Posted by: edhensley | November 19, 2010

The Song of Solomon – (WARNING: Explicit Biblical Material)


Normally I post an entire chapter from a book of the bible, highlighting a few verses. In this post, I will highlight verses from all 8 chapters of the Song of Solomon (aka the Song of Songs). Therefore, I will not post the entire text of all 8 chapters. Please read the entire book if you feel verses are taken out of context.

Song of Solomon 1 (NIV)

4 Take me away with you—let us hurry!
Let the king bring me into his chambers.

13 My beloved is to me a sachet of myrrh
resting between my breasts.

Song of Solomon 4

5 Your breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle

16 Awake, north wind,
and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden,
that its fragrance may spread everywhere.
Let my beloved come into his garden
and taste its choice fruits.

Song of Solomon 7

3 Your breasts are like two fawns,
like twin fawns of a gazelle.

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.
8 I said, “I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit.”
May your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine,
the fragrance of your breath like apples,
9 and your mouth like the best wine.

Song of Solomon 8

8 We have a little sister,
and her breasts are not yet grown.

10I am a wall,
and
my breasts are like towers.

Despite regularly attending church services and Sunday school 3 times a week for years, I can only remember Song of Solomon mentioned one time. This was when I was attending a Church of Christ Wednesday night service while working for Foster Home for Children, supported by the Churches of Christ. The Wednesday night services were entitled something like “Through The Bible in A Year.”  The preacher said something like, “The Song of Solomon is a unique book. You should read it at home. Perhaps it is evidence that not all authors knew they were writing books of the bible while they were writing.”

Here are PDF files from Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, KY. This is from the local mega church’s “Read Through The Bible in 2010″ section of their magazine, Southeast Christian Outlook. You will notice that many of the verses in this blog are omitted. You will also notice that verses of almost every book of the bible are omitted. In particular, you can notice that there are absolutely no verses from the Song of Solomon in their lists at all!  Here is week 21 at http://www.southeastoutlook.org/uploads/devotions/devotion20100527.pdf.  They go from Ecclesiastes to Kings and Chronicles.  I looked at weeks 19 through 25, and I did not see one verse from the Song of Solomon! The chapters beyond these are far removed from this book. Why does Southeast Christian Church not want its readers to read the entire bible? Do they fear that readers will become atheists, as I (and countless others) did, by doing so?

I regularly look at apologist websites before writing a post. I did so with this one. Here is the link to Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/job-song-solomon.  Notice that this webpage is supposed to have apologies for all the books from Job through Song of Solomon. However, there is nothing listed for Song of Solomon!

According to most scholars, Song of Solomon describes a conjugal love between a bride and bridegroom. Because of the erotic nature of the verses, Jewish and Christian scholars often took an allegorical view of the book. Jews claimed that the bride represents Israel, and the bridegroom represents Yahweh. Christians such as Hippolytus, Origen, and Jerome claim the poem is about the love of Christ for his church.  This is the problem with allegory: it can mean anything to anybody! Furthermore, the bible does not tell you when verses are allegory and when they are literal! Who decides whether verses are allegory or literal? However, I have problems with the allegory approach. Does the following phrase sound like the relationship between Christ and his church?

 “Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit.  I said, “I will climb the palm tree;I will take hold of its fruit.” 

The predominant view since the 19th century is the literal approach. Some theologians claim the verses represent a healthy marriage. I think this is just a love poem that somehow wound up mixed in with theological books. Nobody is really sure. However, most preachers agree that the lack of theological content in this book warrants its omission from sermons and Sunday school lessons.


About these ads

Responses

  1. Hi Ed: I think these postings are very useful to help Christians (I am one) confront what the Bible really says and how it came about, and to push them to a more adult approach to faith. My own take on all this is: the Bible is largely a literary creation and an expression of faith by ancient people, and trying to make it perfectly and uniformly coherent today is difficult if not futile. For me, the essence of Christianity is ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’, in all the personal and social implications of that. When the Bible gives me ideas of how to do that, I take it; when it doesn’t (Number Chapter 5 is another zinger you should print, it’s rarely mentioned by the ‘biblical family values’ crowd) I don’t. Many good books exist on Amazon on this general subject. I liked “How to Read the Bible” by James Kugel. Or any mainstream commentary (stay away from the evangelical ones, they can’t tell the straight story).

  2. Thank you for your response. My mother reads the Bible in the same manner as you.

    “Love your neighbor as yourself” is the essence of humanism. There have been many people, religious and non-religious, who have done great things when following this principle.

    My main problem with “how to read the Bible” is that there are no instructions with or in the Bible on that topic. The Bible never says “this part is literal, that part is metaphor, that other part is allegory.” Ken Ham of the Creation Museum here in Kentucky claims the genealogies and creation stories are literal, but verses that show the earth is “fixed” or not moving are metaphor or poetry. Other creationists believe that the earth is fixed based upon their interpretations of the Bible, such as those at the recent Galileo Was Wrong conference (http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/) near Notre Dame in Indiana.

    I suppose I get most irritated with those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and therefore want to impose their beliefs in law, science classrooms, and other places.

    Thanks for the suggestion, but I wrote about Numbers 5 in April, 2009, at http://rarebible.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/test-for-an-unfaithful-wife/.

  3. “I suppose I get most irritated with those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and therefore want to impose their beliefs in law, science classrooms, and other places.”

    I’m with you 100%. To the extent that ‘conservative christianity’ is promoting incorrect information and intellectual suppression, it is a negative force and I might even say it’s ‘anti-Christian’ in the sense of being anti-truthful. [Conservative christians, who don't accept modern science, will be the serfs in the future plantation that is owned by modern, high-tech China and India]. Also to me it’s perfectly fitting that people who take an obscurantist position on the Bible also are Sarah Palin’s biggest supporters, even though she’s laughably unqualified to any normal person. So obscurantism also threatens national security.

    I’ll read your comments on Numbers and keep checking out this blog.

  4. Hi Ed,

    As you point out, the methods of interpretation of an ancient text will drastically alter how you take any given passage. Do you think it would be beneficial to provide a post on hermeneutics? Perhaps a primer that would illustrate that there are many different ways to interpret the various passages. The background story to this post reveals to me that your Biblical education came from a certain slant, and assumed a certain hermeneutic. The color of your posts reveals a hurt you may have suffered at the hands of the literalists, which has been handily transferred to the deity they claim to represent. Will you write about that?

    • I did not suffer hurt at the hands of literalists. I enjoyed going to church and became an atheist by reading the bible while considering the ministry. I do not “transfer my hurt” to any deity. It is not possible for me to do so, because I do not believe in deities. Do you transfer your hurt to Zeuss?

      Hermeneutics are important when interpreting scripture. If you believe the entire Bible is metaphor for how to live, fine as long as you keep those beliefs to yourself. If you believe it is literal, then there are many claims in the New Testament (moving mountains, drinking poison, etc) that you would not be able to show are true. If you believe parts are literal history, parts are metaphor, etc, then you are claiming to be God, because nowhere in the Bible does it say “this is literal, that is metaphor.”

      But more important are honesty, scholarship, skepticism, and removing preconceptions from one’s mind.

      • Hi Ed,

        Glad to hear you didn’t get hurt. …

        Do you labor under the illusion that you do not have preconceptions? Have you stated the ones which you use to make judgments of an ancient text? Some of them are glaring, but they do not appear to be acknowledged here.

        Are dragons literal or figurative?

      • Once again, I edited your response so I can have a short reply.

        I believe that a book written by a divine creator of the world would not have contradictions, either internal within its text or with external evidence from the physical world. The book would not endorse or promote unnecessary suffering.

        I have stated my only presuppositions in regards to devine text as simply as possible. Texts that have such contradictions within itself or with the physical world are probably not divine. I am not talking about spelling mistakes and other such simple errors. Texts that endorse or promote unjust and unnecessary suffering are probably not divine.

        However, this section was supposed to be about the Song of Solomon. Please try to reply in regard to those verses.

  5. Why do you exalt suffering as the supreme vice of the universe?

    Are you not interested in conversation on the comments you make? By talking about hermeneutics I was commenting on your comments at November 26, 2010 at 7:42 pm:

    “My main problem with “how to read the Bible” is that there are no instructions with or in the Bible on that topic. The Bible never says “this part is literal, that part is metaphor, that other part is allegory.””

    The topic at hand though, the Song of Solomon, is pretty racy. Gotta say, I’d be worried if God were as much of a prude as the Shakers and their theological progeny.

    Since you brought up interpretation, I’d really like to see a post where you address the issues of interpreting ancient texts, and I hope you’re able to talk about ancient texts other than the Bible.

    • There are numerous ways of interpreting scripture. If you take the bible is the literal word of a perfect God, you get still multiple interpretation. If you take is as inspired by God but containing errors, you can get still get multiple interpretations. If you take the bible as a combination of history, metaphor, and devotional material, you can still get multiple interpretations. If you take the bible as a book of Jewish fairy tales combined with a book of legends about Jesus, you can still get multiple interpretations.

      That is why, for this blog, I take the bible at face value. If there were one single way to interpret scripture, then Christians would have only one sect. Christians can not even agree on what books should be in the bible, with the modern protestant bible completed only in 1885 with the official removal of the apocrypha.

      There are many ancient texts other than the bible. I have studied Nag Hamadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, that is beyond the scope of this blog.

  6. Hi Ed,

    When you say you take the Bible at face value, may I ask a few questions about this hermeneutic? I don’t mean to bring other texts into the scope of this blog, simply to see if there is consistency in your hermeneutic. Do you agree that logical consistency is important for a person making judgments about the religion of 1/3 of humanity?

    • I will answer quickly but do not want to get involved in a long conversation. I will let you say your piece and then we can part ways.

      Yes to logical consistency, as I believe that is important to everything. I want to point out that I am making judgements on the bible primarily, coming from a protestant background that teaches the bible is inerrant. Catholics (like my deceased wife) do not view the bible in the same way, basing much of their doctrine on the authority of the church. Unitarians and others will happily ignore verses that they deem offensive.

      I want to point out that “1/3 of humanity” is divided roughly into 50% Catholic and 50% Protestant or 1/6 of humanity. Catholics and Protestants have different texts, and many protestants insist certain versions of the bible are valid (1611 KJV) or invalid. The 1/6 Protestant includes Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah Witnesses and others that have additional or alternative texts. Criticism that is valid for a biblical literalist may not be valid for another Christian that does not believe the bible to be ther literal word of God.

      For the record, Muslims (divided primarily in to Shia and Sunni) make up 1/5 of humanity, which as a group is more than Catholics or Protestants individually. Non-religious (atheists, agnostics, and no religion) comprise 1/6 of humanity as well and can also be divided into multiple subgroups (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html).

      • Am I right in reading your blog to be taking a literalistic view of the Bible, then saying you don’t like it? Would you say that people who recognize various literary forms in the Bible could still possibly receive it as inspired by God?

      • I believe that they can be inspired by the text. Just as Muslims are inspired by the Koran, Hindus are inspired by their books, Scientologists are inspired by Dianetics, Mormons are inspired by The Book of Mormon, etc. It does not mean that since all these people are inspired by their texts that all the contents of their texts are of one or more gods.

  7. Song Of Solomon is all the more fascinating as a book of the bible when you realize that the lovers described were NOT married!

    • The sex before marriage is another Christian invention. Most of the values Christians say form their religion are very much absent from the bible. The thoughts life and meaning we see when we read scripture are very different from those who wrote the bible. A perfect example of this is how many Muslims say one can only understand the Koran in it’s original Arabic. The same is true of the bible. Ancient Hebrew had many fewer words than modern English. Many words had multiple meanings and relationships with other things in life we are ignorant of. One Iike to point out is the value of women. The last of the ten cOmmanenents is not about adultery but about respect g that the women of a fellow Jew are his property and one must not take his women or animals. Most people just don’t see that angle because our sense of morality and equality for women is very different even after we separated church from state. It’s particularly amazng how western countries have made such social progress after removing the church from our lives. When the churn wAs a major instrument it never helped stop slavery, give equality to women, and other ills. It’s no coincidence that the worst most terrible places on earth are the religious ones. The spirit and knowledge in the bible and derivations suu as the Koran are a curse not help to mankind.

      • I’m afraid you’re sorely mistaken. The concept of marriage existed in the Old Testament, however, it took on a different form. Most weddings were “simple,” comprising the exchange of goods with the father for the bride, possibly a celebration of some sort, and then consummation.

        What is a late invention is the concept of pre-marital sex. In the Old Testament, sex = marriage. That is why having sex with a woman with whom you were not legally wed to meant you had to pay the father–you had taken a bride without her father receiving his due consideration.

        The evidence also seems to suggest that the average male only had one wife (like Uriah the Hittite, who was a lowly soldier). All examples of polygyny are connected with the upper class (wealthy people like Abraham, kings like David, or priests). Monogamy was the norm, at least in the middle eastern part of the world (I’m not interested in delving into global anthropological discussions here).

        Sorry for being contentious, but nothing aggravates me more than when someone with an inadequate understanding of the semitic world tries telling those less educated that everything we do is wrong. The Christian church has been here for 2000 long years, and Judaism longer than that. Far greater minds than yours and mine have addressed the question of marriage in the OT, and I’m sorry to say, they’re on my side.

      • There are many people of low status, such as Jacob, who had multiple wives.

        Deut 21:15-17 is an example of a law from the god of the Old Testament that shows having multiple wives was never questioned but was assumed to be completely fine.

        You are providing a perfect example of someone who cherry picks the bible to ignore the immorality and stupidity it espouses.

      • Jacob was no person of low status. Based on the text’s description of him, his livestock alone was a substantial area of wealth. Just because he was a nomad doesn’t mean he was poor.

        And just because deut. permitted something doesn’t mean it was moral. Remember, the Torah was a legal code, not a religion, a point the prophets brought up time and again. Please don’t accuse me of cherry picking, I know the bible very well.

      • I am glad you admit that not every law in Deuteronomy is moral.

      • You’re right. Even Christ admitted as much in Mark 10. But I think there is an important point to be made about morality here.

        If there is a truly sovereign and all-powerful God, then morality is His dictum, not ours. Would you be willing to concede that point?

      • Would you be willing to concede that if morality is the dictum of your God, then he can order men to rape, torture, murder, and eat innocent little girls and then reward them with eternity in heaven?

      • Hypothetically, yes. If, however, we are constructing an image of god based on the bible, then we may conclude that it would be uncharacteristic of him to institute child eating as a behavior. Remember, I’m a Christian, so I don’t care about what the Koran or diabetics or whatever else teaches, I only base my understanding of god on an “authors intent” hermeneutic of the bible.

      • It is Dianetics, not diabetics.

        I prefer Secular Humanism to Christianity. We could simply answer that question with NO. As Confucius said 1500 years before Jesus of Nazareth was allegedly born, “”What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.” Your “Hypotheitically, yes” violates this golden rule, and the god of the Old Testament ordered or performed genocides on many occassions, often killing children and pregnant women.

      • I typed dianetics, but it was on an ipad which corrects my “typos” with unintentional hilarity. Pardon the gaff.

        Again, your problem with the God of the Bible goes to the question of divine sovereignty. God, by definition, does not have to do or not do anything. Did God order genocides? Yes. I’m not going to pretend that those elements of the Bible do not exist. However, by definition, God is the biggest killer in history, since He, in his sovereignty, decides who will get AIDS, cancer, bubonic plague, etc.

        I believe the problem we have is that your secular humanist worldview is simply incompatible with the concept of a sovereign God. So much so that you seem to have a hard time accepting hypothetical arguments about him, let alone non-hypothetical arguments.

    • The context of marriage being a Christian invention is a farce. The reality is”Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one separate them, for God has joined them together.” – Matthew 19:4-6. God instituted marriage has His structure in which a man and a woman are united to become one. That is marriage. The English word “marriage” came about in the 13th century or so, but do not be confused with the institution that God states in Genesis and Jesus states in Matthew as being an invention of Christianity.

      To say that the church did not stop slavery or help give equality to women is a way of saying that you do not know much about history. Just watch the movie Amazing Grace or the movie about John Adams working in the Amistad. It is not the governments of the world that have brought about great and lasting social change but about men and women who are convicted about the reality of the Word of God as revealed in the Bible who actually do something to end injustices. That is the historical fact. If you want to argue that heirarchy of “church” has not done enough or allowed great evils, than I can agree with you in the understanding that the UN, Red Cross, Red Crescent, and every nation on the earth today and every nation (including the ethnos) in the history of the earth have allowed great evils to continue.

      There have been considerable numbers women of the Christian Church who confronted the evils of their generation as only a woman could and helped create a better society. It was not some “big bang” that happened in the latter half of the 20th century that gave women equality, or African Americans equality in the law. It was a consistent and concerted effort of the Holy Spirit at work in the lives of people. Certainly great things have come to society by people who are atheists or agnostics or pagans or wiccans, but you need to read your history before making such a bogus statement that Western society has overcome such evils without the working of God in and through the church.

      The reality of a perfect God is not to be expressed or experienced by imperfect people and He can never be pigeon holed by an argument that requires an interpretation of God based upon a fallen society. History is clear that the blood of Christian martyrs has seeded the church and the reality of miracles throughout our 20th and 21st century recent history show that there is a deity. The fact that mankind does not know everything does in fact prove that there is a deity and that deity alone is God (Yahweh).

      • The fact that mankind does not know everything does in fact prove that there is a deity and that deity alone is God (Yahweh).

        Your last statement alone shows your total lack of logic. Human ignorance does not prove their is a god named Yahweh. There is no logician who would agree with your statement.

        I will briefly rebuff your other comments. When you write in the future, you need to address the single passage being discussed, which is the Song of Solomon in this case. You rambled about slavery to miracles.

        To say that the church did not stop slavery or help give equality to women is a way of saying that you do not know much about history.

        I never said the church did not stop slavery. I said the Bible clearly permits Israelites to buy slaves from foreign countries, to own them for life, to beat them until they are unconscious, and to pass them as an inheritance to their children. All those rules are clearly stated in the Bible. Mark Twain wrote in Bible Teaching and Religious Practice “The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession — and take the credit of the correction. ”

        It is a shame that your Holy Spirit waited until the 1900s to care about women’s rights. If your Holy Spirit had acted sooner, then women would not have endured thousands of years of suffering. It actually took the Atheists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony to start the women’s suffrage movement that gave them the right to vote. They were not lead by your invisible and powerless Holy Spirit.

  8. Hi, first time poster here. I teach a Bible class at a Christian school, and we were up to Song of Solomon and I wanted to quickly find the more “racy” parts so I typed “Song of Solomon racy” into Google and found you (something to be proud of?).

    I applaud your bravery in holding to the scholastic approach that the song is in fact an erotic poem, and not some really awkward allegory (I thought we left allegorization of the Bible in the dark ages?). But I disagree with your conclusion that the song should not be taught in sunday school or from the pulpit. To the contrary, I believe the Song should be lauded for what it teaches us about the proper perspective toward human sexuality.

    The Song teaches that not only did God make human sexuality, but that it is, in fact, a good thing. The desire between a man and a woman, in an appropriate committed and monogamous relationship (i.e., marriage) is not only natural but good–so good that it is celebrated by scripture! And if desire in an appropriate relationship is good, then consummation (2:3) is great!

    I could go on about how American puritanism has sullied the gift of sexuality for most in the western world, but I think I’ve made my point, which is this: sex needs to be taught to the Church as a good thing, a gift from God, and the damage of puritanism needs to be undone!

    • The church has made sex a bad thing for centuries. The Catholic church has had a maniacal fascination with Mary’s perpetual virginity, priests are not permitted to have wives, etc. This attitude of sex as bad has also been reflected in protestant churches, as reflected in my link from Southeast Christian Church omitting the entire book of Song of Solomon from their read-the-bible-through-in-a-year website.

      • It has. However, the Song of Solomon reflects a different reality. If taught alongside other passages from the Bible, we get a very different, and positive, perspective on sex. So my question is, which should I as a Bible believing Christian follow, the Catholic, the Baptists, or the Bible (hint: I’m not Catholic or Baptist)?

      • Southeast Christian Church is not Catholic or Baptist. They believe they follow the bible. There are numerous non-Catholic and non-Baptists Christian sects that believe they follow the bible, yet they all disagree with each other on this and many other issues.

      • Point granted. Doesn’t mean that all churches are equally correct in their interpretation of the bible though. On this point I’m sure of my correctness, regardless of the opinion of others. As you can tell, I don’t buy into post modernism :)

      • There are many Christians with a different interpretation who are also sure of their correctness. Arguing with each other over who is most correct is not a path to determining what is true.

      • All interpretations are not equal. Suggesting otherwise would be like arguing that someone who believes 1+1=3 has a valid opinion. In this area, my opinion is more correct than that of my detractors because my opinion is based on the entirety of the Bible. To suggest that the God of the Bible is real, but that all parts of the Bible are not equally truthful in their description of Him, is intellectually disingenuous.

        The irony of this situation is that I suspect you agree with me on some level. After all, you post Bible stories that are rarely told. I believe in the God of the Bible, messy parts and all. You and I have more in common than I do with fundamentalists who believe in the God of the Bible when it is convenient.

      • The bible either is or is not the literal word of god. Picking and choosing parts of it (the ones you agree with) in effects makes the chooser god. I think we agree on that much. We just disagree on whether or not there really is a god behind the bible.

      • I think you misunderstand me. I believe the Bible is the word of God, but I don’t believe that the Bible is always literal. Song of Solomon, for example, is highly metaphorical (her neck was not literally a tower). Please don’t put me in the literalist camp with all of the right wing crazies.

        However, I do agree that you either accept the Bible or you don’t. Picking and choosing = playing God (which is where some of the “stranger” doctrines people accept come from). And I concur that our difference lies in whether or not there is a God. That is a question for every man to decide for himself.

  9. RE: Song of Solomon
    The verses you cite in your post are the ones mentioning breasts. There are of course even more risqué verses in that book. Have a look at Marvin Pope’s translation in the Anchor Bible edition. What is usually translated “naval” he translates as “vulva” (7:3). There are also euphemistic metaphors of sexual activity (5:4, etc.). The breast verses are mild by comparison.

  10. I appreciate this column. I came upon it while looking up a verse. There is no question that Christians ruin Christianity. But that is a conversation best kept for another time. The truth is THANK GOD FOR SONG OF SONGS! There is no alagory here. It is just as it says… and it’s not an accident that it is in the bible. This is a celebration of the human spirit in all its raw and spectacular glory! I am a Christian, and the human design is both marvelous and mysterious. God knew what He was doing when he created human body. We have regions whose sole purpose is sexual satisfaction (clitoris, anybody?) The couple in this poem are deeply in love and heavily attracted to eachother, and they are not afraid to express this. They take advantage of every sense: sight, touch, smell, taste, the ability to whisper gently and scream in throws of passion. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a biblical celebration of sex and commitment! It’s not bad. It’s not dirty. It IS quite erotic, and a bit scandelous as it is laid all out, an exhibition for prying eyes, and aren’t we the lucky observers. Yes, indeed, THANK YOU GOD for Song of Songs!

  11. Ed, I enjoy your site. I also grew up in the Christian church (Southern Baptist) and, after much study, now have a healthy skepticism, concerning the religion of my birth. My question to you is: What made you go from Christian to Atheist.. and not Christian to Deist.. or believer in a Creator God, but not religion? Thanks for your work and, hopefully, for answering my question.

    • I called myself an agnostic for a long time. I was open to other religions. However, my Southern Baptist background provided training for falsehoods and contradictions in all the “other” false religions, so I never seriously considered any other religion. I liked the idea of pantheism, but there was never any evidence that god was the universe. For a long time simply saying “I don’t know” was fine, including about whether or not there was or was not a god. I call myself both agnostic and atheist today. I don’t know if there is a god or not, but I do not believe there is a god.

  12. Fair enough, thanks! I have enjoyed reading Thomas Paine’s writings. He and many of the other Founding Fathers were Deists, as you probably know. I like the Deist mantra, “God gave us reason, not religion.” Nice to see you display your reason on this site!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers

%d bloggers like this: