tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6335969153444612392..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: "99 out of 100": Trinitarianism at the FoundingBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69798793139908442212009-07-02T14:25:51.176-06:002009-07-02T14:25:51.176-06:00I'm working on a new post with Rush. In a lat...I'm working on a new post with Rush. In a later, very interesting letter, he seems also hyperbolic about his own belief in universal salvation. While he diminished unitarianism's influence, he seems to exaggerate universalism's influence, nearly arguing America was going thru a universalist revival.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59567965697503803022009-07-02T12:30:30.926-06:002009-07-02T12:30:30.926-06:00As I am no historian, but enjoy the debate here at...As I am no historian, but enjoy the debate here at American Creation because it is historically based, I question "trends" that would claim to uphold or defend "truth", "value", or "good". Nor just because this was so historically doesn't mean that the "trend" holds true today. But, American religion is prone to market driven ambition, it seems. Those who want to build a denomination like such things. <br /><br />Fine for those who want to hold to "conversion type", revivalistic, emotion-driven, preaching. I personally am not interested. And I understand that Wesley was a revivalist, as well as an educated Anglican. His experience or anyone else's does not have to be universalized.<br /><br />What does interest me is trends for the sake of treands, not the practical application of them. Why would these trends be? Why would these things "happen"? What promotes them? Experimental Theology is doing some of this type of research and understanding it from an existential, psychological, scientific viewpoint.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82721069891695636972009-07-02T12:07:21.125-06:002009-07-02T12:07:21.125-06:00Tom, I liked your post. I think you do a great job...Tom, I liked your post. I think you do a great job pointing out that Rush's statement, while hyperbole, shouldn't be dismissed altogether. It needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but still taken. <br /><br />To those critical of Tom's post, he's NOT arguing that the United States was officially Trinitarian or that the US government was somehow "religious" or anything like that. All he's saying is that, based on Rush's comments, the overwhelming majority of the American Founders and the American people were comfortable with Trinitarian Christianity. <br /><br />It's a valid point, considering all the posts we've read here at American Creation that have tried to argue the reverse - that the US was somehow trending away from Trinitarianism and toward Unitarianism or Deism. <br /><br />I think the evidence goes the other way. Read Mark Noll. By the mid-1800s, the American public was even MORE Christian and evangelical than in the late 1700s. The trend was going toward evangelical Christianity not against it. <br /><br />And that trend began with the Great Awakening, was tempered somewhat by the Enlightenment, and then broke loose with the Second Great Awakening.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47696104878167720222009-07-02T01:52:54.013-06:002009-07-02T01:52:54.013-06:00Rush's and Priestley's statements may poin...<i>Rush's and Priestley's statements may point to a split between elite opinion and common opinion.</i>..<br /><br />Interesting, Daniel. Your personal testimony is good too. Something to be discussed.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70379029932040478482009-06-30T09:11:34.295-06:002009-06-30T09:11:34.295-06:00Rush's and Priestley's statements may poin...Rush's and Priestley's statements may point to a split between elite opinion and common opinion. Perhaps the head scratchers were a sceptical bunch, while the masses didn't bother to show up in the church very often but were dead certain that the orthodox positions were TRUTH.<br /><br />The isn't much different in our time. Take a look a the mainline churches where most of the upper ranks are sceptics of orthodoxy, most pastors are, but the people sitting in the pews are pretty orthodox, and the members who are rarely sitting in the pews even more so. (No, I have nothing to cite but my own observations.)Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12165084874363214919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39489102821765793032009-06-29T16:45:41.674-06:002009-06-29T16:45:41.674-06:00Small town, small denominations, small minds, smal...Small town, small denominations, small minds, small busniesses all are similar as to how narrowly focused they can be, because those who police can maintain these specifically defined and narrowly focused norms.<br /><br />But, of course, without specificity, there cannot be productivity that is measurable, which gives a sense of "success" needful especially for those in the "small pond".<br /><br />CEO's, whether they be over business, political, or 'spiritual' are bent on understanding the larger world's 'needs" and where they "fit" in their vision. Fit is an important aspect of understanding how to define the organization to meet that specific need in a larger context.<br /><br />Too bad i have understood this so late in life. But, I maintain that the individual must find their own place, whether that be affirmed by the local norm is irrelavant. The indiviidual can "move to another place"....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57690783797443280842009-06-29T16:20:08.659-06:002009-06-29T16:20:08.659-06:00.
Each one of us has a journey that is personal as....<br /><i>Each one of us has a journey that is personal as to its coming to maturity</i><br />.<br />While that is true for us in the twenty-first century, it doesn't appear as though that was so for the 99 out of 100 Founding Era Americans who had their beliefs imposed on them by the group.<br />.<br />Angie, the entire reason I brought up the exchange between the Baptist and Catholic relatives had to do with the way religious beliefs were imposed on early Americans by the local community and congregations to which they belonged. The DID NOT think for themselves in the same sense that we do today.<br />.<br />There is such a thing as a group norm. We have one here and some members carry out the role of policing what goes on. Some are deviant and they eventually get run out of town on a rail. Check out OFT.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76093995826147001972009-06-29T15:05:13.180-06:002009-06-29T15:05:13.180-06:00Pinky,
There is no "salvation"...other t...Pinky,<br />There is no "salvation"...other than what man "makes of it" in his own mind, or society deems as understood as a cultural "norm".<br /><br />So, you wouldn't suggest that the independent Baptist missionary "had it right", I hope? Each one of us has a journey that is personal as to its coming to maturity. Unitarians were universalists, weren't they? And their interests today lies in social justice, as it pertains to the world, as a whole. There is no understanding of individuality in this "rendering"...social is the only "context" of understanding morality, justice, etc.<br /><br />Some think that American individualism is a lower level of moral "maturity", but on what basis is the individual being assessed? An "approved" outward expression of "moral concern"?<br /><br />Wherein lies the theory of genetic predisposition of "moral behavior" and/or concern?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49704212441182699792009-06-29T14:41:26.720-06:002009-06-29T14:41:26.720-06:00.
"The wisest plan of education that could be....<br /><i>"The wisest plan of education that could be offered would be unpopular among 99 out of 100 citizens of America (excluding those who it is inconvenient to count as American citizens), if it opposed in any degree the doctrine of the Trinity."</i><br />.<br />A relative of mine who is an evangelical Reformed Baptist missionary asked another relative of mine, a Roman Catholic, of his concern for his "eternal soul". <br /><br />The Catholic answered, "I let the church take care of that for me.".<br />.<br />I think that was the case with those 99 out of a 100 early Americans. They let the group to which they belonged and whose confession of faith they were forced to accept as their own by the pressure of the group take care of all their thinking when it came to any ideas of spiritual importance..<br />.<br />Unitarianism was a break away--at the root--from early American group-think that was imposed on all.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7921216171090932872009-06-29T14:25:47.352-06:002009-06-29T14:25:47.352-06:00"JRB provides further indication that non-tri...<i>"JRB provides further indication that non-trinitarism was the province of New England elites, ..."</i><br /><br />Amended accordingly:<br /><br />"The wisest plan of education that could be offered would be unpopular among 99 out of 100 citizens of America (excluding those who it is inconvenient to count as American citizens), if it opposed in any degree the doctrine of the Trinity."jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72448891947072132472009-06-29T14:22:01.247-06:002009-06-29T14:22:01.247-06:00Are you using Golilocks like the "Trojan Hors...Are you using Golilocks like the "Trojan Horse"?Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-16006670856991838822009-06-29T14:13:38.058-06:002009-06-29T14:13:38.058-06:00A good point, Tom? To what on earth are you refer...A good point, Tom? To what on earth are you refering?Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-39770354307426349782009-06-29T14:03:01.052-06:002009-06-29T14:03:01.052-06:00Bury the hatchet with whom, Lindsey? But that'...Bury the hatchet with whom, Lindsey? But that's OK---the only times you start up like this is when I've made a good point. It's a compliment. But let he who has a good counterargument cast the first spaghetti.<br /><br />That's all I'm interested in; I certainly don't expect much agreement, or even an "attaboy" for hours of meticulous and independent research and writing. And Brad, thanks for noting that I claimed no "proof" of anything at the outset. It's nice to be read with some care.<br /><br />Jon/Brad, I certainly would agree that Jefferson in particular was writing for posterity and for his vision that unitarianism would become America's religion, replacing orthodox Christianity. But as Jon notes, what he kept secret and what was willingly published in his lifetime are both more relevant to the Founding landscape. <br /><br />As for the issue at hand, if Washington's absence at communion is a significant historical fact [and it's gotten plenty of cyberink on this blog], surely so is Benjamin Rush's opinion that anti-trinitarianism was political poison.<br /><br />And let's make the distinction, that non-trinitarianism was coming out of the shadows as a result of America's growing liberalization/tolerance/pluralism, but anti-trinitarianism was intolerant itself. Our designated Bad Guys, the orthodox, were no less fanatical or ill-tempered than the anti-trinitarians.<br /><br />For most Americans, then as now, it might be fair to say they were sick of the whole thing, and a nice vague [as vague as possible] Christian-y thing suited them fine. Goldilocks comes to mind...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11019898971683309312009-06-29T13:36:11.763-06:002009-06-29T13:36:11.763-06:00Yes, I agree with everything you wrote, Jon.
than...Yes, I agree with everything you wrote, Jon.<br /><br />thanks for the praise. In fairness I should point out that Brad does every bit as much as I do. Sometimes I get too much credit (blog "mother" labels and all). But yes, Brad you do an excellent job of keeping the blog nice AND making lots of posts. <br /><br />I'll bury the hatchet with that.Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38717257462845735192009-06-29T13:17:27.438-06:002009-06-29T13:17:27.438-06:00Let me note that Lindsey does an outstanding job o...Let me note that Lindsey does an outstanding job of maintaining the blog.<br /><br />Re unitarianism and private letters,...the times were a changin' as Bob Dylan put it. Think of how rapidly culture has changed over the past 25 years or so (even after the 1960s watershed). <br /><br />Three's Company was risqué for its time. Carnal Knowledge (1971) was banned in GA as "obscene" (until the Supreme Court ruled that it was not).<br /><br />Unitarianism was "coming out" as it were towards the end of the 18th Century. John Adams admitted to his unitarianism to Jedidiah Morse (and to its old age) in the early part of the 19th Century in a way that he would not have in 1750 (when Adams' dates his conversion to unitarianism). Many of Jefferson's and Adams' letters were published (as far as I know) immediately after deaths, to the chagrin' of many folks. [I am actually interested in the fact about their letters published DURING their lifetimes.]<br /><br />Ashbel Green, a contemporary of theirs, went apeshit when he became aware of Jefferson's private writing that used him to argue in favor of GW's "infidelity."<br /><br />One thing I've said before and I'll stress again; there is a connection between the Founders' unitarian heterodoxy and their fervent insistence on Freedom of Conscience (this is where the private is related to the political): It made it safe for heretics like themselves to "come out" and be open about it.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54660948695758877452009-06-29T12:56:47.468-06:002009-06-29T12:56:47.468-06:00Ok, Lindsey, once again we are officially "de...Ok, Lindsey, once again we are officially "derailed." Congrats!<br /><br />You claim that certain people are going to "scare away" the readers/contributors of our blog. Fine. That's a fair concern. However, couldn't this all have been handled in private. You have TVD's email, no? <br /><br />As for the video thing, I have no problem with videos. Sometimes they make for excellent discussions and material. In addition, they diversify the blog, which I am all for. Yes, I have tried to find a balance between video postings and my own material, and I hope I have succeeded. If people don't like it oh well...this is, after all, just a blog, right?<br /><br />I'm just stunned that you are doing the very same thing that you have accued others of doing. Why fight fire with fire? Seems sort of counterproductive. <br /><br />Oh and as for not having the time to do posts and still serve as a "moderator" (whateverthehell that really is) I appreciate your efforts here. I don't think anyone thinks otherwise. But just remember that this is a blog, nothing more. And in my opinion blogs are meant to be fun. Who is here exclusively to work?Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15063480097002203392009-06-29T12:48:59.049-06:002009-06-29T12:48:59.049-06:00.
Can you imagine a Governor Sanford in South Caro....<br />Can you imagine a Governor Sanford in South Caroline in the year, 1790?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86909792168118447002009-06-29T12:44:12.464-06:002009-06-29T12:44:12.464-06:00.
It's pretty well accepted by almost everyone....<br />It's pretty well accepted by almost everyone that Revolutionary Era Americans were almost completely under the influence of Reformed Protestantism; but, so what?<br />.<br />There was a division among Americans during the Founding Era and it amounted to a major trend; which reminds me of an advertisement put out by one of America's greatest ad agencies during the 1950s. It showed a stack of unsharpened pencils that had been balanced end on end and at the split second after the bottom one had been knocked over. All the rest of the pencils had begun to tumble and you could imagine some hands trying to stop their fall. The caption was, "Nothing is harder to stop than a trend!".<br /><br />That early American trend was signified by the seeds of individualism that were bolstered by the Bill of Rights and the institution of the personal rights involved.<br /><br />Since then, tens of millions and more Americans have developed--with the help of the First Amendment--to be individuals apart from the control of intrusive religionism. The idea that a person could think for themselves during the Revolutionary Era was almost unheard of. The struggle of individuals to realize their own self against the intrusive control of the group grew to a rage and, so, it continues to day.<br />.<br />Basically, it seems to me that THIS is what America is all about.<br />.<br />It seems sophomoric to claim that America was founded to be a Christian Nation. The Founding set America free from the intrusive control of all religions.<br />.<br />People, like everything else, evolve to be what they are coming to be.<br />.<br /><br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24836658699922346992009-06-29T12:39:48.008-06:002009-06-29T12:39:48.008-06:00I'll say it again, Tom, my problem is not with...I'll say it again, Tom, my problem is not with your reasearch or opinions but with your tone. And don't try to pass yourself off as Mother Theresa here. How many people have you rubbed the wrong way over the months? I'm just trying to stick up for them before you end up running them off.<br /><br />Brad:<br /><br />You of all people shouldn't get fussy about posting videos. I believe you've done your share of video posting as well. And as for my "not throwing a single meatball" well, my apologies. I guess I have been busy ATCUALLY MAINTAINING THE BLOG v. doing postings. You're a moderator. You of all people should know that it takes time to do that. I'm sorry that I don't have the free time to make AMAZING posts like you, Brad. <br /><br />But yes, I agree about the Jefferson letters not being as private as we are lead to believe. Joseph Ellis states as much in "Founding Brothers."Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-60633372265756367782009-06-29T12:29:57.350-06:002009-06-29T12:29:57.350-06:00I don't think it's necessary to shout me d...I don't think it's necessary to shout me down, Lindsey. You know capital letters are impolite on the internet, especially followed by an exclamation point. It makes you look shrewish and unreasonable. This is a clean piece of research.<br /><br />Your rebuttal, such as it is, is misformulated. The point of the Rush statement is that anti-trinitarianism would be <i>politically</i> unpopular. That's why I left the womenfolk out, to keep the point clean. Non-trinitarianism as freedom of conscience isn't even at issue here.<br /><br />However, to disregard the [largely more devout] religious attitudes of America's women in the larger question would be improper, too, but that's for another discussion.<br /><br />And I'll continue to leave your insults unrequited. But I will acknowledge them, and note that you're taking advantage of my cheery nature and the knowledge I won't answer them in kind. Peace.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43209787092019137382009-06-29T12:28:49.020-06:002009-06-29T12:28:49.020-06:00Ok, let's try to keep on topic here without ge...Ok, let's try to keep on topic here without getting into the predictable "TVD is Darth Vader" shall we, Lindsey? <br /><br />Where do you get the notion that TVD is trying to pass this off as "proof positive" of anything, Lindsey? Read his comments. The first sentence he states, "Rush's comment doesn't 'prove' anything, but it will make at least some people think before they throw up their hands and say 'we cannot know.'"<br /><br />I don't see him attempting to "throw spaghetti at the wall" so much as he is trying to defend the notion that the founding was, as he has put it in the past, "Christian-y" (which despite its almost Sesame Street feel seems to have a lot of truth to it...at least in my opinion). <br /><br />Speaking of spaghetti, I have looked over your past posts Lindsey I it seems to me that you haven't tossed a single meatball as of late. Usually you are just posting videos and such. Now, I know we all get busy and videos are a nice way of contributing at least something, but for you to accuse a contributor of "derailing" posts when you yourself are guilty of doing just that seems...well...silly. <br /><br />Ok, now to get back to the post. I would like to point out one particular issue that I disagree with: Tom, at times I have heard you speak of Jefferson's (and Adams') religion as being something they kept private and between a select few people they could trust. I think this isn't entirely true. Many of the letters between Adams and Jefferson were published by newspapers of their time (yes, to the dismay of the participants). However, knowing that the public was occasionally reading their material, and knowing very well that posterity would read it as well, Jefferson and Adams still continued to reveal their "infidel" beliefs to one another, questioning many of the traditional orthodox beliefs of the day.<br /><br />Simply put, my point would be this: those "private" writings of Jefferson and Adams weren't as "private" as we might think.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50676000687111499952009-06-29T12:09:43.566-06:002009-06-29T12:09:43.566-06:00AHHH! There you go again complicating the obvious...AHHH! There you go again complicating the obvious and obscuring the true point I was trying to make Tom! Ever think of running for Congress?<br /><br />What "facts" have you "presented" here Tom? I see nothing but some mundane quote you took from Rush, which you then somehow glorify to be proof positive that all us "secularists" are a bunch of idiots for not seeing things your way. <br /><br />As for the women thing, I know this will be hard for you to understand but I was making an ANALOGY! In your post you insinuate that becuase the majority of Americans were Christian that somehow makes America a Christian nation. I was pointing out the fact that the majority was also white and female. That's all. I said nothing of their religion because it was irrelevant to the analogy. Try to keep up. <br /><br />Simply brilliant comments, Jimmyraybob. I love your stuff. When are you going to join us and turn your fantastic comments into actual posts?Lindsey Shumanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13536959819608584779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25997676531634712882009-06-29T12:00:02.288-06:002009-06-29T12:00:02.288-06:00Thx for all the comments. Rush's comment does...Thx for all the comments. Rush's comment doesn't "prove" anything, but it will make at least some people think before they throw up their hands and say "we cannot know." Odd how facts make some other people angry, but that's uncontrollable.<br /><br />As for Priestly's comment about England, I give that weight, too. As GBS said, "The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity."<br /><br />Having played cricket, I think he was onto something.<br /><br />JRB provides further indication that non-trinitarism was the province of New England elites, and not representative of the nation as a whole, which as his Mr. Trumbell notes, "profess[es] Christianity."<br /><br />As for Lindsey's note about women in America, the womenfolk of the "key" Founders tended to be far more orthodox, like Martha Washington, as Lindsey well knows. I didn't go into that to keep it clean, and indeed nobody has laid a glove on the facts as presented except to dismiss them, which the post rather predicted.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49668838462561387252009-06-29T11:32:57.559-06:002009-06-29T11:32:57.559-06:00continued
"Nothing better signified the chan...continued<br /><br /><i>"Nothing better signified the change than the fact that Massachusetts, once the center of intolerance, became most indulgent of religious liberalism. Nowhere else did so many reject Jesus Christ as God. Harvard College and Boston brimmed with skeptics, ant-Trinitarians, and the deistically inclined. Leading Congregational clergymen, including Ebenezar Gay of Hingham, who headed his church for nearly seventy years; Charles Chauncy, for sixty years the minister or the First Church of Boston; and another brilliant Boston clergyman, Jonathan Mayhew, repudiated the doctrine of the Trinity and championed individual judgment. More extraordinary still, James Freeman, who became head of King’s Chapel, the oldest Episcopalian church in New England, converted his church to Unitarianism, twenty of the twenty-four most important families were members of his church."</i><br /><br />*This bio borrowed from <a href="http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=262" rel="nofollow">this review</a>: <i>Dr. Levy is the Andrew W. Mellon All Claremont Professor of Humanities and Chairman of the Graduate Faculty of History at the Claremont Graduate School, and Editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. His Origins of the Fifth Amendment: The Right against Self-Incrimination (MacMillan, 1968) won the Pulitzer Prize for History; he has also published Treason against God: A History of the Offense of Blasphemy (New York: Schocken Books 1981), xviii and 414 pp., $24.95; Blasphemy in Massachusetts: Freedom of Conscience and the Abner Kneeland Case (ed., 1973) and numerous other works.</i><br /><br />I’ll throw this in just because:<br /><br /><i>In his autobiography, John Trumbull, the artist, reported being at a “freethinking dinner party” in 1793 at the home of Thomas Jefferson. Senator William Branch Giles of Virginia ridiculed Jesus, much to Trumbell’s consternation, while Jefferson smiled and nodded approval [oh to have been a stenographer fly on that wall]. Finally, David Franks, a bank official, took up the argument on Trumbell’s side. Trumbell turned to Jefferson and said, “Sir, this is a strange situation in which I find myself; in a country professing Christianity, and at a table with Christians, as I supposed, I find my religion and myself attacked with severe and irresistible wit and raillery, and not a person to aid in my defense, but my friend Mr. Franks, who is himself a jew.” Giles returned to the attack with ‘new virulence,” ending up with a rejection of God. Similarly, William Duncan, the playwright who praised Elihu Palmer’s deistic orations, recorded in his diary in 1797 that, at a meeting of his club attended by various luminaries, James Kent, the future chancellor of New York, “remark’d that men of information were now nearly as free from vulgar superstitions or the Christian religion as they were in the time of Cicero from the pagan superstition.”</i><br /><br />Clearly hostile times for a Trinitarian.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91982892408333933352009-06-29T11:32:21.896-06:002009-06-29T11:32:21.896-06:00Thank you, jimmiraybob...that was informative..
I...Thank you, jimmiraybob...that was informative..<br /><br />I just recieved a "science and religion" e-mail that states that the Pope has issued a statement about the necessity of "love and charity" in light of the global financial crisis and the G8 summit.<br /><br />It seems that the practical issues always come down to which we think is most important, our interests or others interests. It doesn't seem that globalized concern has fared well on the world market...or has it? Each country must answer that for themselves, I guess....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.com