tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post9121831729628702661..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Why The Trinity?Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11325472600187817892009-12-21T13:06:13.739-07:002009-12-21T13:06:13.739-07:00And wouldn't one think that ethics had been &q...And wouldn't one think that ethics had been "undone", as it concerns life and liberty if Christ's life was implemented as "THE" universal life into an individual's reality? <br /><br />Understanding one's life within the "Hebrew" context would be forcing the virtuous life of Christ, which I imagine would be "good" for Christian purposes...using the model to form the life of doing something in the world without consent or volition.<br /><br />But, it would be a tragic loss of liberty and life of the individual. This is oppressive, it seems to me. And "behaving" as Christ brought much disentigration to my personality and sense of self. This view of spirituality need to die for the sake of human beings....as it is NOT the Imageo DeiAngie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42091781326466046012009-12-21T12:52:25.022-07:002009-12-21T12:52:25.022-07:00WHY are we going back to theological reflection? A...WHY are we going back to theological reflection? As there is no "special revelation", then there should not be an attempt to speculate. The Founders may have used natural law, but that was then, we have much more complex issues confronting the nation and these regard national security, which conflict with human rights in regards to other nationalities. We cannot ignore the dangers to our society when those that deem their view of "God" is absolute. The discussion should remain on prgamatic soil, otherwise, we will continue to disagree and not come to any consensus. <br /><br />The background of Christianity was formed within a tribalistic mentality such as Islam. I don't want to go there, and yes, I am prejuidiced. Religion prejuidices one, as well....<br /><br />Moral philosophy is what the Founders talked about not theology. They "used" God for their own ends of forming society under a moral order. I want to understand that frame of the philosophical/ethical. <br /><br />The Church used philosophy to formulate their theology, which used "logos" (incarnation) and "nomos" to form their 'understanding of Christ's life and his mission. There will always be various understandings of how that is understood.<br /><br />But, I am no Christ, nor should anyone else presume upon anotehr to be on a "divine mission". The ones who believe this are deluded, as there is no "divine mission".Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-22578241272740991292009-12-21T11:07:01.129-07:002009-12-21T11:07:01.129-07:00Ben stated:
"However, some care should be ta...Ben stated:<br /><br />"However, some care should be taken not to imply that the incorporations were originally Christian.<br /><br />A liberal qualification of what is Christian;<br /><br />(1) Sounds disingenuous for the sake of patronizing Christianity.<br />(2) Dilutes the value of what it means to be Christian.<br />(3) May infer to the reader, a promotion of Christian theology, via this blog.<br /><br />For those reasons, I favor at least two qualifications. First, what is originally Christian (orthodox?). And, second, what has been incorporated into Christendom."<br /><br />That is the Socratic Dialogue centered around the two general questions I have been asking should help us discuss. We will all agree? Probably not, but it will frame the discussion properly thus allowing for more people to chime in and sharpen the debate. <br /><br />I am not sure if anyone that spouts off on these issues has looked enough at the primary documents to really say anything. That includes the PHD's. I read what they say and then go and check the documents for myself and see that most of them are biased. I think it comes from the pressure to publish something. It does not matter if it is crap just get it out there and the more controversial the better.<br /><br />I talked all night with a guy that had been a visiting professor at Oxford one night over wine and he told me what he had to go through to get his PHD was far more rigorous than these guys now. He said that they had to publish their thesis in all the cities newspapers or something like that and anyone could come and ask a question.<br /><br />Well the brightest of them all got tripped up with a question from some lay person and no one could believe it. The best of them all had to go back and do three more years to change his thesis. The professor who told me this added that it was the best thing to happen to the person and for all of them because the were more diligent not to get sloppy.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55056055939027072662009-12-21T08:41:47.391-07:002009-12-21T08:41:47.391-07:00Joe/King,
I agree Christianity should incorporate...Joe/King,<br /><br />I agree Christianity should incorporate all good things within the Christian world ... Actually, I think Christianity should incorporate those from outsize as well :-)<br /><br />However, some care should be taken not to imply that the <i>incorporations</i> were originally Christian.<br /><br />A liberal qualification of <i>what is Christian</i>;<br /><br />(1) Sounds disingenuous for the sake of patronizing Christianity.<br />(2) Dilutes the value of what it means to be <i>Christian</i>.<br />(3) May infer to the reader, a promotion of Christian theology, via this blog.<br /><br />For those reasons, I favor at least two qualifications. First, what is <i>originally</i> Christian (orthodox?). And, second, what has been <i>incorporated</i> into Christendom.<br /><br />My concerns are in the context of what <i>we</i> qualify as <i>Christian</i>.<br /><br />What I think more interesting, and more pertinent, is an examination of what the founders qualified as <i>Christian</i>. Further, I'd like to understand the basis/motive for their qualification, as well as how those things influenced the founders and the founding.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34700014693608439872009-12-21T07:53:20.894-07:002009-12-21T07:53:20.894-07:00Ben,
I think it is the admirable and the un-admir...Ben,<br /><br />I think it is the admirable and the un-admirable as well. Divine Right of Kings was a Christian idea too. Yes, I do think the Christian faith should incorporate all ideas that are compatible with the faith. I think many people would say that I just think my list is a lot longer because I look at Romans 1 and 2 and believe that there is a natural law the is discoverable apart from the Bible.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41911253701332955682009-12-21T05:58:12.866-07:002009-12-21T05:58:12.866-07:00Tom,
Perhaps there would have been less fire and ...Tom,<br /><br />Perhaps there would have been less <i>fire and ice</i> had I bothered to familiarize myself with the perspectives of a Thomist?<br /><br />Better late than never ;-)<br /><br />It appears to be expected that discussions between a Thomist and Atheist would be frustrating to say the least.<br /><br />From Wikipedia's article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism" rel="nofollow">Thomism</a>; <i>Church cannot be understood scientifically without the basic philosophical underpinnings of Aquinas' major thesis:<br /><br />"The capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church."</i><br /><br />Which I take to mean that if an individual does not accept particular assertions of the <i>Church</i> that the <i>Church's teachings</i> cannot be properly understood.<br /><br />In any event, those of us who have stuck it out have developed a manner of discussion that avoids the promotion of personal theological postions or world-views. It is a valuable habit ... one that was practiced by the founders, I think! :-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56795783887145999942009-12-21T05:50:40.213-07:002009-12-21T05:50:40.213-07:00Joe,
It appears to me that what you refer to as C...Joe,<br /><br />It appears to me that what you refer to as <i>Christian</i> refers to all that all admirable principles, embraced by at some point by the Christian world, which are consistent with the faith … or is it broader than that? Are all admirable principles, embraced by at some point by the Christian world, which are <i>not</i> incompatible with the faith, to be included?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24348008539365507032009-12-20T20:39:57.212-07:002009-12-20T20:39:57.212-07:00Just read The Farmer Refuted, Angie, and take Hami...Just read The Farmer Refuted, Angie, and take Hamilton's advice on what you need to do for homework. Surely you know I linked it caring for you, little dove.<br /><br /><i>Christians I have known have loved to present themselves as authorities in these areas, because of their need to be in "control" and "righteous" in regards to their public image.</i><br /><br />I have no doubt this is true. The only problem with Christianity is "Christians." The Founders agreed. Get past it. They did.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57267002126984206762009-12-20T20:37:02.844-07:002009-12-20T20:37:02.844-07:00Because I DO NOT want to be indoctrinated, I am pr...Because I DO NOT want to be indoctrinated, I am protective of "accepting" what anyone says at face value, like I used to do.<br /><br />It would be helpful for me if you all would compare and contrast your particular view, as you have in the past, with another view.<br /><br />As all truth is God's truth, I don't see special revelation standing. And the Harvard narrative is one way to view reality. There is no particular "God view". There are only political and philosophical views.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51245535406227615192009-12-20T20:32:03.694-07:002009-12-20T20:32:03.694-07:00I think one of the best things that ever happened ...<i>I think one of the best things that ever happened to Christianity was Aquinas letting the Greek mind have a place through his incorporation of Aristotle.<br /></i><br /><br /><br />Well, this is an idea that I've run across quite recently, not so much from "historians," but those interested in the "history of ideas."<br /><br />Aquinas [1250 AD or so] didn't make Aristotle "safe" for Christianity ["Christianizing" him] as much as making reason [logos?] once again safe for Christianity to embrace.<br /><br />God-given reason. "Right" reason. Why the Middle Ages took us out of the Dark Ages.<br /><br />"Reason" was not a creation of the Enlightenment. It had been around for a long long time. This is the error of the "Harvard Narrative," and even worse, of today's evangelical/fundamentalist "Protestant Narrative"---that faith and reason are irreconcilable enemies.<br /><br />The Founding didn't think so.<br /><br /><i>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...</i><br /><br />If they were enemies, the Founding could never have taken place.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10896404005339505062009-12-20T20:27:14.514-07:002009-12-20T20:27:14.514-07:00TVD,
"state of nature"...one can assert ...TVD,<br />"state of nature"...one can assert this position if they are evolutionists or orthodox Christians. Both, then, think that there must be "regulations" or laws that prevent men from doing what they "want" (survival of the fittest/"sin"). One would view co-operation as a necessary "balance" to survival of the fittest, while the other would view the law as a need to balance self-assertion at the expense of another, which would disrespect boundaries.<br /><br />I don't disagree that society need laws to functions effectively, but what laws must do is not circumvent another's liberty, as it pertains to their own choices of personal value. This is a matter of justice, and impartiality when it comes to differences of values.<br /><br />Christians disagree as to what constitutes "sin", and evolutionists would disagree as to which material/natural "need" is most important to protect or prevent.<br /><br />"State of nature" to a Christian who wants a particular type of person or conviction from another, is limiting another's difference of value. Virtue is understood within a certain frame of values. And this is why virtue cannot be the end or goal...<br /><br />Christians traditionally have been passive in their acceptance of "whatever" because they believed that God ordained and intervened in history...and evangelicals go as far as to personalize God's intervention. This is really a naive way to think about the world, I think.<br /><br />I think it limits choice when one frames the world in limited ways of family and local politics. Christians I have known have loved to present themselves as authorities in these areas, because of their need to be in "control" and "righteous" in regards to their public image. I find that there is more hidden pain, and shame that anyone admits, because of the "culture of image". This is a sorry state of affairs, when it comes to being human in the world and needing a friend, not a judge, or evaluator of your performance..<br /><br />One must identify with the local area to want to become involved deeply in the community and make it "better". One chooses where one wants to live, because of certain values that the community holds.<br /><br />I am trying to follow you guys, as you give me enough "to eat". Thanks for the continued discussion. I am sitting on the side-lines, listening and pondering your thoughts. And thanks for the example of accepting differences of opinion. I think this is so important to/within our culture.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13769466439003481732009-12-20T19:45:03.451-07:002009-12-20T19:45:03.451-07:00Ben,
I think Tom the poet hit it pretty good. My...Ben,<br /><br />I think Tom the poet hit it pretty good. My position is evolving but it is safe to say I think Christian ideas had a lot more to do with the founding than most people think. <br /><br />Though I am not one that would say that the Bible and Christianity have an exclusive domain on all the good ideas either. I think one of the best things that ever happened to Christianity was Aquinas letting the Greek mind have a place through his incorporation of Aristotle. <br /><br />More specifically, I am saying that a lot of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence are Christian ideas. I think these ideas are rooted in the main two principles of Toqueville that Tom cited in Novak's article. I hope to return to it some day.<br /><br />If that does not clear it up please feel free to ask more questions.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61865838197471292542009-12-20T18:53:18.259-07:002009-12-20T18:53:18.259-07:00Cheers, Ben. If I may speak for both of us, let m...Cheers, Ben. If I may speak for both of us, let me say that you and I have been "fire and ice" around here, self-identified Thomist and atheist, yet we've taught each other to drop the culture war and speak person to person, idea to idea, cooperating toward the truth instead of digging in.<br /><br />That's all I've ever wanted from this blog or writing on the internet.<br /><br />If I can state Joe's own quest for the truth succinctly, it's that hassling over doctrine and dogma wasn't of interest to the Founders, and it's not his, and it's not this blog's. <br /><br />2009 is relativistic if not nihilistic. 1776 and 1987 were neither, and they built a damn good republic based on some objective principles, and the best we can do is try to point ourselves in the right direction, north as opposed to south.<br /><br />What's north and what's south, we need to keep discussing. First we must agree there is a north and south and not a whatever direction.<br /><br />That's Square One, I believe. Agreeing there is a Square One atall. Mebbe I get greedy sometimes. Beats Square Zero...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59133852253523679022009-12-20T18:19:51.926-07:002009-12-20T18:19:51.926-07:00King/Joe,
I'll be more direct :-)
What exact...King/Joe,<br /><br />I'll be more direct :-)<br /><br />What exactly is your position? I have a good understanding of Jon and Gregg's thoughts, and am appreciating Tom's more all the time.<br /><br />But what is it you are asserting?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78247321454890229412009-12-20T18:01:54.191-07:002009-12-20T18:01:54.191-07:00Ben stated:
"I thought the bone being picked...Ben stated:<br /><br />"I thought the bone being picked over what what it means to be Christian,"<br /><br />That is Frazer, Barton, and Jon's world that I left a long time ago. Yes, Jon and Frazer seem to think that the Founding political philosophy was based on Enlightenment natural law and had very little to do with the Bible. That is the whole rub in this discussion.<br /><br />Most do not know enough about the theological complexness to even know what we are talking about. That is why time hates it when this comes up. But it is important to know where these ideas came from.<br /><br />If we do not know the origins of Interposition and what was going on when these ideas first came about how can we make sure that history does not repeat itself?King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42671677938155822552009-12-20T17:34:36.692-07:002009-12-20T17:34:36.692-07:00King/Joe,
Re: "My argument is that the found...King/Joe,<br /><br />Re: "My argument is that the founders did not throw out the Bible and a Christian understanding of natural law."<br /><br />I agree completely ... hmmm, has anyone expressed an opinion otherwise?<br /><br />I thought the bone being picked over what what it means to be <i>Christian</i>, and that there is one camp that favors an orthodox definition, and one that favors the opinion of the individual.<br /><br />I must admit that it has occurred to me that it is more complex that that, because I don't see where you fit in that dichotomy.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3877897027387612562009-12-20T17:29:15.661-07:002009-12-20T17:29:15.661-07:00Tom,
I agree with your comparison of religion and...Tom,<br /><br />I agree with your comparison of religion and communism.<br /><br />My Russian friend was equating the <i>authorities</i> of religion and communism, not the pursuits themselves.<br /><br />I apologize for not making the context more clear.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84238419016603741282009-12-20T15:35:57.853-07:002009-12-20T15:35:57.853-07:00Yes, King, I agree that Phil is onto something via...Yes, King, I agree that Phil is onto something via Barry Shain. I think that's perhaps why we haven't heard from Phil lately---he's working on it.<br /><br />I'm thinking that the modern [non-Founding] argument is of two extremes, oppressive communitarianism and radical individualism, excluding the true middle, that of man as a social being in the context of family and community, proportions that are comprehensible. Ancient philosophers proposed that the ideal size for a <i>polis</i> was [as I recall] 15,000.<br /><br />Anything bigger and man becomes an abstraction, and the individual disappears into a sea of faceless "humanity."<br /><br /><i>"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand."</i>---Linus Van PeltTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69673103527408232162009-12-20T15:28:28.385-07:002009-12-20T15:28:28.385-07:00You're describing Hobbes' "state of n...You're describing Hobbes' "state of nature," if not anarchy, Angie. But if men were angels [or even reasonable devils], we wouldn't need laws in the first place.<br /><br />Hamilton's "The Farmer Refuted" covered this ground over two centuries ago. <br /><br />http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s5.html<br /><br />You are the Farmer. What you do in your body isn't political understanding atall.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-27349798626017680632009-12-20T15:05:00.047-07:002009-12-20T15:05:00.047-07:00I meant to say that ideas drive the political...I meant to say that ideas drive the political...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58410824677969582152009-12-20T15:03:54.139-07:002009-12-20T15:03:54.139-07:00Which is it, now? You tried to persuade that the i...Which is it, now? You tried to persuade that the individual was not important before...NOW< you are saying that the individual is all that matters, therefore, political ideologies don't matter? that is ludacrous...<br /><br />What I do in my body is a political understanding. And politics is what drives the world of ideas. There is no God, other than human being who try to understand and form society. This is what we do in maintaining social order. But, maintaining social order cannot be corercive or opressive of individuals who might differ as to their thinking on what forms the "best society". These are the things that make for the public discussion and must not be informed by "one side" alone.<br /><br />Everything that one does in free societies is a voluntary service in meeting the needs of one's family and serving in that chosen profession in service to society. These are not imposed from the outside, but a matter of passion, choice and societal need.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31832292882789967972009-12-20T14:30:38.098-07:002009-12-20T14:30:38.098-07:00Tom
Not only that but local distinctions that all...Tom<br /><br />Not only that but local distinctions that allow cultures to survive like the Nation-State begin to disappear as well. This is where the concepts found in books like "the Clash of Civilizations" and "Jihad vs. McWorld" become fascinating as the modern workd hits the tribal world. I am for Unity in Diversity and Madison's and Voltaire's arguments are key. I am going to read Federalism 10 and 51 again with the new found clarity that our discussions have given me. I think Phil is on to something but is not presenting it as clear as it needs to be in his public and private posts. There is a huge difference in being equal and the same. Marx's collectivist approach promotes the latter. It was Aristocratic Statism disguised as "Progressivism". The same thing goes on today. HayeK was right.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82682745722732474682009-12-20T11:51:28.842-07:002009-12-20T11:51:28.842-07:00The thing about the Novak article is that it's...The thing about the Novak article is that it's a summary of Tocqueville, who as an outsider observing the immediate post-Founding era, arguably understood America than it did itself.<br /><br />As for this discussion, again it's getting far afield and into opinion.<br /><br />However, if you want to compare communism and religion, fine. But dig below the surface pejoratives and look at the content---<br /><br />Communism is, of course, a purely materialistic philosophy. There is no higher right-and-wrong, no higher "good" than the material. However, it's also utilitarian, and the practical result is that it may be unjust, as long as the greatest good is done for the greatest number.<br /><br />Religion, by contrast, the Judeo-Christian principle specifically, is <i>imago Dei</i>, and therefore the dignity of the human person, each individual.<br /><br />Two very different visions of man and philosophy of government.<br /><br />As for churches and their doctrine, the Founding quite clearly put doctrine into the private sphere, and if you read the Voltaire, as a practical matter is was necessary to maintain peace.<br /><br />However, the <i>principles</i> like <i>imago Dei</i> and human dignity are quite in America's fabric. Or at least used to be.<br /><br />Now, to get back to Tocqueville, the "little platoons" [Burke's term] that compose the larger society are its building blocks, families and communities. This is what "federalism" was about is the term "subsidiarity" is also used---that the more local the "control" is, the more responsive it is to the individual.<br /><br />Contrast this to communism and other comprehensive schemes [all of which come under the rubrics of "universal health care" or worldwide anti-climate change regimes]---"man" becomes a concept, "all humanity." The only "just" regime is that that does the greatest good for the greatest number.<br /><br />The individual vanishes; that is not "justice" atall.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-32199821277594179662009-12-20T11:31:24.264-07:002009-12-20T11:31:24.264-07:00Ben
One side would say that a lot of the theologi...Ben<br /><br />One side would say that a lot of the theological stances in the realm of politics were tainted by enlightenment thinking that said it was ok to resist tyranny. My argument is that the founders did not throw out the Bible and a Christian understanding of natural lawKing of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57959037066379832912009-12-20T11:25:56.189-07:002009-12-20T11:25:56.189-07:00Ben,
You are getting ahead of me but the idea of ...Ben,<br /><br />You are getting ahead of me but the idea of a covenant or compact is an idea right out of the Bible. You see it in Adams balanced view of Romans 13. People used the idea of a social contract long before Locke did and took their arguments right from the Bible. Since people take Locke's philosophy all the time and ignore the philosophy your above modern definition does not surprise me for its lack of theology. We skipped over Tom's post by Novak and need to return to it.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.com