tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4815393109690940359..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Judeo-ChristianityBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56413398688649317222008-10-27T12:54:00.000-06:002008-10-27T12:54:00.000-06:00"Admittedly imperfect" is in the first sentence. I..."Admittedly imperfect" is in the first sentence. I dislike the term less than the other ones, is all, "Deist" in particular, as that's all over the map. "Judeo-" takes out the mystical Christ part, which was a take it or leave it deal with the Founders. But although in theory some saw all religions as equal, they didn't know much about any of 'em except Christianity and the Bible---despite their protestations---and the other terms elide that fact.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9568334813849274752008-10-27T10:30:00.000-06:002008-10-27T10:30:00.000-06:00My understanding of the faiths of most of the Foun...My understanding of the faiths of most of the Founders were based broadly in Protestant Christianity.<BR/><BR/>My concern about the term "Judeo-Christian" relates to the concern Phil raises. The term is typically used as a way of being inclusive. And the fact that politicians habitually use it is a good sign that no one is particularly offended by it.<BR/><BR/>But it is an inexact term when it comes to thinking about religion. Because Judaism and Christianity are two separate religions. Ecumenical understanding and cooperation is important. But that can only develop on the basis of mutual respect for the other religion. And that means, for a start, recognizing that they are two different religions.<BR/><BR/>I know this post is dealing with the Christain and/or Jewish religious influences on the Founders' thinking as compared to other religious and philosophical influences. But I thought I would leave this observation.Bruce Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15755507415057118372008-10-27T07:18:00.000-06:002008-10-27T07:18:00.000-06:00If I am to understand this post of yours, Tom, you...If I am to understand this post of yours, Tom, you are saying that the term, "civil religion", as used by the Founders is some kind of a mix between the Jewish and Christian religions. Is that what you are trying to say?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50487166519619854252008-10-26T23:50:00.000-06:002008-10-26T23:50:00.000-06:00You're probably right.You're probably right.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66181054995834922492008-10-26T18:39:00.000-06:002008-10-26T18:39:00.000-06:00Nope. Your interpretation of Judeo/Christianity d...Nope. Your interpretation of Judeo/Christianity doesn't work. You are trying to stretch thie definition so that it becomes all-encompassing, but it doesn't work. It reminds me of how politicians stretch the meaning of different terms to fit their positions (what is your definition of "inhale" Tom?).<BR/><BR/>Theistic Rationalism is the appropriate term here because it isn't exclusive to Christian/Jewish roots like your Judeo/Christian term is. <BR/><BR/>Sorry, but this definition doesn't even come close to hitting the broad side of a barn...WAY off.Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05504032868942862532noreply@blogger.com