Gregg, I'm going to wind this down because you have classes to prepare for, and I a business to run.
At those points where you assert that I was refuting points you did not make, I was taking the entire conversation into context -- including Jon Rowe's original post (which I assumed you were defending). The points needed to be made. Oh, and you did note that I said, with some embarrassment that I was quoting web sources including Wikipedia, right?
One can safely (and probably should) assume, based on the preponderance of material -- and especially the Adams citation I provided -- that the original thesis that Unitarianism was necessary because "Calvinism was inconsistent with revolution," was incorrect. This was the core of the issue (and everything else was window dressing). I note that you haven't returned to counter that point.
Regarding my "lenses," you should know that assertions about what goes on in people's minds, like their motives or knowledge, is dangerous territory and nearly impossible to prove. I was not always a libertarian. I came into libertarianism from the opposite direction. It's been a decade; Harry Browne's '96 campaign recruited me. But if I couldn't square what Harry said with Scripture, it probably never would've happened.
Until the late 90s, it was true that the overwhelming majority of libertarians had a strong Randian streak that embraced selfishness. But a large and growing plurality are like me. They believe that liberty promotes responsibility and results in increased virtue. My Biblical example for this is Adam and Eve. Was God caught off-guard by their decision to eat the fruit, or did He value their liberty (often called Free Will) more? I think the answer is obvious.
Thanks for the respect you've shown me in responding. I've learned a great deal here. **Jim Babka
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Babka Replies to Frazer II
The conversation winds down. Here is Jim Babka's reply to Dr. Frazer's latest remarks: