tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4260992532136276185..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Justice: Rights and Wrongs, Nicholas WolterstorffBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65300387475236041742009-03-12T15:46:00.000-06:002009-03-12T15:46:00.000-06:00Well, I meant your counterargument about the Bible...Well, I meant your counterargument about the Bible and slavery. That Channing's was the rebuttal I found was just gravy. But I'm not part of your and OFT's battle over orthodoxy. The Founding-era Christian unitarians are Christian enough for me.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5099311037805634752009-03-11T21:56:00.000-06:002009-03-11T21:56:00.000-06:00Tom,My pleasure. I'm glad I've turned you on to F...Tom,<BR/><BR/>My pleasure. I'm glad I've turned you on to Founding era Unitarian literature. Many of them, Channing for instance, could be quite "biblical" in the arguments they made.<BR/><BR/>Non-Trintarian religiously conservative "Christians" (Mormons, JWs and others) have just as much a right to claim them as do today's present UUs.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33587574220462393952009-03-11T21:33:00.000-06:002009-03-11T21:33:00.000-06:00Quite so, Jon. The question of Jesus being God go...Quite so, Jon. The question of Jesus being God goes back through battles in the church for 2000 years.<BR/><BR/>I mean, Geez, man.<BR/><BR/>The one thing the Founders agreed on is that they wouldn't kill each other over the question. Medieval Europe---been there, done that.<BR/><BR/>The Founders agreed not to even fight about it except for words trying to convince the other fellow of your/THE truth.<BR/><BR/>It was a good political arrangement.<BR/><BR/>Also papism---a single religious authority that tended to stick its claws not only into the political, but everyday life. The Presbyterian/Calvinists in England didn't like the Anglican Church of England either for the same reason. They ended up civil warring.<BR/><BR/>I do hope you liked the Channing v. slavery, JR. You inspired me to hit the books [read: internet] with your excellent counterargument. Those unitarians of the Founding era knew quite a bit about the Bible. Who knew?<BR/><BR/>In fact, OFT, I was hoping you'd have an argument as elegant as Channing's to fire off as an apologist for the Bible. I'm not the expert on it as you fancy yourself to be. The unitarian Channing defended the Bible better than you did. Get in gear, dude.<BR/><BR/>Cheers to all.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12919084199367299522009-03-11T21:00:00.000-06:002009-03-11T21:00:00.000-06:00No, I don't. If someone calls themself a Christian...<I>No, I don't. If someone calls themself a Christian, you must take their word for it.</I><BR/><BR/>I must take their word that they called themselves and understood themselves to be "Christians" in some sense and that's it. Plenty of folks throughout history and today call themselves Christians but disbelieved in the Trinity. And most of them did not understand themselves to be "born again" Christians. You (born-again Christians, not necessarily orthodox Christians) are a minority within Christendom, always have been and always will be. Indeed your own religion teaches this (i.e., the "narrow path").Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81554373021865564772009-03-11T16:14:00.000-06:002009-03-11T16:14:00.000-06:00Well, it doesn't obviously prohibit it; it require...Well, it doesn't <I>obviously</I> prohibit it; it requires bible study, exegesis and dare I say theology like Channing's to tease it out---which is why quote-grabbing from modern translations of the Bible is insufficient for a proper understanding of it.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23792057330112891962009-03-11T15:33:00.000-06:002009-03-11T15:33:00.000-06:00You have the burden as well to prove he was an ort...You have the burden as well to prove he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian,><BR/><BR/>No, I don't. If someone calls themself a Christian, you must take their word for it. This keeps getting re-hashed with your other bogus theories like lonang, and key founders doctrine. <BR/><BR/>But understanding these concepts you seem to ignore.<BR/><BR/>Somewhat relevant to the 1000th replay><BR/><BR/>Is that all?<BR/><BR/>The fact, under these circumstances, that the Gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no reason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less does it afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended TO AUTHORIZE IT."><BR/><BR/>Channing got this from the Bible, because it obiously prohibits slavery, James 2:9 comes to mind. If respecting a group of people is sin, what do you think he thought of slavery?Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22475909926600158352009-03-10T22:54:00.000-06:002009-03-10T22:54:00.000-06:00The context of justice is with the individual. If ...<I><BR/>The context of justice is with the individual. If an entire race, ethnic, religion, or geographic society is "punished" without consideration for the guilt or innocense of the individual, it is not justice.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, Ben, you're not reading theologically. The Old Testament in particular has many layers, and we make selective citations of modern translations at the peril of our own ignorance.<BR/><BR/>Jon, your counterarguments are good, but again, they depend on quote grabbing and translations. What is the Jewish view of property? What of the bibically-commanded slave's right of redress against an unjust master? What of this passage's endorsement of buying the already-enslaved from the neighboring peoples, but elsewhere the Bible forbids "man-stealing?" And of Paul in the epistles urging masters to be kind and just? remember, the topic was <I>chattel</I> slavery.<BR/><BR/>Yes, we can argue the Bible against itself---and do here---but these days "we" seldom have a proper understanding of the Bible as a whole, and are content just pouncing on quotes, as "we" are reading it unsympathetically.<BR/><BR/>Somewhat relevant to the 1000th replay of Mr. Rowe and OFT's bone of contention that the Founders were orthodox Christians, let me offer William Ellery Channing's <I>Biblically</I>-based attack on slavery, which shows a great erudition and understanding of the Bible <I>as a whole</I>.<BR/><BR/>http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/wechanning/slavery6.html<BR/><BR/>Channing, of course, is a top "unitarian" of the Founding era, and we must remember that these unitarians were <I>Christian</I> unitarians: although they didn't believe Jesus was God, they allowed he was sent by God on a very special mission, a mission unique in human-theological history.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, the Bible is used as moral authority by such men. Channing's arguments against slavery are biblical and theological, as were those of another Christian unitaraian, Jonathan Mayhew, in his sermon on liberty that according to John Adams triggered the American revolution.<BR/><BR/>Back to Channing, and I hope those interested in reading the Bible sympathetically---understanding it as it understands itself---and do not disregard 2000 years of Christian thought and theology will read the whole thing.<BR/><BR/>An excerpt:<BR/><BR/>"<I>"This very course, which the Gospel takes on this subject, seems to have been the only one that could have been taken in order to effect the universal abolition of slavery. The Gospel was designed, not for one race or for one time, but for all races and for all times. It looked, not at the abolition of this form of evil for that age alone, but for its universal abolition. Hence the important object of its author was to gain it a lodgment in every part of the known world; so that, by its universal diffusion among all classes of society, it might quietly and peacefully modify and subdue the evil passions of men; and thus, without violence, work a revolution in the whole mass of mankind. In this manner alone could its object, a universal moral revolution, have been accomplished. For if it had forbidden the EVIL, instead of subverting the PRINCIPLE, if it had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to RESIST the oppression of their masters, it would instantly have arrayed the two parties in deadly hostility throughout the civilized world; its announcement would have been the signal of servile war; and the very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed. The fact, under these circumstances, that the Gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no reason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; much less does it afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended TO AUTHORIZE IT.</I>"<BR/><BR/>[Capital letters are Channing's.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2011782050463355432009-03-10T21:35:00.000-06:002009-03-10T21:35:00.000-06:00OFT: "What!!!! Did you forget the members mocked h...OFT: "What!!!! Did you forget the members mocked him for going to sleep all the time???"<BR/><BR/>Irrelevant. What was their comparitive <I>individual</I> <I><B>contribution</B></I>?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17956675242200103402009-03-10T21:31:00.000-06:002009-03-10T21:31:00.000-06:00Tom: "Their punishment is not xenophobia, it's jus...Tom: "Their punishment is not xenophobia, it's justice. I'm sure your two eyes are fine, but you have to read the whole story."<BR/><BR/>The context of justice is with the individual. If an entire race, ethnic, religion, or geographic society is "punished" without consideration for the guilt or innocense of the individual, it is not justice.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69261522371002290582009-03-10T18:19:00.000-06:002009-03-10T18:19:00.000-06:00"They obviously lied when they took their oath."Th..."They obviously lied when they took their oath."<BR/><BR/>This is why the Founding Fathers hated sectarian religious oaths, esp. those for public office so much, because it forced them to lie.<BR/><BR/>This is exactly what Richard Price refers to in this sermon that George Washington enjoyed when Price noted:<BR/><BR/><I>Perhaps nothing more shocking to reason and humanity ever made a part of a religious system than the damning clauses in the Athanasian creed and yet the obligation of the clergy to declare assent to this creed, and to read it as a part of the public devotion, remains.</I><BR/><BR/>The "Athanasian creed" is shorthand for Trinitarianism. He was a unitarian minister who hated the fact that unitarians were forced to recite Trinitarian creeds when they belonged to or served as ministers for churches with said creeds. This is an important dynamic to understand the theological unitarianism of the Founding era. It often took place in Churches that were formally tied to Trinitarian creeds.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53811146568535365052009-03-10T18:07:00.000-06:002009-03-10T18:07:00.000-06:00The first Unitarian Church in America was Episcopa...The first Unitarian Church in America was Episcopalian and the Anglican Church in England was littered with Unitarians. Samuel Clarke was probably the most notable official within the Anglican Church at that time who was a Unitarian.<BR/><BR/>http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/jamesfreeman.htmlJonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32410827521304985462009-03-10T18:03:00.000-06:002009-03-10T18:03:00.000-06:00You have the burden as well to prove he was an ort...You have the burden as well to prove he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, and an even higher burden to prove he was a "born again" Christian (the two are not the same as many orthodox Christians like the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans did not believe in the doctrine of "born again" Christianity).Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45852706414251867812009-03-10T17:51:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:51:00.000-06:00Mayhew was a Congregationalist. Priestley and Pric...Mayhew was a Congregationalist. Priestley and Price I do believe were connected to the Presbyterian Church. I can find you unitarian Anglicans if you'd like.><BR/><BR/>They didn't succeed in their quest to change the creed, and who were the unitarian anglicans? They obviously lied when they took their oath. <BR/><BR/>You can surely come up the evidence that Baldwin was not Christian?<BR/><BR/>Even if that's true, if God the Father is the "Father" of Native Americans in their uncoverted state><BR/><BR/>Maybe it doesn't matter, converted or not. He just meant God the Father was their father too.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61783333122824308152009-03-10T17:45:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:45:00.000-06:00Madison could be referring to the Christian God on...<I>Madison could be referring to the Christian God only, meaning that He is their Father too, which seems highly probable.</I><BR/><BR/>Even if that's true, if God the Father is the "Father" of Native Americans in their uncoverted state, that supports the contention that all human beings, not just saved ones, are children of God (or maybe that everyone is saved regardless of whether they are born again or even accept Christ before death).Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50119052618901366202009-03-10T17:43:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:43:00.000-06:00Mayhew was a Congregationalist. Priestley and Pri...Mayhew was a Congregationalist. Priestley and Price I do believe were connected to the Presbyterian Church. I can find you unitarian Anglicans if you'd like. The bottom line is ministers of churches with orthodox creeds disbelieved in the Trinitarian orthodoxy and many worked (not often successfully) to "reform" those creeds to get rid of the Trinity. The unitarians thought of themselves as operating in the tradition of Luther -- further reforming the Protestant churches to get rid of that which they believed was error (the Trinity). To them Trinitarianism and Roman Catholicism were practically inseparable.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23237465290761885992009-03-10T17:34:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:34:00.000-06:00And with that I will end with James Madison's ...And with that I will end with James Madison's liberal unitarian theology that invoked the Native American's "Great Spirit" God as the same one Jews and Christians worshipped and held unconverted Natives in their unconverted state were "Children of God":><BR/><BR/>It's possible you could have the wrong interpretation on this. Madison could be referring to the Christian God only, meaning that He is their Father too, which seems highly probable. Especially if Madison had any dealings with spreading the Gospel to the Indians. The Gospel is not about works at all. <BR/><BR/>Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, Jonathan Mayhew and many others were ordained ministers and unitarian rationalists.><BR/><BR/>Not in the anglican, meth, baptist church they weren't.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79727314485440879142009-03-10T17:28:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:28:00.000-06:00At least Franklin wasn't a no show. Here is what ...At least Franklin wasn't a no show. Here is what one website says about Baldwin.<BR/><BR/><I>That same year, Baldwin attended the Constitutional Convention, from which he was absent for a few weeks. Although usually inconspicuous, he sat on the Committee on Postponed Matters and helped resolve the large-small state representation crisis. At first, he favored representation in the Senate based upon property holdings, but possibly because of his close relationship with the Connecticut delegation he later came to fear alienation of the small states and changed his mind to representation by state.</I><BR/><BR/>http://www.americanrevolution.com/AbrahamBaldwin.htmJonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17550902399312934712009-03-10T17:27:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:27:00.000-06:00Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, Jonathan Mayhew a...Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, Jonathan Mayhew and many others were ordained ministers and unitarian rationalists.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35201973434539992042009-03-10T17:21:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:21:00.000-06:00And where is the evidence that he was an orthodox ...And where is the evidence that he was an orthodox Christian, let alone a "born again" Christian.><BR/><BR/>Baldwin was an ordained minister, I believe Episcopalian, not sure though.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22378215614742292742009-03-10T17:12:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:12:00.000-06:00Ah no. Whatever Baldwin did at the Constitutional ...Ah no. Whatever Baldwin did at the Constitutional Convention, he did not play as an important a role that Franklin did.><BR/><BR/>What!!!! Did you forget the members mocked him for going to sleep all the time???Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30012259008418394572009-03-10T17:08:00.000-06:002009-03-10T17:08:00.000-06:00Ah no. Whatever Baldwin did at the Constitutional...Ah no. Whatever Baldwin did at the Constitutional Convention, he did not play as an important a role that Franklin did.<BR/><BR/>And where is the evidence that he was an orthodox Christian, let alone a "born again" Christian. For all I know he was a unitarian-theistic rationalist just like Franklin, J. Adams, Jefferson and Madison.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57301359943727610382009-03-10T16:58:00.000-06:002009-03-10T16:58:00.000-06:00Classic Jon Rowe right there. Boudinot was Senior ...Classic Jon Rowe right there. Boudinot was Senior to Madison during the Federal Congress.><BR/><BR/>I meant First Federal Congress.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78132511084562811912009-03-10T16:46:00.000-06:002009-03-10T16:46:00.000-06:00None of them was a key Framer,>Classic Jon Rowe...None of them was a key Framer,><BR/><BR/>Classic Jon Rowe right there. Boudinot was Senior to Madison during the Federal Congress. Baldwin drafted and ratified the Constitution, and the first amendment, he's more of a key founder than Jefferson, Adams, or Franklin! <BR/><BR/>You should cite the KJV, unless otherwise needed. The NIV is based on flawed manuscripts.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44650091991597092222009-03-10T16:37:00.000-06:002009-03-10T16:37:00.000-06:00Exodus 21:2-6 (New Living Translation)[Notice the ...Exodus 21:2-6 (New Living Translation)<BR/><BR/>[Notice the Special Rules for Hebrew Slaves that do not apply to non-Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves don't get freed in the 7th year.]<BR/><BR/> 2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. 3 If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.<BR/><BR/> 4 “If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. 5 But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ 6 If he does this, his master must present him before God.[a] Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87073818847125408722009-03-10T16:30:00.000-06:002009-03-10T16:30:00.000-06:00Leviticus 25:44-46 King James Version44Both thy bo...Leviticus 25:44-46 <BR/><BR/>King James Version<BR/><BR/>44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. <BR/><BR/> 45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. <BR/><BR/> 46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.<BR/><BR/>New International Version<BR/><BR/>44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com