tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post1806750447408754768..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Brief Reply to King of Ireland on the Bible & RightsBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33948377303970762872010-08-22T08:14:08.687-06:002010-08-22T08:14:08.687-06:00Anyway, I agree I think we found some common groun...Anyway, I agree I think we found some common ground to proceed with like Tom stated. I just think we need to watch what we call horseshit and tar babies. That does not add to anything.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28071271724833497682010-08-22T08:09:18.043-06:002010-08-22T08:09:18.043-06:00"Just recognizing that Tom is right about the..."Just recognizing that Tom is right about the French Revolution v. the American Revolution...that's it. Again, let's not complicate the obvious."<br /><br /><br />That is the number theme that both Tom and I have been hitting on. How the American Revolution was different from the French and thus not modern in the Strauss sense of the word. <br /><br /><br />I think I see what your issue is. You think things get to complicated at times and it becomes boring for readers when we parse the text to death. <br /><br />Fine line but I see where you are coming from. I would retort that we have to guard the other way that we do no not oversimply things. <br /><br />Even if war was inevitable, and i still think there are ways to research it and prove it(in regard to your claim that no relgion was going to stop them), there is a just way to do it and an unjust way. <br /><br />Christian thought, or certain streams of it, believe if war is looming their is a right way to go about it that will not lead to anarchy and then worse oppression. <br /><br />It is not just the French Revolution. You can look at the History of Latin America too. <br /><br />In fact, you can make a solid case that many times the wanna be dictator will promote excessive licientiousness in society knowing it will lead to anarchy as to then have grounds to clamp down and oppress the people.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30942583380449812262010-08-22T00:48:15.684-06:002010-08-22T00:48:15.684-06:00KOI writes:
But "its common sense" is n...KOI writes:<br /><br /><em>But "its common sense" is not an argument.</em><br /><br />It is if its blatantly obvious...and let's not complicate the obvious. That's what Congress is for! =) <br /><br /><em>Maybe Brad is starting to agree that the things he hates to be discussed might actually be relevant? Or maybe he was missing the point of why it was being brought up.</em><br /><br />Just recognizing that Tom is right about the French Revolution v. the American Revolution...that's it. Again, let's not complicate the obvious.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24389246301294231332010-08-21T21:37:36.838-06:002010-08-21T21:37:36.838-06:00Any casual reading of the Christian West shows rep...<i>Any casual reading of the Christian West shows repeated examples, both Protestant and Catholic, of common and canon law arguments for just war being very prominent. Look at the origins of the Magna Carta.<br /><br />We cared, at least to some degree about the right way to go about deposing a king. France did not. Look at the difference. Thus the need for the temperance of resistance theory.<br /><br />I think that is what is Tom is trying to say in his comment as well.<br /><br />Anyway, on to other things.</i><br /><br />I think we all agreed on something that's not unimportant. Common ground on which to proceed. It's good to take yes for an answer. Wise, prudent, and a lot of other things.<br /><br />Friendly.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13562371200658167792010-08-21T20:55:43.491-06:002010-08-21T20:55:43.491-06:00about what?about what?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65448746967315842502010-08-21T20:33:05.691-06:002010-08-21T20:33:05.691-06:00r u 4 real?r u 4 real?craignoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-28509103588477388982010-08-21T20:26:12.393-06:002010-08-21T20:26:12.393-06:00"Touche, Tom. Very touche."
Maybe Brad ..."Touche, Tom. Very touche."<br /><br />Maybe Brad is starting to agree that the things he hates to be discussed might actually be relevant? Or maybe he was missing the point of why it was being brought up.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-9899458414129618542010-08-21T20:13:43.934-06:002010-08-21T20:13:43.934-06:00If you are right, and let say you probably are, th...If you are right, and let say you probably are, there is a just war and not just war for those that cared what God thought about it. I think one can make a credible argument that if they did not feel that had to go through all the legal hurdles war would have happened much sooner. <br /><br /><br />It is like the divorcer analogy I gave. Sometimes it is just going to happen but there is a right way to do it if it is inevitable. <br /><br />Any casual reading of the Christian West shows repeated examples, both Protestant and Catholic, of common and canon law arguments for just war being very prominent. Look at the origins of the Magna Carta. <br /><br />We cared, at least to some degree about the right way to go about deposing a king. France did not. Look at the difference. Thus the need for the temperance of resistance theory. <br /><br />I think that is what is Tom is trying to say in his comment as well. <br /><br />Anyway, on to other things.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2175005520426368672010-08-21T20:02:15.171-06:002010-08-21T20:02:15.171-06:00Brad,
Maybe so. But "its common sense" ...Brad,<br /><br />Maybe so. But "its common sense" is not an argument.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65829035503659357072010-08-21T15:42:12.600-06:002010-08-21T15:42:12.600-06:00From KOI:
Make your case Brad. Just saying it don...From KOI:<br /><br /><em>Make your case Brad. Just saying it don't make it so.</em><br /><br />I think my case is proven through common sense. No need to dissect anything on this one. It should be obvious to anyone who studies the American Revolution that war was inevitable...with or without all the religious stuff.<br /><br />From TVD:<br /><br /><em>Likely so. But the American revolution was quite different from the French one, and that constellation of factors is probably why.</em><br /><br />Touche, Tom. Very touche. In fact, I think Gordon Wood basically says the same thing in <em>Radicalism of the American Revolution</em>Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22849952859459248772010-08-21T12:54:18.623-06:002010-08-21T12:54:18.623-06:00The war was a'coming and no stupid Christian/t...<i>The war was a'coming and no stupid Christian/theological/biblical/Imago Dei/secular/(U)unitarian/Theistic Rationalist/fundamentalist/non-trinitarian/whatever else we can conjure up excuse was going to stand in their way. </i><br /><br />Likely so. But the American revolution was quite different from the French one, and that constellation of factors is probably why.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-63904220948288616652010-08-21T08:15:33.783-06:002010-08-21T08:15:33.783-06:00Of course you have to understand that Romans 13 ha...Of course you have to understand that Romans 13 had nothing to do with this discussion at all until you brought it up TWICE right? Are we to allow you to make your statement with no evidence presented to back it up and not question it?<br /><br />It is starting to seem as if you do want to discusss Romans 13 and resistance theory but possibly only your views on it.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22087574031912017462010-08-21T08:12:08.852-06:002010-08-21T08:12:08.852-06:00Make your case Brad. Just saying it don't mak...Make your case Brad. Just saying it don't make it so.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4908628236327228662010-08-21T02:26:30.252-06:002010-08-21T02:26:30.252-06:00Zzzzzzzzzzzz...
Perhaps we should change the name...Zzzzzzzzzzzz...<br /><br />Perhaps we should change the name of this blog to fit the discussions:<br /><br /><em>AMERICAN ,Imago Dei, "Christian-y", quasi-biblically based (though not inspired because Romans 13 shows that resistance to leaders is against God...or is it?), David Barton is an idiot, CREATION BLOG."</em><br /><br />Has a nice ring to it.<br /><br />Like the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the people who actually did the fighting/leading during the Revolution, I too think that these matters are of little consequence. The war was a'coming and no stupid Christian/theological/biblical/Imago Dei/secular/(U)unitarian/Theistic Rationalist/fundamentalist/non-trinitarian/whatever else we can conjure up excuse was going to stand in their way. <br /><br />The American Revolution was like Baskin Robbins: 31 flavors for everyone.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71024593581373222562010-08-20T23:13:24.294-06:002010-08-20T23:13:24.294-06:00"Further, in St. paul's times, Christiani..."Further, in St. paul's times, Christianity was not the regnant political theology. As William Ellery Channing argued [following Locke, I believe], for Christianity to disrupt the prevailing social order with an explicit war on slavery would have defeated Jesus' purpose, to prepare man for the Next World."<br /><br />After seeing how Christians live in places like Tibet where you can get killed for it I understand this a lot better now. For a Tibetan Christian to war against China as his first priority for independence would be stupid and snuff out the little tiny church that is there. <br /><br />I think it was the same in Jesus time too. Why snuff the thing out before it even gets started by doing a John Brown and storming the gates of the empire? Anyone think John Brown used wisdom and did what was best for his cause? <br /><br />Jesus did take on the Pharisees and Jews but that was local power where you had a fighting chance because the Romans stayed out of it most of the time. <br /><br />And yes, Tom, he primary message was salvation. But it does not say he died so we can die. It it says he died so that we could live. Abundantly that is. <br /><br />I could go on for hours with all this because you have to study it understand it. Almost no one does and that is why we have all this confusion.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53136569525959761462010-08-20T23:04:04.095-06:002010-08-20T23:04:04.095-06:00I might add that if I do not want my neighbor taki...I might add that if I do not want my neighbor taking away my right to worship as I please I may not want to do it to him. Yes, Tom it is pretty simple. All the rest is smoke and mirrors Culture Wars BS.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74013858458559386772010-08-20T23:01:00.508-06:002010-08-20T23:01:00.508-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34754630071924046252010-08-20T23:00:53.734-06:002010-08-20T23:00:53.734-06:00"Neither is there an intelligent answer to Ki..."Neither is there an intelligent answer to King's simple argument that holding slaves is not loving your neighbor as yourself. for some reason, those unsympathetic to Christianity expect Christians to be too stupid to ask themselves that simple question"<br /><br /><br />The only argument they have is to say that the Bible contradicts itself. <br /><br />From the point of view of this post, which is from one that believes the Bible is true, one has to wonder if the very words that sum up all the law where slavery was supposedly promoted by God contradict their notions about much harder and nuanced passages in the Old Testament? <br /><br />In other words, commone sense would seem to dictate that God was not in favor of slavery is he was telling people not to do things they would not want down to the in honor of their love for Him. Right?<br /><br />How about this one as well:<br /><br />The Law gave guidelines for divorce. But Jesus came later and said that divorce was not God's original intent and that they should not be leaving the wives of their youth. There are some nuances as to whether adultery counts and some other things but it is clear that God did not intend it but gave guidelines because shit happens and you gotta deal with it.<br /><br />It is almost like he said, "I do not want you to get divorce but I know you will so here is the most just way to do it."<br /><br />You can easily apply that to slavery as well. Again, that is if you come from the POV that Jon writes from that believes the Bible is true. <br /><br />Jon just skips over all these more than reasonable discussions that have been a debate in Christianity since its inception and crowns the Fundie POV the biblical one. <br /><br />If it is then the Enlightenment wins the day. Trouble is someone shows up here who knows the stuff as good or better than Frazer and the others he cites and will not let him get away with that crap.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29387361475520182162010-08-20T20:28:05.689-06:002010-08-20T20:28:05.689-06:00v
Yes, the first quote was from an Edwards biogra...<i>v</i><br /><br />Yes, the first quote was from an Edwards biographer, not me. However there was a confluence between "Puritan Hope," all the jazz about America being a "New Israel," as well as an Enlightenment belief in human progress. [Although "the perfectibility of man" doesn't seem to be the majority view of the Founding era.]<br /><br />Indeed, that the Founding was an act of Providence and not a work of man seems to me to be a fairly undeniable consensus.<br /><br />[This is not to say the Constitution was seen as a divinely inspired document. There seems to be quite a consensus that they saw that as the work of men.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87629197544793552422010-08-20T20:23:21.693-06:002010-08-20T20:23:21.693-06:00I haven't exhaustively studied the slavery iss...I haven't exhaustively studied the slavery issue, mostly because it's used as a cudgel beat Christianity and the Bible with by people who won't be persuaded by any evidence or argument anyway.<br /><br />But I believe that website, Ben, is a bit unnuanced. Slavery as it existed in the New World is not how it existed among Jews and Christians in the Old World, and neither was it race-based with all that "sons of Noah" nonsense. <br /><br />One must separate the "innovations" of the New World from the normative understanding of the Bible. <br /><br />Neither did slavery exist in Christian Europe before the New World. Early explorers came back with slaves from Africa and elsewhere; Europe wasn't buying.<br /><br />Neither is there an intelligent answer to King's simple argument that holding slaves is not loving your neighbor as yourself. for some reason, those unsympathetic to Christianity expect Christians to be too stupid to ask themselves that simple question.<br /><br />Further, in St. paul's times, Christianity was not the regnant political theology. As William Ellery Channing argued [following Locke, I believe], for Christianity to disrupt the prevailing social order with an explicit war on slavery would have defeated Jesus' purpose, to prepare man for the Next World.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17326270818417218302010-08-20T19:11:43.784-06:002010-08-20T19:11:43.784-06:00Re: Love your neighbor as yourself? Pretty specifi...Re: <i>Love your neighbor as yourself? Pretty specific Jon. Slavery is a violation of this.</i><br /><br />Joe, what you mention is a compelling implication.<br /><br />But what of the <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm" rel="nofollow">explicit mentions of slavery</a>?<br /><br />I see no explicit condemnation of slavery, and on the whole the Bible (imo) supports it. As I'd expect, given the time period it was written in.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36247207644436064992010-08-20T19:05:18.194-06:002010-08-20T19:05:18.194-06:00Tom stated:
"Edwards understood the Micah 4:...Tom stated:<br /><br />"Edwards understood the Micah 4:4 passage ("wherein every man shall sit under ... his own fig tree") as referring to political liberty and "not understood only in a mystical and spiritual sense."<br /><br /><br />You got it right the Puritians were very concerned about the Millenial reign. Go to my post on the Tibetan Lamb and I have a link to the book:<br /><br /><br />The Puritian Hope<br /><br /><br />I would say it is required reading for anyone that wants to understand the religious aspects of the founding. <br /><br /><br />The verse in Micah ties in with many others but including the one I referenced in that same post about Lion lying down with lamb. <br /><br /><br />The biggest verse is from Habakuk about the glory of God covering the earth as waters covered the sea. A lot of people think universal just government is the root of this in that the glory of God is most accurately seen when it is reflected in santified man. <br /><br />But this can get off into a place we do not really want to go too if we are not careful. <br /><br /><br />But good point. And Edwards was a strict Calvinist on soteriological issues for sure. <br /><br />Side point but I can see the merits in using sola scriptura for sotierology and natural law for society. Or should I say merit is the idea that that was their approach.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27646347275751931602010-08-20T18:42:49.438-06:002010-08-20T18:42:49.438-06:00"What was the final score?"
Let people ..."What was the final score?"<br /><br />Let people decide for themselves. But I do think it was a good discussion and quite timely with all the nullfication and secession talk coming up again to go back to the origins of the theory. <br /><br />But the horse is dead for now I agree. I am sure it will come up again at some point and I am sure imago dei will as well. But on to something new like Locke's blank slate and if it really was a break with the past.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-602977242411703872010-08-20T18:38:15.024-06:002010-08-20T18:38:15.024-06:00"My last post closed the door on the who[le] ..."My last post closed the door on the who[le] resistance theory thing... <br /><br />Closed the door? As in case closed? Nothing more to be said? What was the final score?"<br /><br /><br />No, to 9 months of disussion that I think ran its course. At least for a while to freshen up the topics here. I guess I am agreeing with Brad I just do not understand why this is all coming up now many weeks after the last time it was brought up?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57852102735011972822010-08-20T18:30:02.366-06:002010-08-20T18:30:02.366-06:00My last post closed the door on the who[le] resist...<i>My last post closed the door on the who[le] resistance theory thing... </i><br /><br />Closed the door? As in case closed? Nothing more to be said? What was the final score?jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.com