Oddbean new post about login | logout Definitely familiar with his deism. But Franklin was much worse
I try not to make value judgements about religion given that they're all the product of Man. Unless we're talking specifically about objectively harmful tenets, it's subjective, and in my view not a productive endeavor. We're all entitled to our own beliefs and I think it's divisive for one group to deign to stand in judgement of anyone else's faith. But if you mean that Franklin was more staunch and possibly antagonistic, I think that's probably a fair assessment.
When you lump in Christianity with all religions and assert that it's "the product of Man" you stand in judgment of my faith, fyi.
I'm not judging your faith, or your specific beliefs. I'm stating a fact about religion. They are all man-made creations based on allegedly divine inspiration. And I say allegedly to account for the possibility that one or more are not divinely inspired. Christianity isn't uniquely put on a pedestal just because it's the religion you follow. I'm not devaluing your faith or your specific beliefs.
I was just pointing out that you are, in fact, making a judgment that all religions, including Christianity, are man-made. How could you know for a fact that Christianity is not divine in origin? What is your evidence?
I didn't say it wasn't divinely inspired. I said that religion is man made based on alleged divine inspiration. I say alleged not to render a judgement, but to be objective as I don't know for a fact that it is. I'm just trying to be as accurate as possible within the bounds of my knowledge. Again, I am not criticizing your or anyone else's religion. Personally, I have a neutral perspective, and I'm careful not to allege knowledge about things that are really the domain of belief (faith).