Comments on: On David Barton's claim that Unitarians were "a very evangelical Christian denomination"

By: StraightGrandmother

StraightGrandmother — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:33:32 +0000

David Farrell =

Unfortunately Warren, the people who really need to hear this most likely won’t; and many that do have already made up their mind that David Barton is a “man of God” and is therefore, to be totally trustworthy

I am not to sure about that. I have seen Warrens Blogs linked to many times in outside debates. You may not see a lot of comments here but what you don’t see is how this information from Warren is re-posted as rebuttals to false claims. It is like casting bread out onto the water for fish. You see the bread sink and think, “Well that was a waste, they didn’t surface and eat it” What you don’t see is how many fish are eating it as it drops down through the water a few feet below.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:33:32 +0000

The motives behind this debates seem to be that either (a) modern evangelicals should take possession of the whole american political tradition or (b) they are to be excluded from the whole american political tradition. Obviously, neither the one nor the other is possible.
But, of course, the points of this debate are completely irrelevant for the question of dominionism. You can defend dominionism on a purely Jewish or on a non-trinitarian basis. You can even defend it better, when you don’t believe in a God who intentionally did not build up his empire in this world but first suffered and then resuscitated in order to build some place for his friends in another world.

By: oft

oft — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:45:03 +0000

Richard Willmer said:

Hard-line fundamentalists are probably never going to listen to reasoned argument, but I agree with SG that exposing lies and dismantling flawed reasoning is useful, if only to help inform ‘floating voters’ and make clear to religious sceptics that one can be a Christian and use one’s brain.

It is evangelicals that promote using man’s right reason so as not to leave our brain’s at the door. God says through the Prophet Isaiah, “Let us reason together.” Sinful man doesn’t want to reason with God, he wants to do his own thing, which is why this planet is a mess, and why Jesus shed His blood for our sins.

By: oft

oft — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:45:03 +0000

Richard Willmer said:

Hard-line fundamentalists are probably never going to listen to reasoned argument, but I agree with SG that exposing lies and dismantling flawed reasoning is useful, if only to help inform ‘floating voters’ and make clear to religious sceptics that one can be a Christian and use one’s brain.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:30:01 +0000

Hard-line fundamentalists are probably never going to listen to reasoned argument, but I agree with SG that exposing lies and dismantling flawed reasoning is useful, if only to help inform 'floating voters' and make clear to religious sceptics that one can be a Christian and use one's brain.

By: StraightGrandmother

StraightGrandmother — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:36:02 +0000

David Farrell =

Unfortunately Warren, the people who really need to hear this most likely won’t; and many that do have already made up their mind that David Barton is a “man of God” and is therefore, to be totally trustworthy

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 16:30:01 +0000

By: David Farrell

David Farrell — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:50:06 +0000

Unfortunately Warren, the people who really need to hear this most likely won’t; and many that do have already made up their mind that David Barton is a “man of God” and is therefore, to be totally trustworthy.

By: David Farrell

David Farrell — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:50:06 +0000

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 03:51:29 +0000

As a cultural anthropologist,I’m used to distinguish between “overt culture” and ” covert culture”. Openly, the points debated between evangelicals and liberals were/are atonement/non-atonement and trinity/unitarianism.
But atonement is important because of sin, and the covert question is: Do we accept sin, repentance and forgiving as the central problems of Christianity, or do we see sin as a marginal problem?
Evangelicals didn’t define themselves as “orthodox” or “fundamentalist” before 1900 – but , since the time of Wesley, they saw sin as the central problem (as did, in my eyes, the movement around Jesus). On the other hand, the general public in Britain and the U.S. tended more and more to marginalize sin (in fact, this development begins with Calvinism and his stress on chosenness instead of sin). So, it approaches, by and by, the terrible innocence of ancient heathendom.