tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post461354638274550951..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Right RevelationBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26135623364004945022009-04-11T14:45:00.000-06:002009-04-11T14:45:00.000-06:00Well, slavery was justified through reason by some...Well, slavery was justified through reason by some [paternalism---the slaves were better off], and was an institution already in place at the Founding---to uproot it would have been war, or prevented the Founding. See also Channing's argument on why Jesus and early Christianity didn't immediately go after slavery---it would have been Armageddon. <BR/><BR/>From the comfort of the 21st century, it's easy to assert the Founders should have brought on Armageddon.<BR/><BR/><BR/>John Locke thought the Native Americans didn't own the land because they didn't work it. [See his "labor theory of value."] Also, much of the mistreatment of the Native Americans came through <I>breaking</I> treaties, not principle.<BR/><BR/>As for female suffrage, it's a 20th century notion that democracy is self-evident. Tocqueville did not view the women of America as oppressed.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1998196172240425812009-04-11T11:02:00.000-06:002009-04-11T11:02:00.000-06:00Robert Locke's analysis is through 21st century ey...<I>Robert Locke's analysis is through 21st century eyes, a bad way to do history.</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree. The leftists who want to trash the Founding for those very reasons view things thru 21st century eyes and "judge" the Founding.<BR/><BR/>If you read Locke's original article, he notes he's NOT "judging" the Founding by present day historical standards but just baldly asserting historical facts -- hard truths in which "respectable" folks have problems.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56623131341225650582009-04-10T21:00:00.000-06:002009-04-10T21:00:00.000-06:00Robert Locke's analysis is through 21st century ey...Robert Locke's analysis is through 21st century eyes, a bad way to do history. Slavery is sui generis, the story of the Native Americans is not based on constitutional principles, and in historical context the political role of women hadn't evolved yet anywhere else in the world either.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83776442602568017522009-04-10T20:51:00.000-06:002009-04-10T20:51:00.000-06:00That's your assertion, yes, but it's unsupported a...<I>That's your assertion, yes, but it's unsupported and indeed unsupportable.</I><BR/><BR/>Well I think that the original expected application (among the masses) of the DOI's and US Constitution's text and ideals are what's truly "unnsuportable." Perhaps, though, "supported" by a statistical majority of a few thousand dead, white, propertied, Protestant males. And that is, to use Robert Locke's analysis:<BR/><BR/><I>Crucial facts about what America was founded on are deliberately hushed up by both liberals and conservatives and admitted only by the non-respectable Left and the non-respectable Right. Namely, that this country was founded upon conquest, slavery, sexism, and class rule. The Constitution, as originally written, holds that our ownership of this land by conquest is just, that Indians are savages, that blacks may be enslaved, that women have no fit role in government, and that the (little-remembered) restriction of suffrage to men of property by state governments is valid.</I><BR/><BR/>It's a hard truth Tom. You either embrace or let go of the "originalist" Burkean results with all the bad that attaches to it (i.e., Robert Locke's above cited passage). And if you do let go, jump into a more modern world.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56998689175349361082009-04-10T20:26:00.000-06:002009-04-10T20:26:00.000-06:00And the ideas, with their inherent consequences, t...<I><BR/>And the ideas, with their inherent consequences, that they kept secret were KEY to the American Founding point of view.</I><BR/><BR/>That's your assertion, yes, but it's unsupported and indeed unsupportable. At best, their secret theological heterodoxies helped lead to pluralism; however, as we've seen even the Virginia statute on religious freedom was more pushed along by the minority sects than the secularists. Pluralism would have been developed even had Jefferson and his ilk not existed out of practical necessity.<BR/><BR/>Slavery is <I>sui generis</I>, however tempting it is analogize it to one's favorite cause. But you're quite right that the bill was extremely high when it came due.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71337522191713904312009-04-10T19:47:00.000-06:002009-04-10T19:47:00.000-06:00Jon, they didn't even KNOW what Jefferson and Adam...<I>Jon, they didn't even KNOW what Jefferson and Adams thought because they kept it secret.</I><BR/><BR/>And the ideas, with their inherent consequences, that they kept secret were KEY to the American Founding point of view.<BR/><BR/>You can argue we shouldn't care one whit for the "subjective" intentions of Jefferson/Adams et al. And I can retort, I don't care on whit about the subjective intentions of a handful of thousands of dead white Protestant males who "assented" to the ideas (and ideals) of the key Founders.<BR/><BR/>I don't think such contract talk in the sense that (did you really understand what you are getting yourself into?) trumps. In part because with many contracts -- at least many modern contracts -- folks don't quite understand the long term implications of what they assent to. For one, I know that most folks don't read the "contracts of adhesion" that most businesses put out. Then they get surprised with that $29.00 (or more) late fee that they don't remember they assented to. <BR/><BR/>But, perhaps I've given you some ground to argue against my theory. I would note, though, that those "late fees" were key to getting rid of slavery.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63746408146335402492009-04-10T18:11:00.000-06:002009-04-10T18:11:00.000-06:00MY evidence is that the mass of FFs, whatever thei...<I><BR/>MY evidence is that the mass of FFs, whatever their beliefs, ASSENTED to having the so called "theistic rationalists" in power establishing the Founding rules.</I><BR/><BR/>Jon, they didn't even KNOW what Jefferson and Adams thought because they kept it secret.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10111196940830340362009-04-10T14:57:00.000-06:002009-04-10T14:57:00.000-06:00Tell it to Samuel West:A revelation, pretending to...Tell it to Samuel West:<BR/><BR/>A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.><BR/><BR/>At least West was honest in his beliefs, definitely heterodox. He obviously didn't get that from the Bible though. As Witherspoon noted "God can suspend any law he wants" [my paraphrase].<BR/><BR/>If you see this as a contradiction, that's your right. You must then conclude, however, that the political theology of the American Founding rests on a "contradiction" as you (and probably only you) OFT see it.><BR/><BR/>No, that's not it Jon. I see a contradiction in Wilson saying what you posted, and also believing in miracles. That is my problem, and, I bet, with a great many others. <BR/><BR/>And you have NO evidence that all but a handful of the "mass" of 200 or so FFs would have passed your test for a "Christian."><BR/><BR/>I have a "whole bunch" of evidence that I am compiling. It's easy to find, surely, you know how to find it. I will not, as you would, assume someone isn't a Christian if not for written orthodox evidence.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18561115268220990242009-04-10T14:34:00.000-06:002009-04-10T14:34:00.000-06:00You would be correct if there were many framers, b...<I>You would be correct if there were many framers, but there aren't, and you haven't presented any, other than the usual suspects.</I><BR/><BR/>And you have NO evidence that all but a handful of the "mass" of 200 or so FFs would have passed your test for a "Christian."<BR/><BR/>MY evidence is that the mass of FFs, whatever their beliefs, ASSENTED to having the so called "theistic rationalists" in power establishing the Founding rules. Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin DID, after all, WRITE the DOI.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22458110566874748522009-04-10T14:32:00.000-06:002009-04-10T14:32:00.000-06:00Jon: "Adams doesn't deny miracles, rather says al...<I>Jon: "Adams doesn't deny miracles, rather says all truth, even the miraculous, must meet the test of reason."<BR/><BR/>[OFT:] A contradiction in terms. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.</I><BR/><BR/>Tell it to Samuel West:<BR/><BR/><I>A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.</I><BR/><BR/>Hell, tell it to James Wilson (who sounds strikingly like West]:<BR/><BR/><I>The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. While these continue to be the same, it must continue to be the same also. This immutability of nature’s laws has nothing in it repugnant to the supreme power of an all-perfect Being. Since he himself is the author of our constitution; he cannot but command or forbid such things as are necessarily agreeable or disagreeable to this very constitution. He is under the glorious necessity of not contradicting himself. This necessity, far from limiting or diminishing his perfections, adds to their external character, and points out their excellency.</I><BR/><BR/>If you see this as a contradiction, that's your right. You must then conclude, however, that the political theology of the American Founding rests on a "contradiction" as you (and probably only you) OFT see it.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38507145777729029392009-04-10T14:27:00.000-06:002009-04-10T14:27:00.000-06:00No contradictions here. IF the Bible is partially ...No contradictions here. IF the Bible is partially inspired, which many FFs thought it was, then man's reason is the ONLY tool for determining which parts were legitimately revealed.><BR/><BR/>You would be correct if there were many framers, but there aren't, and you haven't presented any, other than the usual suspects.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42684555011909328802009-04-10T14:17:00.000-06:002009-04-10T14:17:00.000-06:00Another contradiction in terms. Man's flawed think...<I>Another contradiction in terms. Man's flawed thinking processes does not determine that God's Word<BR/>is true or false, insomuch that the majority of framers affirmed the Gospel, which is supernatural.</I><BR/><BR/>No contradictions here. IF the Bible is partially inspired, which many FFs thought it was, then man's reason is the ONLY tool for determining which parts were legitimately revealed.<BR/><BR/>Further many expositors of the "partially inspired" Bible view believed in the supernatural (as did Joseph Priestley and Richard Price, who believe in the ressurection and were the brilliant mentors of this philosophy which held the Bible partially inspired and man's reason the tool for determining that in the Bible which was valid and that which was not).Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17657085831880813722009-04-10T13:48:00.000-06:002009-04-10T13:48:00.000-06:00Jon:Many, perhaps a majority (I'm not sure) also b...Jon:<I>Many, perhaps a majority (I'm not sure) also believed the Bible was flawed and to use Kristo's terms man's reason (however imperfect) was the only tool he had for "discerning" what was legitimately revealed in the Bible</I>.<BR/><BR/>Another contradiction in terms. Man's flawed thinking processes does not determine that God's Word<BR/>is true or false, insomuch that the majority of framers affirmed the Gospel, which is supernatural.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37299717246837763712009-04-10T13:36:00.000-06:002009-04-10T13:36:00.000-06:00Jon:Adams doesn't deny miracles, rather says all t...Jon:<I>Adams doesn't deny miracles, rather says all truth, even the miraculous, must meet the test of reason</I>.<BR/><BR/>A contradiction in terms. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56292251748434007722009-04-10T12:02:00.000-06:002009-04-10T12:02:00.000-06:00I stand firm only a few infidels: Jefferson and Fr...<I>I stand firm only a few infidels: Jefferson and Franklin believed this, seemingly contradicting themselves in the process.</I><BR/><BR/>And I just presented evidence of the very influential unitarian minister Samuel West publicly preaching exactly this.<BR/><BR/><I>The majority orthodox framers understood the above premise is illogical, since reason is flawed, as Kristo earlier referred.</I><BR/><BR/>Many, perhaps a majority (I'm not sure) also believed the Bible was flawed and to use Kristo's terms man's reason (however imperfect) was the only tool he had for "discerning" what was legitimately revealed in the Bible.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54936831771073650882009-04-10T11:59:00.000-06:002009-04-10T11:59:00.000-06:00If Adams did deny miracles, he did ONLY after he r...<I>If Adams did deny miracles, he did ONLY after he retired, which, by then, he was out of the game, and not representative of the majority of framers.</I><BR/><BR/>Another inapt comment. Adams doesn't deny miracles, rather says all truth, even the miraculous, must meet the test of reason (which the Trinity flunked).Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63435680840816307702009-04-10T11:57:00.000-06:002009-04-10T11:57:00.000-06:00I only posted his words. They speak for themselves...<I>I only posted his words. They speak for themselves.</I><BR/><BR/>No you didn't. You posted your misunderstanding of his words, which were inapt.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83148967326159692802009-04-10T11:52:00.000-06:002009-04-10T11:52:00.000-06:00As Adams put it, reacting to John Disney's tho...As Adams put it, reacting to John Disney's thoughts:<BR/><BR/><BR/>D[isney]: The union of all Christians is anticipated, as it has been demonstrated to be the doctrine of Christ, his apostles and evangelists, as also of Moses and the prophets. Nor is it less the language of the religion of nature than of revelation . . . <BR/><BR/>A[dams]: The human understanding is the first revelation from its maker. From God; from Heaven. Can prophecies, can miracles repeal, annul or contradict that original revelation? Can God himself prove that three are one and one three? The supposition is destructive of the foundation of all human knowledge, and of all distinction between truth and falsehood. ["Prophets of Progress," p. 297-98.]<BR/><BR/><BR/>And Adams to Jefferson on Sept. 14, 1813:<BR/><BR/><BR/>We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four….This revelation had made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one….Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and admitted to behold the divine glory, and there been told that one was three and three one, we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.><BR/><BR/>Also, to note, as I have noted countless times on this blog. If Adams did deny miracles, he did ONLY after he retired, which, by then, he was out of the game, and not representative of the majority of framers.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49897802947138196432009-04-10T11:39:00.000-06:002009-04-10T11:39:00.000-06:00If reason is the first revelation, that automatica...If reason is the first revelation, that automatically seems to relegate scripture's role to secondary.><BR/><BR/>I think this statement is taken out of context as well. The majority of framers believed reason was first in position (our mind) not in priority (scripture).Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70175324630489137032009-04-10T11:24:00.000-06:002009-04-10T11:24:00.000-06:00Wilson's belief in miracles exempt the label ratio...Wilson's belief in miracles exempt the label rationalist put upon him, according to the Germans' definition of the term. I still cannot understand how someone can pick what is a valid violation of the laws of nature and what isn't. <BR/><BR/>I don't believe the majority of founding fathers could believe this seemingly illogical contradiction.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70405808722789698622009-04-10T11:18:00.000-06:002009-04-10T11:18:00.000-06:00I don't think that's what Wilson says or m...I don't think that's what Wilson says or means.><BR/><BR/>I only posted his words. They speak for themselves.<BR/><BR/>Once "reason" supplied the answer, he then goes back and looks to the Bible for support, knowing that "right revelation" MUST support the findings of reason because "A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture;..."<BR/><BR/>I see this as an almost arrogant elevation of natural reason over scripture.><BR/><BR/>I stand firm only a few infidels: Jefferson and Franklin believed this, seemingly contradicting themselves in the process. The majority orthodox framers understood the above premise is illogical, since reason is flawed, as Kristo earlier referred.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81972438561301590422009-04-10T10:53:00.000-06:002009-04-10T10:53:00.000-06:00Let me note one more thing not necessarily for Kri...Let me note one more thing not necessarily for Kristo, but for the sake of the general reading audience (i.e., the handful of people who may actually be reading this comment thread).<BR/><BR/><I>but rather that contradiction of the laws of reason is "in the strictest sense impossible".</I><BR/><BR/>This was taken from the following quote of West's:<BR/><BR/><I>A revelation, pretending to be <BR/>from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture; for the Deity cannot make a law contrary to the law of nature without acting contrary to himself,--a thing in the strictest sense impossible, for that which implies contradiction is not an object of the divine power.</I><BR/><BR/>I want to relate this back to the way one of our commenters, OFT, attempts to interpret James Wilson's Works (what I see as a faulty interpretation). OFT notes Wilson's method is first look to the "supereminently authentick" Bible, and where the answer is unclear let reason take over. I don't think that's what Wilson says or means. But that's clearly NOT what West does in his sermon. Rather West FIRST answers the question of whether men have a right to revolt against tyrants from natural reason alone. Once "reason" supplied the answer, he then goes back and looks to the Bible for support, knowing that "right revelation" MUST support the findings of reason because "A revelation, pretending to be from God, that contradicts any part of natural law, ought immediately to be rejected as an imposture;..."<BR/><BR/>I see this as an almost arrogant elevation of natural reason over scripture.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23668851261271166732009-04-10T10:42:00.000-06:002009-04-10T10:42:00.000-06:00You also are flat out wrong when you say "Another ...<I>You also are flat out wrong when you say "Another controversial issue at the time of the Founding is that God Himself is 'rational.'" I know of no controversy. Who, among the FFs, ever suggested that he knew God was rational?</I><BR/><BR/>"Rational" in the sense of being almost completely understandable on rational terms. They had a term for this, "rational Christianity." And God, according to the "rational Christians" was unitarian not Trinitarin, precisely because the Trinity flunked the test of reason.<BR/><BR/>As Jefferson put it:<BR/><BR/><I>I have a view of Christianity which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum.</I><BR/><BR/>Or as Franklin put it in a letter to the unitarian Richard Price:<BR/><BR/><I>Sir John has ask’d me if I knew where he could go to hear a preacher of rational Christianity. I told him I knew several of them, but did not know where their churches were in town; out of town, I mention’ d yours at Newington, and offer ‘d to go with him. He agreed to it, but said we should first let you know our intention. I suppose, if nothing in his profession prevents, we may come, if you please, next Sunday ; but if you sometimes preach in town, that will be most convenient to him, and I request you would by a line let me know when and where. If there are dissenting preachers of that sort at this end of the town, I wish you would recommend one to me, naming the place of his meeting. And if you please, give me a list of several, in different parts of the town, perhaps he may incline to take a round among them.</I><BR/><BR/>If they are qualifying Christianity with the term "rational" and rejecting the Trinity on "rational" grounds I don't see how you cannot see this as an exhaltation of reason AND consequently the connection between "rationalism" and "unitarianism" and understanding God on "rational" as opposed to revealed terms.<BR/><BR/><I>The reason for such rejection is not that "God is not insane", something I'm sure the FFs hoped and believed but didn't assert,</I><BR/><BR/>Actually Jefferson did assert this. He termed the Trinity a metaphysical insanity. To believe in the Trinity would be to believe in an insane God.<BR/><BR/><I>but rather that contradiction of the laws of reason is "in the strictest sense impossible".</I><BR/><BR/>Again, I don't get the difference between this and asserting that God is rational. I.e., since God is rational he would never act to contradict the laws of reason.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90481238155642553182009-04-10T09:27:00.000-06:002009-04-10T09:27:00.000-06:00What's the best example you can come up with for a...<I>What's the best example you can come up with for a FF (or enlightenment philosopher) having a high, rather than a limited, view of human understanding and reason?</I><BR/><BR/>How about Jefferson to Carr (with which I know you are familiar):<BR/><BR/><I>On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. <B>Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.</B> You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country. Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy & Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature in the case he relates. For example in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, &c. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine therefore candidly what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis as the earth does, should have stopped, should not by that sudden stoppage have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time have resumed its revolution, & that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth’s motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the new testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions 1. of those who say he was begotten by god, born of a virgin, suspended & reversed the laws of nature at will, & ascended bodily into heaven: and 2. of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, & was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, & the second by exile or death in furcâ. See this law in the Digest Lib. 48. tit. 19. §. 28. 3. & Lipsius Lib. 2. de cruce. cap. 2. These questions are examined in the books I have mentioned under the head of religion, & several others. They will assist you in your inquiries, but keep your reason firmly on the watch in reading them all. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of it’s consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort & pleasantness you feel in it’s exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, & that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. <B>Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven,</B> and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision.</I><BR/><BR/>You don't see this as exhalting reason?Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42311939718587429072009-04-10T09:08:00.000-06:002009-04-10T09:08:00.000-06:00You seem to get caught in a tangle when you say st...<I>You seem to get caught in a tangle when you say stuff like "If reason is the first revelation, that automatically seems to relegate revelation's role to secondary." You have to limit your use of the term "revelation" to when you really mean revelation, and use other terms (like "scripture") for other purposes.</I><BR/><BR/>I think you are right here; I changed some of the terms for clarification. With blogging, much less time is spent on relentless editing than when something is submitted for publication. And even then an editor would be able to catch and change these thing. As I noted I was short for time yesterday.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com