tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post2510164411901091608..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: AU on David BartonBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17182059938424084842009-07-12T15:17:03.901-06:002009-07-12T15:17:03.901-06:00I should add that I was skeptical of Rodda's w...<i>I should add that I was skeptical of Rodda's work too and, like TVD, did enough fact checking to have a feel that she is fair and meticulous in her research and not just presenting a polemic.</i>..<br /><br />For the record, Ms. Rodda is indeed a polemicist, as she examines only one side of the issue, interested in only Barton's errors and in not the majority of things he gets right.<br /><br />That said, except for her rhetoric, which includes the word "lies" as routinely as the word "the," I have found her largely accurate.<br /><br />As for normative Islam, JRB, and its belief in the eventuality of the universal application of sharia, that's too big a digression for this blog. I took a quick look at world surveys [there are too few American ones], and I believe they support my contention. The interested reader will also google "sharia" and "UK" [or "Canada"] to see how the issue is playing out with our closest relatives as we speak.<br /><br />As for the US and the immanence of sharia, we continue to agree that it's no more likely than the Dominionists getting hold; however a google of "Islam" and "Dearborn" [Michigan], particularly the university's installation of ritual washing facilities, may be of interest.<br /><br />I'm on the fence about them meself, but I'm fond of pointing out toward our Dominionist friends that under our laws---no matter how "Christian" the Founding was---what's good for the goose is good for the gander.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8558660560964421102009-07-12T12:38:27.488-06:002009-07-12T12:38:27.488-06:00JRB,
I have a copy of the book I was talking abou...JRB,<br /><br />I have a copy of the book I was talking about which is more proscriptive of what they want to do. I will send it to you if you want. <br /><br />The books name is "Liberating the Nations". I will work on reading Rodda's book. I am not saying she is wrong in her facts. I have not read much of her writing. I am a little disturbed about the tone of the title.<br /><br />I also have some issues(see comments above) with PF but think they have some good ideas. But that is a surface understanding. This has been a good dialouge that I hope we continue.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56943856494308431862009-07-12T11:02:33.497-06:002009-07-12T11:02:33.497-06:00KoI - I will make you a deal. I will read Rodda...KoI - <i>I will make you a deal. I will read Rodda's book if you will read The Providence Foundation's book</i> - [me - I assume that we are talking about <i>America's Providential History</i>, if not let me know].<br /><br />Deal. I was leaning that direction but I'm currently at some stage of reading 3 other books. I even bought Rodda's book a while back and it keeps getting bumped to the back (although I've read a lot of it at either Talk to Action or it's own website). I should add that I was skeptical of Rodda's work too and, like TVD, did enough fact checking to have a feel that she is fair and meticulous in her research and not just presenting a polemic. <br /><br />I've been able to read some <i>America's Providential History</i> quotes on line but I think we all know what can happen there (some had ellipses which always raises a caution flag).<br /><br />And, I'm always being led to follow through on posts and comments here, often seeking out and reading original sources when available (damned curiosity).<br /><br />I guess this is to say that even though I'll take you up on the deal I'll have to spend a bit of time just clearing the decks. <br /><br />With all this reading I'm either going to have to become independently wealthy or go on the dole.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14756137938361919832009-07-12T10:48:09.576-06:002009-07-12T10:48:09.576-06:00I hit the wrong button
anyway to equate her with...I hit the wrong button<br /><br />anyway to equate her with Hitler in anyway is crazy. That is what the first comment did with its sweeping generalization. He tried to clarify and use frequency supposedly. That is impossible to tell. It was hyperbole as you stated. If she did it they would call her a liar. <br /><br />My thesis stands and will can pick this up later. I am not declaring victory but I am off to a good start thanks to Mr. Heath doing the very thing that I have been pointing out here on this thread.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37407458628999794882009-07-12T10:43:31.345-06:002009-07-12T10:43:31.345-06:00JRb,
I will make you a deal. I will read Rodda...JRb,<br /><br />I will make you a deal. I will read Rodda's book if you will read The Providence Foundation's book. <br /><br />As far as Michael Heath goes the first part of his assertion had some evidence with the VP debates. His second one about history had zero. I asked for it several times and he gave none. <br /><br />The thing that lacks total credibility is to make that kind of statement and give as your first piece of evidence that someone made a mistake with a date in History. <br /><br />That is ridiculous. He is usually really thorough though. That is why it shocked me. It also showed that the most balanced of Brayton's crowd has a blind spot on these issues. Many were hurt by the church and I think are blinded at times by bitterness. Equating Sarah Palin with monsters in HistorKing of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49185551575248190562009-07-12T09:33:52.964-06:002009-07-12T09:33:52.964-06:00If there were a plethora of well funded and well c...If there were a plethora of well funded and well connected and influential groups in America calling for Islamic governance and transformation of law and politics to achieve their end (Sharia law, etc.) then I would have the same level of concern as I do when groups like the Providence Foundation do so. <br /><br />And if their tactics included distorting and falsifying the historical record to do so, I would only hope - and assume there would be - that there would be people and groups out there that would work to preserve the record.<br /><br />I should note that advocating keeping the record in tact is not necessarily a call to suppress the message - that would be a separate issue.<br /><br />As far as skeptics not necessarily providing the truth, when skeptics work against obvious mistruths initiated and propagated for political gain - especially for political gain - they are in effect preserving truth (don't conflate the objective record with opinion about the objective record). And when I say mistruths I mean obvious distortions that can be objectively verified against the preserved record. To KoIs point, some people may pick up and use these untruths without knowing they are passing on false information, and to some degree I'm sympathetic to the argument that they are innocent bystanders, but all the more reason for people like Boston and Rodda and Brayton and Rowe. And this doesn't provide cover for the well funded groups and individuals that can afford to fact check. <br /><br />KoI - <i>Since when does a mistake and perhaps ignorance turn into being dishonest? My propaganda war and pissing contest theory stands. People assume the worst right off the bat.</i><br /><br />I think that you just threw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. There was plenty of evidence presented in addition to the one example that you objected to. The record on Palin has been compiled since she burst onto the scene as was pointed out. This is not a case of someone just expressing a knee-jerk reaction or "assume the worst right off the bat." <br /><br />I think that you were right to challenge Heath's assertion and initiate that discussion but think that your declaration of victory for your propaganda thesis is premature. I also think that you misread his initial argument (the most dishonest elected official v. worst liar of all time) and are also conflating rate with magnitude of results (Hitler v. Palin). I think there's plenty of evidence that Palin is a pathological liar and, as was pointed out, there's a pretty convincing record at Andrew Sullivan's blog as well as Brayton's and face it, the entire interwebs. <br /><br />It's the reader's/listener's burden to assess the argument and cut out the chaff from the wheat and not get bogged down and then throwing up their hands in indignation at the first instance of opinion or hyperbole declaring the argument null and void.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59674960466635270272009-07-11T16:26:17.811-06:002009-07-11T16:26:17.811-06:00I agree, trying to pull the American republican mo...I agree, trying to pull the American republican model out of the Bible is at worst sophistic and at best, still unconvincing. This plays into the skeptics' hands as well, because it's a crummy argument.<br /><br />And since the skeptic only needs to disprove an argument, that's considered a "victory." But that's not the same as truth.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55039878778378750722009-07-11T15:29:16.308-06:002009-07-11T15:29:16.308-06:00I went and read the chapter about government in a ...I went and read the chapter about government in a Christian Nation in the book "Liberating the Nations" by the PF and they were advocating individual rights, freedom of religion, decentralization of power....<br /><br />My only issue is their weak argument that all of the ideas of American government they advocate come from specific things in the Bible. He seeks to say that the Hebrew Republic had and Executive Branch pre King days? He also seems to ignore some of the stoning, the refusal to let people of other faiths in and things like that....<br /><br />It seems to want to claim all the good stuff for the Bible and eliminate all the troubling stuff. I think this is Jon's issue. He is right in this. They must explain the fulfillment of the law and admit that some good ideas exist that did not come from the Bible. Until they do the Frazer's and the Brayton's of the world will see the cake and the fact that they want to eat it too!<br /><br />But they are by no means Theocrats at all unless they are using this book to suck people in and then nail them with a hidden agenda later. I highly doubt it. This leads me to believe that Barton is not a Theocrat either that people just do not understand the topic well enough to see the major differences.<br /><br />A small, really small, group of nut balls want to impose the entirety of Mosaic law and start stoning people and anyone who think the Bible played a major role in our Founding and in good governmental principles gets lumped in as a "Liar for Jesus" nut job!?<br /><br />Go to Ed's blog today and see Micheal Heath's(usually a brilliant and balanced guy) comment under Dumb ass quote of the day where he says that history proves that Palin is the greatest liar in history and then uses his best evidence as her passing off a fake quote by Barton in a speech. <br /><br />Since when does a mistake and perhaps ignorance turn into being dishonest? My propaganda war and pissing contest theory stands. People assume the worst right off the bat.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26724125003370928492009-07-11T15:10:35.560-06:002009-07-11T15:10:35.560-06:00Exactly, King. It's like saying all Democrats...Exactly, King. It's like saying all Democrats are like Code Pink.<br /><br />JRB, if that group wants to institute [with or without force]<br /><br /><i> 1) Restitution for theft. 2) Corporal punishment and/or fines for minor offenses. 3) Death for serious offenses against life or incorrigibility. 4) City of refuge for accidental death.</i>..<br /><br />then I share your objections. But neither of us knew that at the beginning of this discussion, and we still don't know for sure.<br /><br />However, many mainstream Muslims envision that the US will one day willingly embrace sharia as the natural progress of things, likewise without force. Sharia, of course, has pretty much the same view and dynamic of law as this OT stuff.<br /><br />We of course do not call them nutjobs or single them out for ridicule or even alarm.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6210242105600346692009-07-11T14:19:49.762-06:002009-07-11T14:19:49.762-06:00JRB stated:
Just as you’re concerned that Boston ...JRB stated:<br /><br />Just as you’re concerned that Boston may be making unsubstantiated or indefensible claims and that The Providence Foundation got short shrift in the example you cited I’m concerned that you are making the same error in assuming that Boston hasn’t read their materials or that he does not “…have a good working understanding of the nuances of Biblical law and Mc Dowell's understanding of it to comment.”<br /><br />My Evidence:<br /><br />The Providence Foundation, based in Charlottesville, Va., poses as a benign group dedicated to promoting a “biblical worldview.” In fact, the organization seems to be aligned with Christian Reconstructionism, an ultra-fundamentalist theology that seeks to scrap democracy and impose a harsh Old Testament regime on modern-day America.<br /><br />In 2003, McDowell penned an article giving the “biblical” perspective on slavery. The essay was based heavily on the writings of R.J. Rushdoony, the late Christian Reconstructionist theologian who espoused some forms of slavery as well as executing people for adultery, homosexuality, witchcraft, worshipping false gods and a variety of other offenses.<br /><br />McDowell’s article, posted on WallBuilders’ site, says the American form of slavery was wrong, but notes, “In light of the Scriptures we cannot say that slavery, in a broad and general sense, is sin.”<br /><br />He makes this bold statement and his evidence is that the guy made a speech on slavery(one subject of thousands in the OT) and quoted the view of a reconstructionsist. So this is evidence that he is a reconstructionist. It is a huge leap with horrible support. <br /><br />I think it happens because of the way Religious Righters are demonized, attacked, and their motives always questioned as if they have some sinister plan they will not admit. It goes back to the whole "Liars for Jesus" thing. A whole lot of assumptions are made and then people run with it.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19382992435006234602009-07-11T14:04:01.827-06:002009-07-11T14:04:01.827-06:00Jrb,
I do not think that Jon is a propagandist at...Jrb,<br /><br />I do not think that Jon is a propagandist at all. I have commented many times that he is very objective and bring balance. I disagree with him on some of the points he makes but not on anything major.<br /><br />Ed does get into some of this at times when he mudslings. I have called him on it when I think he is doing it. But I have stated numerous times that I think Ed is honest and consistent. He goes against the grain of what he readers think when he thinks he needs to.<br /><br />I do not know Rodda nor have I read the book. I did call her out one time on Ed's site about the whole "Liars for Jesus" attitude. I have been in the same circle as the Barton's of the world and find them at time deluded but not liars. At least not intentionally. <br /><br />I have not read much of what Boston has written but the post was a stretch. I feel that if Rodda or someone else was on the opposite side they would have called it lies. It is not lies it is omissions and exxageration. If I called it lies I would be wrong. <br /><br />I am all for finding the truth but lets not ignore the fact that this whole thing is slowly becoming a pissing contest where people are so consumed slamming the opposition the pursuit of truth starts to be lost. This is a very complex issue and cannot be simplified to the degree that some want it to be.<br /><br />I stand by what I said though, if Ed and others want to make statements about who is qualified to say what then it has to go both ways. That is why I respect Jon a lot. He takes the time to go through the Bible and try to understand the nuances.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73194465979995288142009-07-11T13:52:39.390-06:002009-07-11T13:52:39.390-06:00And by you, unless specified otherwise, I am not p...And by you, unless specified otherwise, I am not pointing at anyone here - it is the royal you as in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We" rel="nofollow">royal we</a>.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18815774465122584182009-07-11T13:48:03.909-06:002009-07-11T13:48:03.909-06:00KoI –
First, I am in complete agreement that soc...KoI – <br /><br />First, I am in complete agreement that society (all societies) can use more compassion, grace, and patience. And I'm in complete agreement that religion, when used to inform the individual in virtue and morality, is not incompatible with participation in civil society. I'm also of the opinion that people can be quite capable of being just, virtuous, moral, and compassionate without participation in religion or a particular religion. I’m also aware that everyone is capable of committing grievous harm on others, regardless of faith or lack thereof.<br /><br />Just as you’re concerned that Boston may be making unsubstantiated or indefensible claims and that The Providence Foundation got short shrift in the example you cited I’m concerned that you are making the same error in assuming that Boston hasn’t read their materials or that he does not “…have a good working understanding of the nuances of Biblical law and Mc Dowell's understanding of it to comment.” In just the couple of days that I’ve poked around their site and having read excerpts of and commentary on their materials I am still of the opinion that he “may have a point.”<br /><br />Although I posted a bit of evidence that the Providence Foundation, in their own words, is likely fond of the OT law (as proscription and prescription) I make no claim as to if/how they would plan on bringing about “Biblical governance” or how the would implement the Law if the could, whether old-school OT or tempered with Jesus' message of justice with mercy. I merely allude to the historical record as to how it has been done. <br /><br />I’m also with TVD in that I’m not overly concerned, at least at the moment, but many in the Christian nation movement have stated that they have all the time in the world - it should be noted that I did not insert a rapture commentary - and that they can be patient. Although I think that I am concerned given the positions of power that they have obtained and the amount of money that they control. I'm also happy that less radical Christian elements also share in the concern.<br /><br />When Rob Boston or Chris Rodda or Jon Rowe or Ed Brayton “hound” people like Barton they are not just participating in a propaganda campaign – they are striving for honesty and integrity. Yes, I've heard the argument that there are greater Truths manifest in the lesser untruths - can't say that I'm on board with that one. If we, as a nation, should care about accurate history and not want to see it falsified and distorted then for political advantage, as some would say, they are doing the work of the angels. If you want to see, or don’t mind seeing, our historical record falsified and distorted in order to build a narrative to support a particular cause or world view then I guess they aren’t doing the angels work – probably Satan’s. To merely conflate the two sides as propagandists is a false equivalency. Unless, I guess, you feel that there are no objective facts to adhere to. in which case I guess it's wide open.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-44790800970361247692009-07-11T09:49:31.206-06:002009-07-11T09:49:31.206-06:00Tom,
Didn't Aquinas talk about the different ...Tom,<br /><br />Didn't Aquinas talk about the different kinds of law in the Bible? I remember reading that he said some of it would be dangerous to apply to civil law today. <br /><br />JRB,<br /><br />We are back to what I read from earlier in their book. Their definition of Christian Nation is not a Theocracy. They seek to apply Biblical principles and some law to society. That does not mean that they want to stone people, reistitute sacrifices, ..... I think it is a poor choice of words for sure. But if you look at the practical things they advocate most of it is reasonable even to the atheist. They are just trying to make sure that these ideas are labeled Christian thus proving that God deserves the credit for America's progress. See the previous comments by bpabbot and myself for clarity as to what I am getting at. I think Tom does a good job of explaining it in his comment. <br /><br />This next comment is general not toward anyone it is something that is beginning to trouble me about this whole secular humanist push to label America as a Secular Nation as far as the ideas that shaped it:<br /><br />One of the things that Ed Brayton stated about Barton and others like Alan Keyes two years back that really hit me and inspired me was that people who cannot teach a biology class because of their lack of education on the topic should not be seeking to control school board policy. Or for Barton, that if he does not have a degree in History he should not be going around as a pastor saying the stuff he says.<br /><br />I thought Ed was right and still think so. Some people who have never even read a biology book want to decide what goes in it and what is taught. This is wrong. But it is equally wrong to make accusations against the Christians when most who do so have not read the Bible in depth(if at all) and do not have at least some informal teaching. This goes for people like Boston who accuse Providence Foundation without even reading the books. <br /><br />Even if he read the book he would have to have a good working understanding of the nuances of Biblical law and Mc Dowell's understanding of it to comment.<br /><br />This is being written by a Christian that called up Barton's people while back and asked them to shut up. I think I had a more mild discussion with the Providence Foundation people because on the surface(I read two books and other pamphlets and still feel I have a surface understanding) I think they are more mild. I still do not like much of what any of these groups do because it always seems to veer off into electing a Republican who will put an end to abortion.<br /><br />But they do have some good ideas at times and people ignore them because it is painted with the brush: of FUNDIE TALKING POINTS. If someone who cared enough about what people like Ed and Jon say to call them up and ask them to shut up is stating that it is not all bad then I would hope people would listen. We cannot throw the baby out with the bath water.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25606014124731520782009-07-10T21:03:35.427-06:002009-07-10T21:03:35.427-06:00Tom you've raised in interesting point.
I...Tom you've raised in interesting point. <br /><br />I'm find your understanding of Mosaic Law and it fulfillment to my liking (not that the opinion of an atheist is of any consequence to theology).<br /><br />However, if Biblical law were to apply to our society would it favor mercy or sacrifice (punishment)? ... and how may such an application of sectarian law strike a balance that would be preferred over a civil/secular solution?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35155594834029442042009-07-10T20:55:32.981-06:002009-07-10T20:55:32.981-06:00TVD - look at my first comment, the one that incur...TVD - look at my first comment, the one that incurred your wrath and the one for which you accused me of being less than honest. There was no offense that warranted a defense.<br /><br />It's not so much "Biblical" that sets my teeth on edge, it's "Biblical governance" and the explicit drive to teach "Principles for Transformation of Law & Politics" so that America and the nations of the world can be "Christian nations" (this mission is stated on their site - no guesswork involved).<br /><br />There's an article - <i>Qualifications for Godly Officials</i> - available at the Providence Foundation website that gives a hint as to how they view applying the Biblical worldview of civil law (which, perusing the site it becomes obvious that the reference is to the Mosaic law):<br /><br /><i>It is also important for Godly leaders</i> [JRB - those without a sufficient fear of God not being qualified: again from their website] <i>to have knowledge of specific application of civil law. They should understand God’s civil laws and how they apply. For example, understanding and applying the appropriate penalties God sets forth in the Bible for violating criminal law would alleviate many of our criminal problems today. In brief, penalties for violating the civil law were: 1) Restitution for theft. 2) Corporal punishment and/or fines for minor offenses. 3) Death for serious offenses against life or incorrigibility. 4) City of refuge for accidental death.</i> <br /><br />Sounds fairly OT to me. As far as death for incorrigibility I refer you to the inquisitions and to the Puritan experiment in theocracy, Biblical governance. Unbelievers, heretics* and infidels beware. <br /><br />*Christians that choose the wrong version of doctrine (ouch).<br /><br />Am I saying this will happen? Given a survey of history....... breaking out the magic eight ball.... quit possibly if they are successful in getting enough "Godly leaders" into civil government to transform law & politics to conform with their idea of Biblical governance. <br /><br />These appear to be people that are only incidentally concerned with individual salvation through faith in Jesus Christ or the achievement of individual virtue and morality. These people appear to want to establish God's Kingdom on earth. You know, dominion of civil society. Maybe not all at once but they'll keep on chugging.<br /><br />This should be enough to make even George Washington's teeth on edge.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77577851542655895092009-07-10T20:40:38.116-06:002009-07-10T20:40:38.116-06:00King, I'm still catching up on my study of Pro...King, I'm still catching up on my study of Protestantism, but what I think you're trying to articulate is what's called "dispensationalism," that Jesus' Law of Love per John 9 doesn't stone the adulteress, but spares her, saying to her fellow sinners, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."<br /><br />The Law of Love and of mercy takes the place of mere "justice."<br /><br />It fulfills the Mosaic Law, although it doesn't replace it. What she did was still wrong. It's what you said about the difference between "proscriptive" [what is wrong] and "prescriptive" [what should be done about it].<br /><br />The modern Christian, even most of the cementhead ones, know the difference between Mosaic Law and Jesus' "fulfillment" of it. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37090441438208777222009-07-10T20:17:05.969-06:002009-07-10T20:17:05.969-06:00King, I share your view of Jesus and the law he so...King, I share your view of Jesus and the law he sought to fulfill. I wish all who follow the religion inspired by Jesus' living testament would come to share a passion for a perspective congruent with my understanding of Jesus' morality.<br /><br />However, I am doubtful that many, if any, Christian Nationalists do. Their words are so full of divisive and exclusive language I can't understand how they are able to reconcile their position with the example of Jesus :-(bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1978448876950931702009-07-10T20:01:55.237-06:002009-07-10T20:01:55.237-06:00Bpabbot,
I am not advocating the law in general s...Bpabbot,<br /><br />I am not advocating the law in general sense. As a Christian I believe that Christ came to fulfill the law. With that said, there are certain parts of the Old Testament Law I think are sound for civil government and others that I think were part of the law that was fullfilled. I look to where Jesus asked he who had no sin to throw the first stone type thing. <br /><br />I hope this make sense but it is hard to explain in a comments section. I have been invited to contribute on this blog maybe I will do a post on what I am trying to say. Aquinas talked about the different types and uses of Old Testament law a lot. Maybe Tom can chime in here since he knows Aquinas' writings a lot better than I do?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-23034995207950018672009-07-10T16:49:13.199-06:002009-07-10T16:49:13.199-06:00I'm reading you as carefully as I can, JRB, bu...I'm reading you as carefully as I can, JRB, but can't find the specifics you object to. Basically, the word "Biblical" seems to set your teeth on edge, but since you don't seem to know what the Providence Foundation actually means by that, we're not talking about anything specific you object to.<br /><br />I defend these people only in the abstract against careless and routine slanders; perhaps they have some specifics I'd object to meself. But absent any evidence...<br /><br />"Biblical worldview" is something Jurgen Habermas argues for as a [the?] foundation for Western civilization, and he's not even Jewish or Christian. I content myself with arguing from his POV, a far more neutral one with no skin in the game.<br /><br />Although the Providence Foundation offers a fellow named Vishal Mangalwadi, who argues that India's progress into democracy and what Habermas calls "universal egalitarianism" is a result of not the Enlightenment or secular humanism, but of the Biblical worldview brought to India by the British colonization. That would not be out of line with Habermas.<br /><br />That's far more interesting, since India doesn't have 2000 of Christianization to sort through to see what's what. Call it a controlled experiment, with the results quite relevant to religion and the American Founding.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20569085876799553832009-07-10T14:21:43.065-06:002009-07-10T14:21:43.065-06:00King, I'm in complete agreement that society c...King, I'm in complete agreement that society could use more compassion, grace, and patience.<br /><br />I don't see how subjecting society to Biblical law would be constructive toward those ends.<br /><br />In fact, I think it evident that our Founders recognized that it would be destructive toward those ends.<br /><br />If I sound like I'm arguing against you, it is not intended. In fact, I'd guess you have a similar sentiment.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86525678163050734852009-07-10T13:40:25.786-06:002009-07-10T13:40:25.786-06:00Bpabbot,
I am not totally sure what they mean by ...Bpabbot,<br /><br />I am not totally sure what they mean by using Biblical law. I am not saying I even agree with them. I am more a Biblical principles guy. Principles are found in lots of different arenas and need not conflict. I know some say 'principles' and all they really want to do is just tell young mothers they are murderers and gays that God hates them.<br /><br />I am sincere though. I start with the character go God expressed in Exodus 34:5-7 and go from there. As I stated before who could opposed infusing society with compassion, grace, patience...... and justice? Tough and complicated subject that most try to oversimplify. Then they turn it into a mudslinging contest.<br /><br />I respect your questions by the way and I do think you are pursuing honest inquiry.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30503687365151641842009-07-10T08:48:09.317-06:002009-07-10T08:48:09.317-06:00I see that I didn't provide a link to The Prov...I see that I didn't provide a link to <a href="http://www.providencefoundation.com/" rel="nofollow">The Providence Foundation</a> website.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-47619155657120400792009-07-10T08:40:01.394-06:002009-07-10T08:40:01.394-06:00...for some specifics on their nefarious plan of b...<i>...for some specifics on their nefarious plan of bringing the US under Mosaic Law.</i><br /><br />Oy. I'm not quit sure why you keep taking what I wrote out of context and keep making up things that I said other than to provoke an argument that I wasn't trying to have. I DID NOT CALL THEIR PLAN NEFARIOUS (h/t to Garrett Morris, President of the New York School for the Hard of Hearing). I was just providing information based on an earlier comment. Really. That was it. I was in a peaceful, can't we all just get along and love one another frame of mind when I wrote it. OK, I was numb from writing to 1:30 in the morning (work, it just never stops), but still, I was not trying to be provocative. Oy.<br /><br />I just summarized their words from their web page. Something along the lines of world domination under Biblical Law. They plan to do this through education and training. OK OK, the world domination language was a little snarky, but not inaccurate. I apologize ahead of time for creating such a hostile and threatening atmosphere.<br /><br />As to the specifics, such as what part(s) of Old Testament Law they would seek to impose and how they would implement the Law, you'll have to ask them. Maybe they aren't even thinking OTL - but you have to admit that most people think OT when discussing Biblical law. <br /><br />Maybe there's some other kind of Biblical law that they have in mind. Maybe they're not even thinking Biblical law, although when they talk Biblical governance and transformation of law and Biblical world view it's not really and unfair inference to assume that they mean some kind of Biblical law. You'll have to go to their web site and see if they explain their understanding of what constitutes Biblical governance and how they plan to transform the law to accommodate that.<br /><br />As to nefarious, that is in the eyes of the beholder. Is Biblical governance contrary to the American founding spirit? Well I have to say yeah - specifics can be found in the constitution. I would also venture that it is extra Biblical (perhaps in a nefarious way), but that opens a new can of worms that others are better qualified to argue.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17863125928543008722009-07-10T06:38:13.594-06:002009-07-10T06:38:13.594-06:00King,
It is not my intent to "equate", ...King,<br /><br />It is not my intent to "equate", but to inquire.<br /><br />In any event, I'm now confused. Are all the biblical laws which would be brought to bear on society actually civil/secular laws with ties to a the bible?<br /><br />Are none of these laws explicitly religious?<br /><br />If so, except for the superficial (and I think vain) elevation of Christians over non-Christians, what is the point?<br /><br />Regard "control freaks", it is my impression that they aspire to positions of control ... and that all governments are full of them.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.com