Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
Good morning!
Today’s quote is from an American vice president:
“It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you.”
Welcome to our daily (except Sundays) open thread, where you, the commenters, choose the topics of conversation.
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top99 Comments to “Whirled Views 7.2”
Since I’m first, my Wild Guess is Richard Nixon.
Report comment to moderator
Chuck Colson?
For some reason I don’t think so.
Report comment to moderator
The reason is Chuck Colson was never a vice president.
Report comment to moderator
Man. My reading comp skills are in the tank. Glossed right over that fact…
Report comment to moderator
MiM, it was “hidden” at the end of the first ten words. So your comprehension skills are potentially as high as 80%!
Report comment to moderator
That’s okay, MIM. I’m sure it was because you were still in shock having just read the WSJ article today “Congress’s Travel Tab Swells.” I’ll bet you were just shaking your head about the Democrat who went to the Galapagos on our dime to study global warming!
Report comment to moderator
Vice President Cheney.
Taking liberty for granted is the direct consequence of a collective and individual failure to be grateful for it. Actively cultivating ingratitude has been an industry in America for years in the halls of learning (from K through PhD) and in the secular media. It is epidemic in America. That’s why we are losing our liberty so fast.
__________
Report comment to moderator
What I am most grateful for (with regard to our legacy of liberty in America) is our Christian heritage.
Independence in America did not come easy or freely. It is interesting to me that the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution were both virulently anti-Christian and also extremely harmful, in my estimation, to the people they claimed to support and advocate for. Revolutions tend to be “idealistic.” But modern history teaches us that idealism severed from authentic faith can be devastating. In fact, idealism along with illegitimate claims to faith can also be devastating.
By contrast, the American Revolution did indeed lead to actual improvement for the people. A more positive overall consequence eventually emerged (with much sacrifice, too). What was different? Our Revolution was not virulently anti-Christian. Rather, it was stepped in a profound appreciation of our Christian heritage and origins. That made for healthy soil in which to plant the seeds of freedom and independence.
Happy Independence Day weekend, and thanks for the fine quote!
Report comment to moderator
Today’s second quote:
Oh. The hint. I forgot the hint.
It’s from a former (write-in) candidate for President of the United States.
Report comment to moderator
8. Great post.
Report comment to moderator
Ann Coulter has a new piece out today over at HUMANEVENTS dotcom. She analyzes the Ricci case which Sotomayor was wrong about according to the majority of Supremes. So much for the wise Latina, indeed. Kudos to Ann for once again nailing it superbly
Also (and not at all related) at Huff Po Frank Schaeffer has an interesting take on Hitchens and the “New Atheists”
Cant wait to read yall’s analysis of either or both of these thought-provoking writers.
Report comment to moderator
Happy Anniversary to me! I think it looks like a lovely day to go weed eat and pack for my trip. Hubby will be pulling thistles from the rhubarb and strawberries again today.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, A study of all those revolutions is interesting. Thank you for a good comment and Happy Independence Day, early, to you and everyone else!
Report comment to moderator
On a previous thread, Spinoza provided a link to a website that was claiming that Jenny Sanford is blaming homosexuals and declining moral values in America for her husband’s affair. It struck me as hate-based parody, but Spinoza seemed to be presenting it as fact. Could it be that the strangely ill-advised statements allegedly by Mrs. Sanford were being placed in Jenny Sanford’s mouth and were made up out of whole cloth by scurrilous liars and not being clear enough about their parody?
Such would be the ultimate in hate and deception, to try to discredit a grieving mom and wife! Perhaps some of you who are more skilled with computer researching skills can check this out. Apparently, many are confusing malicious parody with fact and this is hurting Mrs. Sanford’s reputation.
I am just asking.
__________
Report comment to moderator
THIS IS FROM THE WHO’DA THUNK IT DEPT:
The Social Security Administration has continued to pay millions of dollars in benefits to dead Americans, and other elderly U.S. residents are at risk of losing badly needed aid because they’re improperly recorded as deceased, federal investigators warn in a new report.
The consequences of either bureaucratic error can be severe. The addition of erroneous death entries can lead to benefit termination, cause severe financial hardship and distress to affected individuals, investigators with the Social Security Administration’s Office of Inspector General noted in the report, which was released Sunday.
The mistakes cost taxpayers and individual beneficiaries in different ways. Taxpayers are losing money when benefits are paid to the deceased. Individuals get into trouble when they’re prematurely pronounced dead:
In Southern California and elsewhere last year investigators analyzed 305 Social Security beneficiaries who were recorded as deceased in their Social Security Administration files; at least 140 of them were still alive.
Investigators say that more than 6,000 current Social Security beneficiaries are recorded as being deceased; an untold number of them are still, in fact, alive.
Those affected can feel the problem acutely even if they’re still getting Social Security checks, because Social Security death records can be used by other agencies, say observers. Several individuals told investigators that they “had to prove to the Internal Revenue Service they were not deceased before receiving a refund,” investigators noted. Some sought congressional help.
On the flip side of the problem, payments were made to dead beneficiaries in at least 88 out of the 305 cases studied by investigators. Some of these improper payments continued for years. For instance:
A New York City resident died in April 1990. Nonetheless, Social Security checks of $1,185 were mailed out monthly, and cashed, until October 2008.
Investigators have since charged a suspect with improperly taking more than $210,000 in benefits.
All told, investigators found $2 million in improper payments were made to the 88 deceased beneficiaries.
Source: Michael Doyle, “Social Security Audit Finds Dead People Getting Checks,” McClatchy Newspapers, June 30, 2009.
Report comment to moderator
I recall recently learning of a man who dressed up with wig sunshades, headscarf and other women’s clothing and went to cash his late mother’s checks!
Gone forever must be the days when your bank window teller knew you well enough to say “Hmmm..Mrs Jones what a 5 o’clock shadow you seem to have these days!”
Report comment to moderator
We were married on 5 July 99. We’re heading down to Lake Charles for a Hampton Inn and a trip to the Sci-Port with the girls. We still need to line up someone to pop over and babysit the half Lab half Golden Retriever pup.
Report comment to moderator
Have a great weekend, Sawgunner, and a happy tenth anniversary!
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee – Happy Anniversary! How many years has it been?
Sawgunner – Happy Coming-Up Anniversary! How are the girls all doing? Your puppy must be beautiful!
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Karen O, it has been thirty we think. Married in ‘79.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Mumsee — 30 big ones. I know, my niece was born on my birthday 30 years ago and that has hit home! Happy anniversary.
MIM, I just read about your son moving out. This will be the best thing for him. Don’t worry.
Report comment to moderator
And Mumsee, do something special! — not just yard work.
Report comment to moderator
Happy Anniversary Sawgunner & Mumsee.
I gather from your 7.1 WV, Mumsee, that you’re going to Calafornia for a funeral. Be careful, this weekend is not a good time to drive. We, and a bunch of kids need you.
And do not operate any divice you call “a thingy”.
Joel, I doubt that Jenny Sanford connected homosexuality at all to her husband’s affair. But she might have said something about declining moral values. She is the only one, including the SC State Senate, and media, to have any character in this business. Mark Sanford is looking worse every day. I once gave him 50/50. It’s looking worse all the time. He should stop digging, but likely won’t.
Report comment to moderator
Happy anniversary Mumsee & Sawgunner!
I’m working today & tomorrow but otherwise am bracing for what will be the usual onslaught of neighborhood, do-it-yourself fireworks extravaganzas (even though they’re illegal). Tess pretty much takes it in stride, but poor Cowboy gets very stressed. It’s the only time he’ll actually jump up on my bed with me, poor soul.
Fire is also one of my constant worries this time of year, all it takes is a spark landing in a tree or on a roof somewhere.
Otherwise, I love the holiday.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been thinking about the comments yesterday on WV about the lack of freedom in the Bible and Christianity and I keep shaking my head. Becoming a Christian meant freedom to me and certainly changed my life for the better.
I grew up in a well-meaning atmosphere of people always seeking blame, and always urging me to “be good,” so as not to cause trouble. Rightly or wrongly, as a goody-two-shoes first born, I took that message to heart and assumed guilt and blame for everything that went wrong in my family. Which meant I had almost no concept of forgiveness. It wasn’t a part of my non-religious upbringing.
I grew up keenly aware of what a sinner I was–with only family members’ concept of “sin” as a guide. (I bet you didn’t know cheering for USC was a sin. I don’t recall the word “sin,” however, being used.)
What a relief to hear the gospel message and learn Jesus’ death on the cross meant my sins were forgiven–past sins, present sins, future sins, all sin. I didn’t have to feel ashamed anymore; I had a way of dealing with the guilt that often overwhelmed me.
Of course I still sin. (I even cheer for USC from time to time). But now I’m free to deal with that sin–which enables me to confess my faults to people I’ve hurt–all the while knowing my Father in heaven loves me and sees me through the prism of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. I don’t have have to walk with hunched shoulders and eyes turned to the floor, afraid my simplest error will be an opportunity for condemnation.
For freedom Christ has set me free. I no longer live under the yoke of slavery to sin. (Galatians 5:1). Thanks be to God.
Report comment to moderator
Happy Anniversary, Mumsee! It’s my older brother’s anniversary today, too; you’re 10 years ahead of him and his wife.
Happy Anniversary, Sawgunner! My oldest sister celebrates her 29th anniversary on July 5.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Chas regarding Mark Sanford. He can’t seem to stop talking about it and the comments he reportedly made about the mistress being his “soul mate” and how he’s now “trying to fall in love with his wife again” pretty much put me over my threshold.
I don’t know what he’s going through, but it’s getting harder and harder to watch. If nothing else it’s a major distraction. And none of it can be helping to repair his marriage.
Where in California are you going Mumsee?
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
I too grew up in a non-Christian home and new absolutely nothing about forgiveness.
Becoming a Christian is without a doubt the best thing that ever happened to me and it has given me more freedom than I could have ever imagined in my prior life.
Report comment to moderator
I hate typo’s! This blog REALLY needs an edit feature!!!
Report comment to moderator
Ok, I took your advice NJL, and I fed the pigs too! And one of the four dogs. When we returned from last camping trip, we learned that the dog feeders had taken pity on him and fed him all he wanted, he is hugely overweight again. And fed the turkeys and chickens and ducks.
California: my dad, one brother, and I will be driving to Victorville. Worst parts for traffic will be Boise, Vegas, and well, California.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the congrats on the anniversary. Cindy is the best thing that ever happened to me (the 3 daughters are wonderful but I wouldnt have them without their mom).
Good piece today at opinionjournal dot com by everyone’s favorite Harvard uberLib, Professor Alan Dershowitz. He and lots of friends of Israel are starting to have voter’s remorse about BHO. It’s a true Rush Limbaugh, SITYS moment!
(See I told you so!)
Report comment to moderator
I like Al. Der., but given his stand on Israel, many folks don’t think he’s “uber-lib.” For one, I like his civil libertarian streak. He’s the only “Dream Team” member I respect. But at Harvard, he’s considered a “conservative” (though not as conservative as Harvey Mansfield).
Report comment to moderator
Re Joel’s comments in #8, it’s actually interesting to see how at the very beginning most people, Edmund Burke and John Adams excepted, supported the French Revolution and saw it as a continuation of the American. Unitarians and Trinitarians alike thought that the FR might usher in a biblical “millennial republic,” where Jesus returns to establish liberty, equality and fraternity for the entire world.
This is what happens when you mix in foreign elements to the Bible and try to pass it off as “Christian.” This is what the Patriotic Preachers did when they tried to argue the American Revolution was “biblical.”
If anyone wants to challenge me in a live setting, remember I’m being interviewed tonight at 8:00pm on the Infidel Guy show.
http://www.infidelguy.com/
Report comment to moderator
Michelle at 25.
If you read and reflect on my comments from yesterday you’ll see what you have written is 100% in accord with my assertion about lack of POLITICAL liberty in the Bible. The traditional orthodox interpretation of scripture is that Christ delivers SPIRITUAL freedom (from sin or sin’s consequences). And one can have that spiritual freedom even while possessing ZERO political freedom. Hence a chattel slave — the most politically unfree position in which one can be — can have “freedom” in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Political liberty is just one category of the concept of liberty that pervades the Bible as one of many such human themes. The Bible tells the whole story of humanity in the eras wherein it rose, including aspects related to political liberty. And the Bible was a rich influence on the founding genration and the Founders in particular in their quest for political liberty. The Founders were, however, careful not to come across as prosyletizing for a particular faith, but it remains clear that they were highly influenced by the Christian faith and favorable to that influence in America.
The highest sort of liberty (spiritual) is particularly exalted and discussed in holy Scripture. We can have THIS sort of freedom regardless of the political oppression that may be around us.
Report comment to moderator
The French Revolution was highly and virulently anti-clerical and anti-Christian. In fact, many priests were targeted for beheading in the Reign of Terror and their lands were confiscated all over France. It was focused, clear and reprehensible. In this regard, the American Revolution was profoundly different.
Report comment to moderator
#36 The Mexican Revolution was likewise hostile to “the church”. The Spanish Loyalists who fought Franco were big time church haters. One quote comes to mind esp by one of the loyalist/communists: “The only church that has ever illuminated me was one I set on fire!”
In Mexico for many years the priests werent allowed to wear vestmts and of course the church’s large land holdings were broken up and redistributed. It was only in the 1980s that the Vatican and Mexico City established diplo relations.
One must point out that in Mexico and in Spain as in Russia, the “official church” was seen as working hand in glove with the govt the rebels sought to overthrow. Being seen as “part of the problem” and not as an autonomous entity free to condemn the rulers’ abuses has continually been the source of much church hatred.
Report comment to moderator
Happy anniversary, Mumsee and Sawgunner!
Report comment to moderator
In fact, many priests were targeted for beheading in the Reign of Terror and their lands were confiscated all over France. It was focused, clear and reprehensible. In this regard, the American Revolution was profoundly different.
Sorry Joel but this is a superficial understanding of history. One reason why many PRIESTS were targeted is because they were ROMAN CATHOLIC Priests. And anti-RC bigotry was quite strong in America at that time. That’s one reason why many orthodox Christians, for instance Ezra Stiles, for a while, turned a blind eye to the persecution of Priests, because they wrote it off as getting rid of the tyrannical Roman Catholics. Indeed one thing that united the liberal unitarian Protestants and conservative Calvinist Protestants during the American Founding was anti-Roman Catholic bigotry. It’s ironic in that the RCs pretty much invented the Providential natural law doctrine (at least they incorporated Aristotle into Christendom) which was key to American Founding thought.
Report comment to moderator
Happy anniversary Sawgunner and Mumsee… Do something special for your sweeties.
Thanks NJL. I doubt I’ll stop worrying though. I have too fertile an imagination.
My wife did remind me this morning that the kid does have a high standard and good training in money management. He has absolutely NO desire to go into debt. He’s listened to too many Larry Burkett and Clarke Howard shows with us, and watched us pay cash for everything but the house (which is paid off! yay!) to be silly enough to use a credit card foolishly. And he’s managed his card and money well over the last couple years; he has paid for his own food, car and insurance/upkeep, and minimal rent. So perhaps it’s not as bad as I fear.
He also wants to hang onto his moral upbringing, which is a relief. At least he’s not shacked up with someone or abusing drugs, or stealing…
So, in short, I imagine that he’ll now rise to the occasion since he must.
Report comment to moderator
“ROMAN CATHOLIC Priests. And anti-RC bigotry was quite strong in America at that time.”
It seems like Joel was talking about France not America.
Report comment to moderator
MiM, sounds like your son is pretty well grounded. But I sympathize, it must be awfully hard to step back and know there’s always the possible risk they may have to sink or flail a little bit here and there before they get their bearings and really start to swim. But swim he will, I’d venture to say.
And I’ll bet he’ll appreciate his strong upbringing and good foundation more and more the longer he’s out on his own. My own parents, now both gone, have taken on more and more saintly attributes in my mind the older I get! They’d probably hardly recognize themselves.
Report comment to moderator
A special site for SAWGUNNER and one for Mumsee
Report comment to moderator
Good thoughts, Michelle. (25) One of my daughters once did a poster for a VBS class which featured the ten commandments symbolized with the numerals on a tablet. Around them were several balloons with smiley faces with strings hanging freely. It still makes me happy to look at it.
There is nothing so free for children than to know what the proper limits are. They are much less worried about doing things and can relax. Parents who are consistent with few rules that are enforced with love, have the most relaxed, creative children.
We are children of a heavenly father.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm, I am trying to figure out why somebody would send me to a site to nowhere. Well, I live just the other side of nowhere so maybe Monty is trying to bring me into civilization. Well, it is appreciated, along with all the other congrats. Thank you all. We do indeed have special plans for later today. I am going to mow the lawn and hub is going to water the strawberries! Should be fun!
How was your site, Sawgunner? I hope you and the beloved have a lovely day this coming Sunday with the little lovelies.
Report comment to moderator
41,
My point was in America, there was Roman Catholic bigotry such that many orthodox AND unorthodox Protestants in AMERICA were willing to turn an eye to the persecution of Priests, by writing it off as getting rid of tyrannical false theology preaching Roman Catholics.
Report comment to moderator
Mowing the lawn & watering strawberries. Mumsee, you do know how to have a good time.
Report comment to moderator
FoMumsee
Report comment to moderator
One more attempt.. Please forgive the previous failures. This site is for Mumsee
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner #37- The Mexican Revolution was likewise hostile to “the church”. The Spanish Loyalists who fought Franco were big time church haters. One quote comes to mind esp by one of the loyalist/communists: “The only church that has ever illuminated me was one I set on fire!”
You are confusing two different revolutions. The Spanish loyalists fought Franco in Spain, not Mexico. There it was the Zapatistas versus the government of Porfirio Díaz.
Report comment to moderator
Ooh, Mumsee, enjoy mowing that lawn! And happy anniversary, too!
Report comment to moderator
Change of plans, I have been gassing gophers. Not a job I enjoy in any way but we were getting somewhat desperate. Don’t tell PETA or they may remove me from the lifetime subscriber list. Hub had a change in plans, he readjusted the fountain in the pond (silly pigs keep knocking it over!).
Thank you MOnty, for the lovely card, a nice encouragement!
Report comment to moderator
Heh heh heheeehhhh…
Peter Kreeft is a riot. I was just listening to him a moment ago when I hopped in the truck to retrieve a repaired fence stop.
After saying they were dishonest people (the truth is, there is no truth), he defined postmodernists as “a sneer on two legs, trying to yank your chain”.
Hah! ha ha ha!
LOL.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t been following the debate about political freedom. But I notice it’s still going on, so I went back and read Jon’s post. I gather from the posts about it, that everyone here is going to disagree with me. But I agree with Jon. That is, the concept of personal liberty is not found in the Bible. Granted, -and I taught this last Sunday; Paul, to the Galatians said, “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ has made us free….” He would have said the same to Onesimus, whom he was sending back to Philemon. Jesus said, “If the Son, therefore, shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.”. He said that to people under Roman rule.
The OT is about the Kingdom of Israel being established, first as a tribal theocracy, later to be ruled by a king. Israel was/is unique among nations. I don’t believe the OT is to be a guide to the kind of government a nation has.
To say that “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the governed, …” Is an extremely radical statement, unique to mankind. Indeed, the French tried it later and messed it up terribly. The NT is not about political government at all but about Christ and man’s relationship to God. And Jon is probably correct in saying that the FF were likely unscriptural in rebelling against George. However, the FF didn’t care what Jon, nor you, nor I, thought. They wanted out. And here we are. Arguing about it is unfruitful.
I haven’t studied the issues of “natural law”. But to say that men want freedom is a natural law is apparently not correct. Some condemn the Bible, saying that it condones slavery. Slavery has been part of the structure of mankind from the beginning. Every nation and culture has had slaves. My ancestors in Germany were likely serfs, under some lord. It is known that slavery is still practiced in some places. It was only the Christian influence that freed slaves, wherever it happened, in England, and in America.
So, in that sense, liberty is a Christian concept. But it was slow in evolving. So, to say freedom is a natural law is suspect. They say that man’s great desire is to be free. It seems, and we see it happening here, that man wants security more than freedom. “Give us a king”, cried Israel to Samuel. And the king, even David, was a despot (absolute power).
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man – Did you see my comment to you on yesterday’s WVs? I left it there this morning, after reading about your son.
Report comment to moderator
Some individuals may have been anti-catholic but the revolution the most of the founders were not. Can you name persecution of Priest by the new America government?
Report comment to moderator
I can’t name one church recognized American Martyr. There were many from the French Revolution.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee!
#52: Gassing gophers? Hmmm. Guess that doesn’t give you much room to judge me and my toaster-ovened mice, eh?
I must say, you’re really ramping your anniversary fun up.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, indeed, now the kids are doing a math test (to find out where they will be when we start up again) and I think I will take a nap. Hubby is already kicked back in his recliner.
Report comment to moderator
The kids are doing a math test … and I think I will take a nap.
Sounds like the ideal school system. Worth every nickel they’re paying you???
Report comment to moderator
59. How old do they have to be before it is safe to take a nap?
Report comment to moderator
Chas, a good link on the prophecies of Daniel.
http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/5_1/timetable
Report comment to moderator
Good points, Chas @54. I never really gave much thought to what the Bible says on liberty or freedom. Since it is a spiritual book, how could it possibly speak to national or individual liberties? In the OT, we only see political liberties in the book of Judges, where “there was no king,… everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Talk about anarchy!
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Karen.
Report comment to moderator
KBells,
There were very few Roman Catholics in Founding era America. Maryland was a safe place for them. Elsewhere they were tolerated, but not given full rights. In NH, for instance, only Protestants could hold public office. John Adams thoughts on Roman Catholics was typical of the era. From a letter to Jefferson, May 1816:
“I do not like the reappearance of the Jesuits…. Shall we not have regular swarms of them here, in as many disguises as only a king of the gipsies can assume, dressed as printers, publishers, writers and schoolmasters? If ever there was a body of men who merited damnation on earth and in Hell, it is this society of Loyola’s. Nevertheless, we are compelled by our system of religious toleration to offer them an asylum.”
Report comment to moderator
54: Great post.
Report comment to moderator
#65. There was a reason not to like the Jesuits in those days. They were virtually the Pope’s army. Protestants and Catholics, in the old country, had not learned to live with each other.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the link KBells, I have to read it some other time, though. I have almost finished my book, but still have lots of questions. Especially the strange animal in 7:4 The Lion that had wings that were torn off, stood up and received a man’s heart. This is almost as strange as the fourth beast. The writer says this is England/America. I don’t understand the significance of that.
Still working on it.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Jon Rowe, but your understanding of the French Revolution is not merely superficial, but incorrect. The priests in France who were murdered in large numbers in the Reign of Terror were murdered by idealistic (and opportunistic) revolutionary terrorists who hated Christianity and (many of them) claimed instead to believe in the religion of “reason.” Many also worship Nature with a capital “N”. Many of the Nature worshippers and “Reason” worshippers were quite pretentious in their more secular self-righteousness. In fact, their self righteousness was often blood thirsty.
In this way and many others, the French Rev. was profoundly different from the previous American Rev., which was much more friendly to faith and even rooted deeply in our faith traditions and convictions.
Jon Rowe wrote; “…anti-RC bigotry was quite strong in America at that time.”
Huh? The real bigotry was mostly in those who hated the Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Chas 60, absolutely.
KBells, as long as they take regular naps it is safe. When they are capable of playing or reading quietly in the same room it is safe (as long as mom is a light sleeper and they understand waking mom up will bring consequences) and when they are old enough to play safely outside alone it is safe.
Report comment to moderator
Chas 54,
Well said.
Report comment to moderator
#54, I strongly disagree with you Chas.
What I think Jon is trying to deny is that there was any significant influence from our heritage of Christian faith and the Bible on the Founders who strived to leave us with a legacy of political liberty. This is nonsense and it ignores aqn abundance of evidence to the contrary. Our Founders and most every leader since appealed strongly to Scripture in their discussions and understandings of our liberty and where it comes from.
Chas, I don’t think you can parce down the uses of the word “liberty” or “freedom” in the Bible to excerpt out or exclude the political aspects that can and do flow directly from “spiritual freedom. That seems to me to be an extremely legalistic nd isolationist way to read the Bible and it ignores the clear thrust of those passages to apply to all aspects of life, not just the “spiritual” aspects.
The Bible does not separate “spiritual” aspects of freedom to the exclusion of political, personal or socail aspects. The Bible does not even separate the sould from the body either. That us imposing such technical separations on terms in Scripture.
The NT does NOT avoid political issues and it’s principles apply to all areas of life, including politics and including freedom at all its human levels. The Founders saw this and that is why they often said that our political government and liberty could not survive the loss of religion and morality.
Chas, I think you have overly compartmentalized your understanding of things ’spiritual’ and separated that too much from things human and practical. Just my opinion from your last post. I hold you in high regard, my brother.
_____________
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark #69–
The Roman Catholic Church was stronger in France than the French government. It represented the oppressive government to the people as strongly as did the magistrates and deputies of the king. At one point in French history, the RCC owned over 50 percent of the territory. The Third Estate was paying for the wealthy lifestyles of both ecclesiastical and governmental aristocracy. Therefore, when they revolted, they rebelled against both organizations which had oppressed them for so long. Because the Huguenots had been driven out of the country before the Revolution, one could argue that they had lost that gracious influence which made for a more peaceful revolution in the US.
I am not trying to excuse their actions, but I wanted to present their perspective on those events. In my notes from my Panorama Politique class at the Universite de Bourgogne, I have statistics of each estate compared to the territory governed. The amount of land and revenues belonging to the first and second estates is not proportional to their percentage of the population. To French historians, the French Revolution is the violent event that brought equality and liberty to an oppressed people. Perhaps one could compare it to the way we view the Civil War?
Again, I don’t believe the French Revolution was morally right, but I wanted to share their perspective.
que Dieu vous benisse!
Sylvie
Report comment to moderator
69,
Tell it to orthodox Protestant minister Ezra Stiles from Founding era America who remained an unrepentant Francophile till his death (in 1795 I believe) and blamed the bloodshed on RCism, not on anti-Christianity. That was my point.
Report comment to moderator
Again I would note to most Americans at the time of the Founding, the FR represented a continuation of the AR. And one could argue that things got out of hand because they had a monarchy to unseat and one established church to disestablish. We only needed King George to scram. And disestablishment was handled on a state by state basis.
Report comment to moderator
Huh? The real bigotry was mostly in those who hated the Christians.
There were probably more anti-Roman Catholic bigots than anti-Christianity in general bigots because most of America were professing Christians of some sort. It’s just that many of those “professing Christians” like Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin, G. Morris, Madison didn’t believe in original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infalliblity of the Bible, eternal damnation, and consquently were not “Christians” as evangelicals understand the term, but something else.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, I wasn’t trying to figure out what Jon was trying to say. I just read his post and agreed with the fact of what he was saying.
Individual liberty was unknown prior to the Declaration of Independence. I can’t think of a time in history when anyone was completely free, in the sense that the government derived it’s powers with the consent of the governed. Even in ancient Greece, only the elite got to vote.
This is the end of the discussion for me.
In any case, my greatest fear is the last portion of my post.
I’m afraid that we are surrendering our liberty gradually, in searvh of security.
We stand to lose both.
Report comment to moderator
I also am inclined to agree with Chas (#54 and #77). If political freedom is taken to mean not being oppressed by a corrupt government, I think there is support for that notion in Scripture. But as Chas says in #77, the idea that the government derived its powers with the consent of the governed, rather than from God – I don’t see that expressed anywhere in Scripture.
That doesn’t mean I think our republican form of government is contrary to Scriptural principles. What I was taught is that the Founders recognized mankind’s tendency toward sin and corruption (which is certainly a Scriptural principle) and established a government that would keep any one man or small group of men from getting too much power, because it would end up being used to oppress.
Report comment to moderator
Re: My previous post, “This is the end of the discussion for me.” is because I have no intense interest in the subject. I’m more interested in KBells link in #62.
KBells, An interesting article. He says much the same as the writers of the book I’m studying. However, when someone uses BCE (before common era) rather than BC (Before Christ), I get an automatic bias against the writing.
All the writers of the articles on Daniel, and the end times prophesies say that the Temple has to be rebuilt. My previous note to you quoting II Maccabees 2 says that the Tabernacle is hidden in Mt. Nebo. If it is discovered, we have an instant Temple. It does not have to be rebuilt.
In my studies, I assume every 3&1/2; time, times and half, etc. are all the same thing. That means that every prophesy after the large statue and the personal prophesy against Nebudcanezzar are future events.
Report comment to moderator
Chas, let me illustrate what I am saying:
It was when the Bible began to be translated into the vernacular on a large-scale basis and the printing press came along, that the modern world with, all its changes, generally came into being.
For instance, When Martin Luther protested and the Reformation began, that led to a whole new level of people thinking for themselves on the spiritual level. But soon, that dovetailed into people thinking for themselves at all sorts of levels, politically, socially, and so on and thus, the Enlightenment was able to emerge. This could not have happened without the primary influence of the Bible and the Reformation.
Similarly, when many Puritans, and leaders like George Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards began to make broader applications to the Biblical implications of freedom, that led to the values of the Founding generation that brought political liberty to the fore more explicitly in our politics. But the underpinnings for that development were set by Puritan preachers and others like Wise, Whithrop, Cotton, Whitefield, Edwards and so many more. What the Bible taught on liberty was inspirational at many practical levels, including politics, not just at “spiritual” levels. The influence of colonial Christianity on the Founders and the Founder’s generation was profound, and for this, I am grateful and I think Jon Rowe does not want this point of view to stand.
This is one reason why Americans are becoming less and less grateful for their Christian heritage and even their political liberty heritage these days. People are trying to deny that heritage and I will disagree strongly. What I want to return to the American soul is an informed gratitude.
Report comment to moderator
SILVIE wrote; “The Roman Catholic Church was stronger in France than the French government.”
When? This was often true in French history, but NOT during the French Revolution, and that was my point. Nor do I think that the Catholic church was pure in those days (not by any means), but it was still a virulent an anti-clergy and anti=-Christian sentiment that led to many murders of priests (and this they did NOT deserve).
So, I don’t really disagree with your points, but I think you may have missed my point.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, I agree with your #80, and say AMEN to the last para.
As I said, I greatly fear that we are losing that.
Report comment to moderator
Chas wrote; “Individual liberty was unknown prior to the Declaration of Independence.”
I disagree. The politics around it was evolving for years and the Declaration did not invent individual liberty by any means. But I am most grateful for the boost it gave to liberty at many levels. I will celebrate that influence on Saturday.
Report comment to moderator
74. Chas, my understanding is that the lion is Babylon and that the four beasts vision are a more detailed prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter two. Archaeologist have recovered many winged lions in Babylon.
Report comment to moderator
84 is in reference to 68 not 74.
Report comment to moderator
The influence of colonial Christianity on the Founders and the Founder’s generation was profound, and for this, I am grateful and I think Jon Rowe does not want this point of view to stand.
I’ve admitted that Protestant Christianity was *a* source (one of five or so principle ideological sources) for the American Founding; but it was not *the* source, not even the dominant source.
Report comment to moderator
Let me also note I think it’s a good practical idea for Christians to embrace political liberty, that the ideal of political liberty is not inconsistent with the Bible, that it’s “a-biblical,” not “anti-biblical.” From my end, here is the danger in letting orthodox Christians get away with claiming “political liberty” as something that derives from the Bible: “Liberty” in a political sense can be amorphous. If Christians believe political liberty derives from the Bible, they may fall into a trap of offering a hypocritical, self-serving definition like you only have the “liberty” to do what the Bible permits. Sorry, but as we noted, the Bible as a book of morals, is extremly complex and so demanding that arguably NO ONE can live up to its demands. As noted, the law of Moses is one of the most UNFREE political codes ever written. At least Dr. Frazer and company recognize this. Some Christian Reconstructionists actually have the gall to claim to believe in “political liberty,” to credit the Bible with said concept, and wish to reinstate OT style punishments of executing adulterers, homosexuals, recalcitrant children, those who tell you to worship false gods, etc. If that’s what one believes, fine. Just don’t try to pass yourself off as someone who believes in “political liberty” or that such is a biblical concept.
Report comment to moderator
KBells, I believe that everything after Chapter 7 is prophesy of future events. In Ch. 7:25 “The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time”.
The writer makes a good case that the prophesy is about Antiochus Epiphines, even to the 2300 evenings and mornings in 8:14. However, 8:17 says “… Son of man, he said to me “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.”
And everything to the end of the book concerns 11:21 “He will be succeeded by a contemptable person who has not been given the honorof rayalty. …etc.”
I have studied about Antiochus the Illustrious, and he was an evil man. Everything he did fulfills the prophesy.
However:
Matt. 24:15 “When, therefore, you shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place ….” He obviously wasn’t talking about Antiochus.
Also, Daniel 12:8 “I heard but I did not understand. So I asked, ‘My lord, what will be the outcome of all this?
He replied, ‘Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end….’”
Says to me that at the time of the end, “The wise shall understand”.
So far, that doesn’t include me. But I find it interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Random once asked, “Why do you do this?”
Because researching and writing things out, as I did in #88, above, helps me clarify what I believe and why. It helps me more than it does you.
Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
But the prophecy of the ram and the goat is so obviously about the rise of Greece and Alexander the Great that if they could prove that Daniel was written before Alexander, I don’t see how anyone could doubt Daniel was a prophet.
Some believe there may be a double meaning.
Report comment to moderator
#54(CHAS) said, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the governed, …” Is an extremely radical statement, unique to mankind. Indeed, the French tried it later and messed it up terribly. The NT is not about political government at all but about Christ and man’s relationship to God. And Jon is probably correct in saying that the FF were likely unscriptural in rebelling against George. However, the FF didn’t care what Jon, nor you, nor I, thought. They wanted out. And here we are. Arguing about it is unfruitful.”
I agree with most everything you said in your post Chas, but there is one additional thought I would add about God and spiritual or personal liberty. When considering the Old and New Testaments and the view of “Liberty” or “freedom” expressed therein, one must always keep in mind God’s view of oppression and exploitation. If you do a word search on “oppression,” there are 131 references (using NKJ and oppress as the root word) which all refer to the negative consequences that God will inflict on those who oppress. If you do a word search on “exploit,” you get 5 more of the same types of reference for a total of 136 references to God’s hatred of oppression and exploitation of others. God’s anger towards those who deprive the poor of liberty is even stronger. When there is oppression and exploitation, especially of the poor, the widow, the orphan, the alien, and the slave; God raises up entire nations to right the wrongs. The American Revolution and its support by Christians must be seen in this light.
Report comment to moderator
I see Pauline in #78 already noted God’s hatred of oppression. My bad for not reading further.
However, I also have to comment on Jon Rowe’s statements in this thread and others about “Natural Law.” In #xx, Jon states, “It’s ironic in that the RCs [Roman Catholics] pretty much invented the Providential natural law doctrine (at least they incorporated Aristotle into Christendom) which was key to American Founding thought.”
I’m sorry, Jon, but you continue to oversimplify or conflate very distinct concepts. Philosophical Natural Law is not the same as Christian Natural Law. I refer you to the following cogent articles:
1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/#NatLawDivPro
2. Journal of Libertarian Studies:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_3/15_3_1.pdf
While I do not agree with many of the assumptions made in reference 2, it does make absolutely clear the distinction between Christian and Philosophical Natural Law that you have, so far, failed to make or appreciate.
It might help you to also read the article on Natural Rights (see wikipedia entry) which are also called “inalienable rights”–does that ring a bell?
Report comment to moderator
Oops! I forgot one other correction in Jon Rowe’s post (a small one, but important anyway). It is Thomas Aquinas and Augustine who developed the doctrine of Christian Natural Law; not the RCs or Roman Catholics. Both Augustine and Aquinas wrote during the time of the catholic (or universal) church and Christian Natural Law is thus common to all orthodox branches of Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Chas, don’t get an automatic bias against the writing with B.C.E. My second book was published by a secular publisher. They changed my one use of B.C. to B.C.E. I winced but figured it was the publisher’s house style, and so it’s in there. I hope nobody who knows me thinks it was my choice, because it wasn’t, but neither was it anything to fight over for one use.
Report comment to moderator
92 & 93,
Those are interesting points. Two responses. One, there is an argument that the natural law is what the natural law is. Aristotle, Aquinas, whatever, we are dealing with the same natural law (what is discovered from “reason” looking to “nature”). The concept was first formulated by Aristotle, and adopted in Christendom by Aquinas.
Two, I’ve always wondered when the Protestant reformers disagreed with the Roman Church. I know that the most reformers would concede that they feel communion with the very early Church — for instance, the one that formulated the Nicene Creed. However, I haven’t seen it said — I’m interested in this — that the reformers feel in communion with the Roman Church up until that point in time in which Aquinas belonged.
Report comment to moderator
#95(Jon Rowe) said, One, there is an argument that the natural law is what the natural law is. Aristotle, Aquinas, whatever, we are dealing with the same natural law (what is discovered from “reason” looking to “nature”).
Yes, I know that “modern scholarship” claims that Aquinas borrowed from Aristotle and Aquinas did integrate some of Aristotle into his natural theology, but he also referenced Islamic philosophers and especially Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapters 1 and 2. The relevant quotes are Romans 1:18-20–”The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” And Romans 2:14-15–”(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)”
The distinction between Philosophical and Christian Natural Law is the source of Natural Law. To Aquinas and all Christians, the Natural Law is a subset of the Eternal Law which is established by God alone. Through reason (natural revelation) portions of the “Eternal Law” can be apprehended as Paul stated; however, complete knowledge is gained only through “divine revelation”–the Word of God. Thus, for the Christian, the Natural Law is fully understood only in light of scripture.
Philosophical Natural Law attempts to use Natural Revelation only and this is flawed because man’s mind and will is corrupted by Original Sin. That is why inferences from Philosophical Natural Law has led to such silliness and evil as Utilitarianism and is so easily attacked as having no basis for determining the true good.
Thus, your statement that the “natural law is what the natural law is,” while true, has no meaning outside the context of “Divine Providence” and revealed truth as the Founding Fathers would say.
Report comment to moderator
Oops! Sorry about the bold part after Eternal Law in the previous post. I forgot to turn it off.
Regarding Jon Rowe’s second point (see #95): However, I haven’t seen it said — I’m interested in this — that the reformers feel in communion with the Roman Church up until that point in time in which Aquinas belonged.”
Everyone in western civilization was a member of the church until late in the Reformation. When Luther posted his theses on the church door, he had no intention of leaving the church nor did any of the other reformers. They were either excommunicated or chose to leave with those who were. The catholic (universal) church saw serious corruption only in the several years before Luther posted his theses. Aquinas lived more than 300 years before the Reformation.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
Your view that the natural law as even put forth by Aquinas, is not dominant among evangelicals; most evangelicals I know would also say Aquinas existed in the dark ages and the Roman Church was corrupted by that time.
Here is Francis Schaeffer on why he rejects the natural law:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLDgrBGwMX8
Re the FFs, the key Founders did not live up to Aquinas’ demands that the natural law stay subservient to scripture. They — at least many of them (the ones who wrote the DOI) flipped it on its head and held revelation was subservient to reason. Revelations’ role was to supplement the findings of man’s reason.
Report comment to moderator
The following from Thomas Jefferson should illustrate exactly what I and Francis Schaeffer am talking about:
Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance. The reducing the mother to servitude was a violation of the law of nature: surely then the same law cannot prescribe a continuance of the violation to her issue, and that too without end, for if it extends to any, it must to every degree of descendants.
Now this sounds nice; I’d like to believe it’s true. It doesn’t seem to have ANYthing to do with the Bible. And it was said by a man who thought only parts of the Bible were true and edited out those parts with a razor.
Natural law = what man discovers from nature looking to reason, period. Some Christians were indeed orthodox and kept their “discoveries” compatible with the Bible. Others, like Jefferson used looking to nature via reason to trump the Bible’s text and discard what the Bible said.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!