenever you attempt to summarize my thinking, you get it wrong, usually opposite of truth.
And there's no doubt in my mind, that's deliberate.
In fact, nowhere did I say God is impersonal, or limited, or incapable of whatever He wishes to do.
I did say, or imply, that scientific evidence shows a Universe operating by mechanisms and natural laws which may or may not require God's personal interventions -- science doesn't know the answer.
spirited irish: "As BJK rejects the Revealed Word perspective, it is not possible for us to know how life arose according to the computer program or if the impersonal creative force (psychic energy) intervened at any time or even if the computer program was adequate to allow for life to emerge from nonlife (#4)."
Ms irish, as always, you mischaracterize my views, doubtless deliberately.
I said nothing about an "impersonal creative force" much less "psychic energy".
Instead, I referred specifically to the Bible's God, and merely attempted to acknowledge what science says about the Universe along with God's creation in Genesis.
My views on this are entirely consistent with those of most Christian denominations.
So your attempts to portray me differently are misdirected.
spirited irish: "However, though it is impossible for the posters to this thread to know if life emerged from nonlife (#4) it turns out that it is “entirely possible” for the little 'g' god-man BJK to authoritatively assert that life did after all emerge from non-life since evolution (#5) has become operable----according to BJK's computer program of course."
Now you're just having fun being ridiculous.
What I've said, or implied, is that we don't know exactly where God's laws of nature leave off and God's personal interventions (miracles) begin.
But, since I believe that God is responsible for every "vibration" of every "string" in the Universe, the question is really null.
Of course, I "get" that you desperately need some "Damnable Heresy" to condemn, and my ideas are as close as you've come, so you hammer, hammer them for all it's worth, even if they don't fit.
So enjoy! But don't suppose for a moment there's any truth in your own descriptions of my beliefs.
Remember, FRiend, my major purpose here is to represent and defend -- to the best of my ability -- religious views like those held by most of our Founding Fathers.
I think it should give you some pause to realize that all the condemnations you've heaped on yours truly, BroJoeK, also apply to many Founders.
That's why I continue to request that you treat those views with forbearance and respect.
But, of course, it doesn't say that.
It speaks of "fullness" in that same sense as Ephesians 3:19.
In one verse "fullness" applies to Jesus, in the other to all Christians.
I've said, if you wish to believe that means Jesus was God Himself, then fine, go ahead, I don't object.
However, I do think a more consistent application of the word "fullness" would suggest something like filled with the spirit of God -- something that can apply to both Jesus and Christians.
GarySpFc: "Furthermore, in the attempt you have revealed yourself as an Arian, and hiding behind that mask is a Jehovah Witness."
Shear fantasy on your part.
Yes, I do admire Jehovah's Witnesses, because they were thrown, by choice, into the Nazi concentration camps, and many died there when, unlike Jews & others, all it would take for their release was to deny their own faith.
So they suffered as Christ suffered, and I give them huge credit for that.
But the truth of this matter is that I don't know a single Jehovah's Witness personally.
My real purpose here is to represent and defend -- to the best of my ability -- the religious views of many Founding Fathers, and others similar.
I am here to ask you to show them forbearance and respect.
I should also take note of your use of the word "Arian", since to my knowledge it's the first time anyone on this thread besides myself has used it.
Indeed, so far, Ms irish has lumped all such ideas together and mis-labeled them "Gnosticism" -- the "Damnable Heresy" source of this thread.
Historically, Christian-Arianism was the opposite of Christian-Gnosticism.
If we can begin here to recognize them as two separate "heresies", that would be a start...
And yet Kevmo's charge of "God Damned Heretic" and spirited irish's application of "Damnable Heresy" to opinions expressed by yours truly, BroJoeK -- those are not Alinsky tactics??
Ms boop, what's wrong with this picture?
To Ms boop, because you always mis-understand, you pray for the wrong things.
In that entire discussion, now over 2,000 posts ago, I repeated frequently words to the effect that I believe God responsible for every "vibration" of every "string" in the Universe, and so any discussion of what is "mechanistic" versus "miracle" is theologically null -- they're the same thing.
To Ms boop, I'll repeat as to Ms irish: I understand that you desperately need a "Damnable Heretic" that you can hammer on, but I'm not that person.
I am here representing and defending -- to the best of my abilities -- the religious views of our Founders, and others similar.
If you still condemn them as "God Damned Heretics", I'm suggesting that's a problem more for you than for them.
metmom: "No Reply. Eh?"
Of course I've replied, you just don't like the response.
And you won't like it better if I expand my response to multiple sentences & paragraphs.
So I am not here to proselytize you, only to request your forbearance and respect for those, like our Founders, who saw things differently.
Now there is a voice of reason. Thank you FRiend.
FRiend, there's plenty of room in my cart, I'll enjoy your company, and we'll have lots to discuss on our way to the bonfire. ;-)
My humble opinion on any such question is: where the New Testament is clear and unequivocal, that's gospel.
Where meanings are not-so-clear, then precise understandings are not so important, and all will be revealed in its true glory, in due time.
In short, I don't worry about such things.
No you didn’t. You evaded the question rather than identify who you believe scripture identifies.
CynicalBear: “And just who is it that you think is coming back to this earth?”
BJK: On this question, as on all others, I go by what the New Testament actually says about it.
mm: Which is who exactly?
In an attempt to defend your heresy I’m sure you grasp on to that which supports your position rather than thoroughly research the subject. Nothing before the 14th century you say? Well, let’s see where it shows up.
Cyprian (200-258AD) used it.
Priscillian 350 AD, a Spanish bishop quotes I John 5:7,8.
Idacius Clarus 360 AD, who opposed Priscillian quotes it.
Varimadum 380 AD.
Cassiodorus 485 AD.
Cassian 435 AD.
Victor Vita 489 AD.
Jerome 450 AD.
Fulgentius 533 AD.
Ps. Vigilius 484 AD.
Ansbert 660 AD.
Perhaps early manuscripts that included it would help you.
Old Syriac 170 AD.
Old Latin 200 AD, in North Africa and Italy.
Italic 4th and 5th century. – Italic • Monacensis 7th century.
Italic • Speculum 9th century.
Latin Vulgate 4th, 5th century.
Not before the 14th century ey? Time and time again documented proofs of your errors on multiple subjects have been produced yet you persist. It might be time you take your poorly researched views to a different and less educated forum.
No “forbearance” will be given for proven error.
And still you infer that Franklin denied the trinity yet refuse to see his own words on the subject.
“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble ...[ Van Doren, Carl. Benjamin Franklin. (1938). Penguin reprint 1991]
Franklin didn’t deny the trinity per his own admission when he said, “Tho it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it”. He took no particular position.
Benjamin Franklin became a deist at the age of fifteen. Before the Revolutionary war he was merely a shrewd and pushing business man. He had public spirit, and he made one happy discovery in science. But ‘Poor Richard’s’ sayings express his mind at that time. The perils and anxieties of the great war gave him a deeper insight. He and others entered upon it ‘with a rope around their necks. The Constitutional Convention was on the verge of total failure over the issue of whether small states should have the same representation as large states. In this hopeless situation, 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin offered a suggestion. He was convinced Scripture is right when it states, “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” (Psalm 127:1), so he said: “Gentlemen, I have lived a long time and am convinced that God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? I move that prayer imploring the assistance of Heaven be held every morning before we proceed to business.”
And when the designs for an American coinage were under discussion, Franklin proposed to stamp on them, not ‘A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned,’ or any other piece of worldly prudence, but ‘The Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom.’ “
I never stated Franklin was a Christian. Clearly, he wasn't, but he grew with age, and his quotes indicate he was at least a theist near the end of his life.
He is not a Catholic, and has every right to speak as a believer in Christ.
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.