Have you ever noticed how atheists and unbelievers like to tell us that those who freed us from the oppressions of the Middle Ages, and led the Enlightenment were deists like Voltaire?

That isn't true. The Enlightenment was led by Protestant Christians, as were the later abolitionists, but that's another thread.

We were recently assured that the man who wrote the following was another of these enlightened deists:

"From this estate of death, Jesus Christ restores all mankind to life...By one man death came and by one man came the resurrection of the dead"

"And the righteous our saviour says, shall go into eternal life."

"The law of works then, in short, is that law which requires perfect obedience, without any remission or abatement, so that by that law a man cannot be justified, without an exact performance of every tittle..."

That's just a sample of what he wrote-- there is much more. What he wrote is exactly what I believe, and how I would speak about the NT, why Jesus came, etc. So am I a Deist? Hardly

Also what is the difference between this man's beliefs and the typical "fundy"?

So calling this man a deist is just atheist ignorance, or more likely historical revisionism

I've been reading (actually, re-reading) several books on the enlightenment recently. Particularly "Science and the Enlightenment, by Thomas L. Lankins, and The Revolution in Science 1500-1750, by A Rupert Hall. Hall notes on page 24:

"Protestantism is totally irrelevant to the initiation of the scientific revolution. The influence it had on the character of seventeenth-century science is another matter. But no historian has failed to see an essential continuity from Vesalius to Harvey, from Copernicus to Kepler, from Galileo to Netwon, bridging firmly over any stretch of time in which the new protestant spirit might be supposed to infiltrate. Those historicans who wish to write any kind of generic account of the scientific revoluton (or of the enlightenment), or to trace its evolution from small beginnings through successive accretions and modifications, are surely right in looking back to the universally Catholic Fifteenth Century in the youth of Leonardo and Copernicus, for the first portents of what was to come."

So it is not true that the enlightment began or was was led by protestantism (Luther, who was a butcher, certainly didn't lead the enlightenment, and neither did Calvin, who was known for burning scholars at the stake).

Hmmm....John Locke died in 1704.

Quote:Some scholars have seen Locke's political convictions as deriving from his religious beliefs.[36][37][38] Locke's religious trajectory began in Calvinist trinitarianism, but by the time of the Reflections (1695) Locke was advocating not just Socinian views on tolerance but also Socinian Christology; with veiled denial of the pre-existence of Christ.

Unlike silly theists today his views may have morphed over time as indicated above. Nonetheless, he was long mouldered in his grave by the time Voltaire and Jefferson were demonstrating xtian beliefs to be the bullshit that they are.

Calling Locke a Deist is like calling Darwin a molecular biologist. Things moved along after both their deaths.

Unfortunately, xtian asswipes can't ever see things advancing. Comes from having your head buried in that stupid fucking bible of yours.

Indeed. For those Christians who didn't get the memo, John Locke is still dead.

(April 17, 2012 at 12:44 am)orogenicman Wrote: I've been reading (actually, re-reading) several books on the enlightenment recently. Particularly "Science and the Enlightenment, by Thomas L. Lankins, and The Revolution in Science 1500-1750, by A Rupert Hall. Hall notes on page 24:

"Protestantism is totally irrelevant to the initiation of the scientific revolution. The influence it had on the character of seventeenth-century science is another matter. But no historian has failed to see an essential continuity from Vesalius to Harvey, from Copernicus to Kepler, from Galileo to Netwon, bridging firmly over any stretch of time in which the new protestant spirit might be supposed to infiltrate. Those historicans who wish to write any kind of generic account of the scientific revoluton (or of the enlightenment), or to trace its evolution from small beginnings through successive accretions and modifications, are surely right in looking back to the universally Catholic Fifteenth Century in the youth of Leonardo and Copernicus, for the first portents of what was to come."

So it is not true that the enlightment began or was was led by protestantism (Luther, who was a butcher, certainly didn't lead the enlightenment, and neither did Calvin, who was known for burning scholars at the stake).

I've been saving this one for a particularly fantastic retort. Feel proud.

So does this mean that I get a reputation or a thumb's up added to my repertoire?

---

Erm, when did I become a "posting freak", and who made that decision?

(April 17, 2012 at 1:57 am)orogenicman Wrote: So does this mean that I get a reputation or a thumb's up added to my repertoire?

... fine but if you tell anyone I will headbutt you. -.-
You will receive both.

(April 17, 2012 at 1:58 am)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 1:57 am)orogenicman Wrote: So does this mean that I get a reputation or a thumb's up added to my repertoire?

... fine but if you tell anyone I will headbutt you. -.-

Hehehe. A friend of mine was in a biker bar (out of curiosity, not because they frequent such establishments) with my twin brother one night, when they witnessed two shaved, shirtless bikers butting heads in some kind of macho game until their foreheads bled. My friend thought this was so weird that he wrote a song about it called "Butthead". Unfortunately, I lost the cassette tape (showing my age) it was on, and so cannot share it. But it was hilarious.

(April 17, 2012 at 12:44 am)orogenicman Wrote: I've been reading (actually, re-reading) several books on the enlightenment recently. Particularly "Science and the Enlightenment, by Thomas L. Lankins, and The Revolution in Science 1500-1750, by A Rupert Hall. Hall notes on page 24:

"Protestantism is totally irrelevant to the initiation of the scientific revolution. The influence it had on the character of seventeenth-century science is another matter. But no historian has failed to see an essential continuity from Vesalius to Harvey, from Copernicus to Kepler, from Galileo to Netwon, bridging firmly over any stretch of time in which the new protestant spirit might be supposed to infiltrate. Those historicans who wish to write any kind of generic account of the scientific revoluton (or of the enlightenment), or to trace its evolution from small beginnings through successive accretions and modifications, are surely right in looking back to the universally Catholic Fifteenth Century in the youth of Leonardo and Copernicus, for the first portents of what was to come."

So it is not true that the enlightment began or was was led by protestantism (Luther, who was a butcher, certainly didn't lead the enlightenment, and neither did Calvin, who was known for burning scholars at the stake).

It certainly is true. What was Newton, another Deist? Bacon?

Who were Jefferson's 3 heroes of the Enlightenment?

You miss the point anyway. The claim that "deists" led us out of the Middle Ages is pretty much nonsense. Some "Catholics" helped but they were disowned by Mother church, so they were more like default Protestants than Catholics. The great thinkers fled the church and the vast majority became Protestants. Atheists who can't stand the thought of a believer leading us out of the darkness simply mislabel Protestants as deists, and it happens often enough to appear intentional.

---

Oh, I see, so he believed exactly what fundies believed, but this doesn't mean he wasn't a deist at heart, and his fundy beliefs had no effect on his politcal views. When facts fail us, we turn to mind reading of course.

Or maybe he read Jesus' mission statement in Luke 4 and decided to do likewise? Like a thousand abolitionists did?

Well I'll take the above comments as a tacit admission that fundies led the enlightenment even though their beliefs had no effect on their political views. When were fundies like Locke become able to separate their politcal from their religious views?

(April 17, 2012 at 2:07 am)radorth Wrote: It certainly is true. What was Newton, another Deist? Bacon?

Oh I'm sorry, did Newton receive his revelation about Gravity from a religious source? Oh thats right, he didn't because he got it from a FUCKING APPLE DROPPING ON HIS HEAD.
Pretty lucky God (despite being omnipotent) wasn't around at the time, last time someone gained knowledge from an apple it ended pretty badly for us... apparently.

The point shouldn't be of their origins. It should be, as you so helpfully pointed out, that religion attempted to persecute them for their findings and restrict the knowledge they obtained. The "religious authority" at that time, and this time by the way, were content to simply let any gaps in their knowledge be filled by the barbaric nonsense they've followed for centuries.

Do you think thats a good way to approach human learning or do you concede that religion should stay the fuck out?