tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post6231204563438058945..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: John Adams: UnitarianBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11036621021461584412021-06-13T02:50:25.916-06:002021-06-13T02:50:25.916-06:00Investment Company in Dubai
Financial Companies in...<a href="http://sc.districtcouncils.gov.hk/TuniS/endemajfunds.com" rel="nofollow">Investment Company in Dubai</a><br /><a href="http://sc.devb.gov.hk/TuniS/endemajfunds.com" rel="nofollow">Financial Companies in Dubai</a><br /><a href="http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/help/urlstatusgo.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fendemajfunds.com%2F" rel="nofollow">Financial Company in Dubai</a><br />Awais.Endemajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01344412154824257462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50816130808374091182021-01-31T01:18:44.698-07:002021-01-31T01:18:44.698-07:00Best SEO Company in Dubai
Best SEO Company in Duba...<a href="https://advisor.wmtransfer.com/SiteDetails.aspx?url=nockcode.com" rel="nofollow">Best SEO Company in Dubai</a><br /><a href="https://affiliates.bookdepository.com/scripts/click.php?a_aid=Alexa1202&a_bid=9abb5269&desturl=https%3A%2F%2Fnockcode.com" rel="nofollow">Best SEO Company in Dubai</a><br /><a href="https://affiliates.bookdepository.com/scripts/click.php?a_aid=Alexa1202&a_bid=9abb5269&desturl=https%3A%2F%2Fnockcode.com%2F" rel="nofollow">Best SEO Company in Dubai</a><br /><a href="https://affiliates.bookdepository.com/scripts/click.php?a_aid=Alexa1202&a_bid=9abb5269&desturl=https%3A%2F%2Fnockcode.com%2F" rel="nofollow">Best SEO Company in Dubai</a><br /><a href="https://bukkit.org/proxy.php?link=https%3A%2F%2Fnockcode.com" rel="nofollow">Best SEO Company in Dubai</a><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow">undefined</a><br />Nock Codehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11269466749381592587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32779825594422269222020-12-21T07:11:59.807-07:002020-12-21T07:11:59.807-07:00BitSourceIT<a href="seoceros.com/en/mysticalcarlblog.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">BitSourceIT</a><br />Nock Codehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11269466749381592587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67897756430300735722012-06-07T03:16:48.101-06:002012-06-07T03:16:48.101-06:00So good post
and I hope to visit my Blog Article...So good post <br />and I hope to visit my Blog <a href="http://www.articles2day.org/" rel="nofollow"> Articles2day.Org </a> and see <a href="http://www.articles2day.org/2012/05/principles-of-merchandising.html" rel="nofollow"> Merchandising </a><br />thanks again AdminAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29477324836267052142009-02-24T21:05:00.000-07:002009-02-24T21:05:00.000-07:00Adams and Jefferson and almost every other America...Adams and Jefferson and almost every other American during that time was following in the footsteps of John Locke and Dr. David Hartley...both empiricists with rationalistic tendencies when it came to ethics. What then was their "religion"? Locke's bestfriend summed it up (Shaftesbury I) when he stated, "All wise men belong to the same religion." When asked what religion that was, he replied, "Wise men don't tell." Sure deism was heavily influenced by Locke, but so was Freemasonry and atheism. Jefferson in one letter to Adams even encouraged him to read the Kabbalah to understand the Bible and the word of Jesus. Btw..JEfferson also argued the translation of "Word" in the Bible should have been translated as "Reason". For Jefferson "God was Reason" and God created the world with his "Reason", therefore the world and God had to be rationalist. This isn't your "Jewish" God(s) in the Bible and isn't Christian either. Any scholar will tell you the Bible has been tampered with over the years and you shouldn't use it to make your judgements. (For one example, in the old testament three words are translated from Hebrew into English as "Lord", these three different words were names of three different gods. The Jews were not monistic as Christians would like to believe.) Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin all perceived themselves as "philosophers"...Jefferson being the president of the American philosophy society jointly with being president of the U.S. So which "Christian" religion are you trying to peg Adams too? Calvanism or Puritan? He rejected orignial sin, so wasn't a Calvanist, but was raised a Puritan. Maybe someone should take the time to read some real philosophical papers instead of mass media garbage. Try Young John Adams and the New Philosophic Rationalism. Btw...Rationalism was a word being used in the 18th century. Anyone familar with the works of Christian Wolff would know in his works he tries to blend empiricism and rationalism together (this in the 1740's). If anyone wants to understand "empiricism" and "rationalsim"...imagine reducing everything you know back to what is "actuaL". Words are just symbols for what our senses detect and we are all born "blank". The moment we become "aware" of our bodies, our brains start building up memories of these senses. So every word can be traced back to a sense. These are the only "real" things. Words or in other words, imaginary thoughts are not. The Bible is only real for those who actually experienced it...for everyone else it is imaginary. Now you can take something out of the Bible and relate it to something you have actually experienced, then it becomes valuable. Unless I have witnessed a miracle, it being described is worthless as just words. Rationalism is very close to this as well, except they take account for the "powers" used to detect and use the senses. You could think of them like animal instincts. For example, as Locke explains the only evil is "pain". Every association we have of evil, there is pain involved. If not, it wouldn't be evil. Thus in our minds we associate painful things with words such as evil or bad. As all things are created to prefer pleasure over pain, then you could say we are created to desire good over evil, but the reality is we desire pleasant sensations over painful ones. Now if God created us to do the opposite, then God wouldn't be rational or psycho. If someone was inflicting pain on themselves, say by cutting their wrists, we lock them up. Besides why would God create us this way (to shun pain) and then want us to inflict pain or seek pain inorder to serve him? This is irrational and goes against everything else in his creation. Now for those hedonists out there..to much pleasure always results in pain in the end, so pleasure can be evil too. You have to seek the "higher" pleasures---being virteous according to Jefferson and Cicero. For more on this see Tully's "Tusculan Discourses"...a book Adams quotes from on a regular basis, much more than from the Bible. Hope this helps....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-68286427440170238572009-02-10T17:42:00.000-07:002009-02-10T17:42:00.000-07:00Pink and OFT, I'm not saying a person must agree w...Pink and OFT, I'm not saying a person must agree with me in order to be a Christian. I am not the standard of who is or who is not a Christian.<BR/><BR/>But truth is not relative, and definitions should come into play here. The term "Christian" may mean different things to different people today, but the term meant something fairly specific at the time of its ORIGIN.<BR/><BR/>I'm not applying "21st century puritanism" here. A person can call himself a "Martian" for all I care. And a person can worship in whatever church or mosquoe or synagogue or whatever he/she wishes -- or NOT worship. That's up to them. Not up to me. <BR/><BR/>But is it not valid for me to point out the historical meaning of the term "Christian"?????Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35908557875274711182009-02-10T12:11:00.000-07:002009-02-10T12:11:00.000-07:00.There is nothing like the sanctimonious..But, tha....<BR/><I>There is nothing like the sanctimonious.</I><BR/>.<BR/>But, that's beside the point, isn't it?<BR/>.<BR/>For the point is, that we are being exposed to a Christian Nationalist in OFT and, further, his actions prove why the Founding Fathers decided to ensure that we not be saddled with a legally Christian nation. Laws would define the identity of Christians as you see OFT's attempt to define what they are in his posts. Maybe OFT should take the Fifth?<BR/>.<BR/>I heard someone speaking on this subject today on the radio. Sorry, I didn't get the name so I cannot give a reference. But, his point was that once religion is in control of the political process, the opposition to any choices has to blame the religion and, that would hurt religion. <BR/>.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26684970257916878002009-02-09T19:14:00.000-07:002009-02-09T19:14:00.000-07:00.Here, we see an example of judgmental puritanism ....<BR/>Here, we see an example of judgmental puritanism as it exists in the twenty-first century.<BR/>.<BR/>Once you get Brian's answer to your point about what it takes to be a "Christian", OFT, will you then figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?<BR/>.<BR/>There is nothing like the sanctimonious.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64394729266466583122009-02-09T18:55:00.000-07:002009-02-09T18:55:00.000-07:00Brian:I have to agree with Jon Rowe on the point o...Brian:<I>I have to agree with Jon Rowe on the point of evaluating the "Christian" identity of some of the leading Founders. If one denies the deity of Jesus or the resurrection of Jesus, he/she is NOT a Christian - in any meaningful, historical sense of the term</I>.<BR/><BR/>Then, you agree that no one is a Christian until you speak with them, and someone writes down their beliefs adhering (sp) to inerrancy?Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74484987330197776812009-02-09T14:06:00.000-07:002009-02-09T14:06:00.000-07:00I have to agree with Jon Rowe on the point of eval...I have to agree with Jon Rowe on the point of evaluating the "Christian" identity of some of the leading Founders. If one denies the deity of Jesus or the resurrection of Jesus, he/she is NOT a Christian - in any meaningful, historical sense of the term. <BR/><BR/>And, when you look at the leading Founders, you have to acknowledge that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and certainly Thomas Paine all denied or expressed serious reservations with the concept of Jesus' deity and bodily resurrection. <BR/><BR/>Where I disagree with Jon is that I'm not prepared to throw George Washington into that category. <BR/><BR/>And I also believe that, based on the criteria for "Christian" as given above, MOST of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution WOULD fit the criteria. It's only some of the leading ones that would not.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14485991027287611562009-02-08T09:14:00.000-07:002009-02-08T09:14:00.000-07:00OFT/Ray: "Who is Ray? Cyberspace got crossed up."Y...OFT/Ray: "Who is Ray? Cyberspace got crossed up."<BR/><BR/>You're not fooling anyone.<BR/><BR/>bpa: "OFT, do you imply that we should accept all who claim to be Christians as "born again" until there is more information to indicate otherwise?"<BR/><BR/>OFT/Ray replies: "Of course! If you tell me you're a plumber, am I supposed to say, "no you're not, BP!" Now, if we talk about it, and we go over what a plumber is, and you say "by plumber I mean working with pipes on an organ." I can say most likely you're not a plumber, right?"<BR/><BR/>This isn't fooling anyone either. The founders never made a claim as to the specifics of what they qualified as a "Christian". They certainly never mentioned "born again" ... that is <B><I>your</I></B> definition.<BR/><BR/>The nominal/default meaning of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian" REL="nofollow">Christian</A> does not include "born again". <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again_(Christianity)" REL="nofollow">Born again</A> has a defintion of its own.<BR/><BR/>OFT/Ray: "You guys can pre-judge people all you want, it's only going to hurt yourself."<BR/><BR/>It is your claim/judgement that when the founders used the term "Christian" they intended "born again" that is met with skepticism. To question such is not congruent with judging the founders. It <I>is</I> congruent with questioning your unsubtantiated claims.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5057247736409423792009-02-07T17:08:00.000-07:002009-02-07T17:08:00.000-07:00OFT,I just said I don't judge anyone who calls...OFT,<BR/><BR/>I just said I don't judge anyone who calls himself a Christian. If someone is a devout Mormon, a homosexual abortion doctor, a Protestant fundamentalist like you or a cafeteria Roman Catholic and they want to call themselves "Christian," for my own personal purposes they are "Christians." I don't think you can get LESS judgmental than that. Rather I'm taking the strict historical standard that Brian offers -- and indeed for historical purposes it IS defensible -- and seeing how folks match up. Given that so many people who clearly FLUNK that standard nonetheless THINK of themselves and present themselves as "Christians" I make the reasonable presumption that merely presenting oneself as a Christian does little or nothing to indicate they are an orthodox Trinitarian Christian who believes the Bible the infallible Word of God.<BR/><BR/>What YOU want to do is use the phenomenon of broad, nominal identifactory Christianity to attempt to claim as many of the Founders as you can because of your FAITH in America as a Christian Nation with little evidence to back it up.<BR/><BR/>You ignore the fact that lots of the FFs thought of themselves as "Christians" while rejecting many if not all of the tenets of orthodoxy that is supposed to define what it means to be a "mere Christian" to folks like you. The fact the 2nd & 3rd Presidents of the US clearly fit this bill and the 1st & 4th offer no smoking guns of "orthodoxy" (thus very well may have been "unitarians" like Jefferson and J. Adams) speaks volumes to this dynamic.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84859238874874663632009-02-07T15:45:00.000-07:002009-02-07T15:45:00.000-07:00OFT, do you imply that we should accept all who cl...OFT, do you imply that we should accept all who claim to be Christians as "born again" until there is more information to indicate otherwise?><BR/><BR/>Of course! If you tell me you're a plumber, am I supposed to say, "no you're not, BP!" Now, if we talk about it, and we go over what a plumber is, and you say "by plumber I mean working with pipes on an organ." I can say most likely you're not a plumber, right?<BR/><BR/>You guys can pre-judge people all you want, it's only going to hurt yourselves. <BR/><BR/>That Raven isn't banned says a lot about whose running this show!Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45157789370214409562009-02-07T13:30:00.000-07:002009-02-07T13:30:00.000-07:00Brian says:I'll say this for OFT. He knows how to ...Brian says:<BR/><BR/><EM>I'll say this for OFT. He knows how to stimulate a good discussion! :-)</EM><BR/><BR/>I wish he would stimulate somewhere else...OFT is worthless. How about he goes and stimulates himself. I'm sure that thinking about the founders makes him get "stimulated."Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05504032868942862532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22423363210343815612009-02-07T13:25:00.000-07:002009-02-07T13:25:00.000-07:00Brian, "unitarian Christian" might trouble you, bu...Brian, "unitarian Christian" might trouble you, but Christian Unitarian is properly descriptive, giving Jesus and the Bible some special role in the cosmic scheme of things without making Jesus into God.<BR/><BR/>Such folks, and not a few of them, existed.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7355557102068683562009-02-07T13:06:00.000-07:002009-02-07T13:06:00.000-07:00Brian:Have enjoyed skimming this debate. Over 100 ...Brian:<I>Have enjoyed skimming this debate. Over 100 posts. Wow</I>.<BR/><BR/>Hey Brian, thanks for the props, I was hopeing (sp) for 100 posts. Thanks to Jon, Tom, BP, and everyone else for the participation! Let's try to get some more people involved, and hit 200 posts!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72017337902416802392009-02-07T12:18:00.000-07:002009-02-07T12:18:00.000-07:00Have enjoyed skimming this debate. Over 100 posts....Have enjoyed skimming this debate. Over 100 posts. Wow.<BR/><BR/>I'll say this for OFT. He knows how to stimulate a good discussion! :-)<BR/><BR/>One of Adams' quotes jumped out at me. I think Jon posted it. It's where Adams seems to associate himself with "liberal unitarian Christians."<BR/><BR/>I don't mean to offend anyone. I really don't, but I can't help but observe that this strikes me as a conflict in terms. <BR/><BR/>It's like one fellow I spoke with a while back, who described himself as a "libertarian socialist." Come again???<BR/><BR/>Now, again, I'm not trying to insult or judge anyone. Please don't take it that way, but I think it's legit to point out some contradictions in terminology and logic. <BR/><BR/>Classically, a "Christian" is one who embraced the Deity of Jesus Christ and declared himself or herself to be a follower of Jesus. That's not based on Pastor Brian's closed-minded judgmentalism (I'm anticipating such an accusation from Pinky - he and I have been down this road before). Rather, it's based on the ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING of the term "Christian." <BR/><BR/>A "Unitarian" is one who rejects the Deity of Jesus, though some unitarians are open to Jesus being some type of divinely-ordained figure in history. <BR/><BR/>So, to call oneself a "Unitarian Christian" (and esp when you throw the adjective "liberal" in there) really strikes me as a contradiction.<BR/><BR/>What's the relevance of all this? <BR/><BR/>I think John Adams wrestled with these contradictions for many years. In Washington's case, you've got someone who I think settled into a certain belief system and stuck with it. Whereas Adams openly wrestled with his ideas, even changing and flexing some of them over time. <BR/><BR/>Where did Adams ultimatley end up?<BR/><BR/>Only God knows. But it's fun to speculate.Brian Tubbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15412421076480479001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80432795590212816662009-02-07T12:02:00.000-07:002009-02-07T12:02:00.000-07:00He should try to sell this to the members of the f...He should try to sell this to the members of the fundamentalist Church to which he belongs and see their reaction.><BR/><BR/>Whatever Jon, you can judge however you want. You're the one whose going to get hurt. If you want to find out if someone is truly a child of God, ask them. If you want to judge people off the cuff, go for it. See what heat you bring on yourself.<BR/><BR/>The people at my church, most likely every Orthodox Christian Church, and myself, do not judge people before discerning the facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81730831131653252442009-02-06T21:29:00.000-07:002009-02-06T21:29:00.000-07:00"It is ironic, then, that evangelicals—so focused ...<I>"It is ironic, then, that evangelicals—so focused on the 'true' history—have neglected their own. Indeed, the one group that would almost certainly oppose the views of 21st-century evangelicals are the 18th-century evangelicals. [...] In state after state, when colonists and Americans met to debate the relationship between God and government, it was the proto-evangelicals who pushed the more radical view that church and state should be kept far apart. Both secular liberals who sneer at the idea that evangelicals could ever be a positive influence in politics and Christian conservatives who want to knock down the 'wall' should take note: It was the 18th-century evangelicals who provided the political shock troops for Jefferson and Madison in their efforts to keep government from strong involvement with religion."<BR/><BR/>Apr. 2006 - Steven Waldman </I>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57693423591515564542009-02-06T19:14:00.000-07:002009-02-06T19:14:00.000-07:00OFT, do you imply that we should accept all who cl...<I>OFT, do you imply that we should accept all who claim to be Christians as "born again" until there is more information to indicate otherwise?</I><BR/><BR/>He should try to sell this to the members of the fundamentalist Church to which he belongs and see their reaction.<BR/><BR/>It would be exhibit A in how the "Christian Nation" thesis corrupts the purity of the orthodox Christian (esp. of the evangelical bent) religion. Dr. Frazer understands this. OFT does not.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11214050796491879312009-02-06T18:44:00.000-07:002009-02-06T18:44:00.000-07:00Jon: "When someone tells me they are a "Christian"...Jon: "When someone tells me they are a "Christian" <I><B>I don't judge them</B></I>. All it means to me is they identify as a "Christian," period. For all I know they could be an open and practicing homosexual abortion doctor, a proud and unapologetic porn star, a Protestant fundamentalist like you, a doctrinaire Roman Catholic, a Mormon, or believe exactly as Thomas Jefferson did (who likewise called himself a Christian). We need more than a person simply identifying as a "Christian" to conclude ANYTHING beyond this."<BR/>[the empasis of Jon's words is mine]<BR/><BR/>OFT responds: "<B><I>No</I></B>, if we do need more information, wait until you get it! Don't assume anything! It isn't right or fair! It's not right to judge someone like that."<BR/>[the empasis of OFT's words is mine]<BR/><BR/>No? ... really? ... your response is "No"?<BR/><BR/>What is it you are disagreeing with here?<BR/><BR/>OFT, do you imply that we should accept all who claim to be Christians as "born again" until there is <I>more information</I> to indicate otherwise?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69167631640433305112009-02-06T18:01:00.000-07:002009-02-06T18:01:00.000-07:00We need more than a person simply identifying as a...We need more than a person simply identifying as a "Christian" to conclude ANYTHING beyond this.><BR/><BR/>No, if we do need more information, wait until you get it! Don't assume anything! It isn't right or fair! It's not right to judge someone like that.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66381491806153353972009-02-06T17:48:00.000-07:002009-02-06T17:48:00.000-07:00JimmiRayBob,I wanted to thank you for the informat...JimmiRayBob,<BR/><BR/>I wanted to thank you for the information regarding Newton. I had not known of his position on <I>mystical doctrines</I>.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50060479310842318892009-02-06T17:45:00.000-07:002009-02-06T17:45:00.000-07:00OFT: "I don't know why you mentioned that but, wha...OFT: "I don't know why you mentioned that but, what other book foretells the future perfectly?"<BR/><BR/>With a statement like that you're taking quite a chance.<BR/><BR/>Do you claim to be able to reliably decipher Biblical prophecy?<BR/><BR/>... or is this, claim of yours, a statement of faith? Meaing you believe it, but posses no factual knowledge substantiating it?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73328853017282068152009-02-06T16:45:00.000-07:002009-02-06T16:45:00.000-07:00"Did the majority take communion?"We have NO EVIDE..."Did the majority take communion?"<BR/><BR/>We have NO EVIDENCE that the majority of FFs took communion. Studies have shown that as few as 17% (or even lower) were even members of Churches. And Hamilton never joined a church and didn't take communion till his DEATH bed.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.com