<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Kirk Cameron&#8217;s Monumental Revision of Thomas Jefferson	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/</link>
	<description>A [retired] college psychology professor&#039;s observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:27:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Warren		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/#comment-89300</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Warren]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=11322#comment-89300</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/#comment-87770&quot;&gt;Jo&lt;/a&gt;.

Jo - In the lists of people Cameron consulted that are available, there are no known historians. To whom are you referring?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/#comment-87770">Jo</a>.</p>
<p>Jo &#8211; In the lists of people Cameron consulted that are available, there are no known historians. To whom are you referring?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: gail		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/#comment-89290</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gail]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=11322#comment-89290</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Most people can only go back to such a point in time to deal with the truth so far as it does not mess with their perception of things. 



The &quot;truth&quot; is: This Nation was NOT founded on Christian principles. Those who would have us believe it was like to cite that it has &quot;prospered as long as it was guided by Bible believing principles.&quot; NOTHING could be further from the truth. 



This &quot;nation&quot; has prospered for the simple fact that it was sooooo teeming with natural resources that it took 500 years to deplete them. The abundance that nature had to offer on this continent was here for the simple reason that it was not as over-populated as Europe was. Period. This was indeed the land of plenty. Not so much anymore.



Further, citing the &quot;Founding Fathers&quot; and holding them up as ones to emulate is completely unreasonable when you consider the &#039;true&#039; meaning of just a few excerpts from only one document in this nation&#039;s history: The Declaration of Independence. 



    &quot;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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.&quot;



*IF* the term ALL MEN referred to all HUMANS, then it would be a correct premise - but it does not. It refers to all white men who owned property. Women, or People of Color were denied equal rights by these very white men who considered themselves superior enough over all other &quot;humans&quot; to place themselves in the lofty position of deciding that they alone - white men - were created &quot;equal.&quot; Women or People of Color were denied &quot;equal rights&quot; by self-righteous white dudes who basically made themselves &#039;lord&#039; over others. Do you not realize that they put themselves in &quot;God&#039;s&quot; position when they decided who could or could NOT have &quot;equal rights&quot;? That act, in and of itself is NOT Christian by any means. Not at all.



But there is even more incriminating evidence from this very same document!



    &quot;He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.&quot;

 

&quot;... the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages ...&quot;



the inhabitants of WHOSE FRONTIERS? ... 



the &quot;MERCILESS INDIAN SAVAGES&quot;??  what?!



Who was inhabiting whose frontiers? &#039;White man&#039; was inhabiting the land of the Native People with red skin - the people that God gave this continent to. The people that &quot;white man&quot; stole it from by decimating the Native population via warfare and biological warfare (ie., terrorism) -- white men introduced Small Pox virus to people without any immunity. Yep. Sounds like biological warfare to me.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most people can only go back to such a point in time to deal with the truth so far as it does not mess with their perception of things. </p>
<p>The &#8220;truth&#8221; is: This Nation was NOT founded on Christian principles. Those who would have us believe it was like to cite that it has &#8220;prospered as long as it was guided by Bible believing principles.&#8221; NOTHING could be further from the truth. </p>
<p>This &#8220;nation&#8221; has prospered for the simple fact that it was sooooo teeming with natural resources that it took 500 years to deplete them. The abundance that nature had to offer on this continent was here for the simple reason that it was not as over-populated as Europe was. Period. This was indeed the land of plenty. Not so much anymore.</p>
<p>Further, citing the &#8220;Founding Fathers&#8221; and holding them up as ones to emulate is completely unreasonable when you consider the &#8216;true&#8217; meaning of just a few excerpts from only one document in this nation&#8217;s history: The Declaration of Independence. </p>
<p>    &#8220;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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.&#8221;</p>
<p>*IF* the term ALL MEN referred to all HUMANS, then it would be a correct premise &#8211; but it does not. It refers to all white men who owned property. Women, or People of Color were denied equal rights by these very white men who considered themselves superior enough over all other &#8220;humans&#8221; to place themselves in the lofty position of deciding that they alone &#8211; white men &#8211; were created &#8220;equal.&#8221; Women or People of Color were denied &#8220;equal rights&#8221; by self-righteous white dudes who basically made themselves &#8216;lord&#8217; over others. Do you not realize that they put themselves in &#8220;God&#8217;s&#8221; position when they decided who could or could NOT have &#8220;equal rights&#8221;? That act, in and of itself is NOT Christian by any means. Not at all.</p>
<p>But there is even more incriminating evidence from this very same document!</p>
<p>    &#8220;He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230; the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages &#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>the inhabitants of WHOSE FRONTIERS? &#8230; </p>
<p>the &#8220;MERCILESS INDIAN SAVAGES&#8221;??  what?!</p>
<p>Who was inhabiting whose frontiers? &#8216;White man&#8217; was inhabiting the land of the Native People with red skin &#8211; the people that God gave this continent to. The people that &#8220;white man&#8221; stole it from by decimating the Native population via warfare and biological warfare (ie., terrorism) &#8212; white men introduced Small Pox virus to people without any immunity. Yep. Sounds like biological warfare to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Warren		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/#comment-89299</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Warren]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:27:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=11322#comment-89299</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/#comment-87761&quot;&gt;Patrocles&lt;/a&gt;.

Good works. Virtue. Jefferson believed good works would give one an advantage in the afterlife. He did not accept the doctrine of original sin.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/#comment-87761">Patrocles</a>.</p>
<p>Good works. Virtue. Jefferson believed good works would give one an advantage in the afterlife. He did not accept the doctrine of original sin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David M.		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/#comment-87762</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David M.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=11322#comment-87762</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Christians had long ago developed a pocket-sized version of the faith in the Nicene Creed. That is the most important distillation that I believe separates Christian orthodoxy from heterodoxy. If we jetison that, we have to reinvent it somehow, since, as Richard Willmer suggests, the Bible doesn&#039;t give us its own interpretive key. But I know by saying this I&#039;ll be offending some evangelical sensibilities.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Christians had long ago developed a pocket-sized version of the faith in the Nicene Creed. That is the most important distillation that I believe separates Christian orthodoxy from heterodoxy. If we jetison that, we have to reinvent it somehow, since, as Richard Willmer suggests, the Bible doesn&#8217;t give us its own interpretive key. But I know by saying this I&#8217;ll be offending some evangelical sensibilities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Patrocles		</title>
		<link>https://wthrockmorton.com/2012/03/27/kirk-camerons-monumental-revision-of-jefferson/#comment-87769</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patrocles]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 May 2018 19:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=11322#comment-87769</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[As said before, it&#039;s not so much a problem of historical facts (which Dr. Throckmorton laudibly tries to get correct). It&#039;s a problem of concept formation, &quot;in-grouping&quot; and &quot;out-grouping&quot;.



At the moment, evangelical &quot;Christians&quot; like Cameron are prepared to look at Jefferson (and similar Jesus-followers) as &quot;one of us - in spite of his deficits&quot;. And in reverse, liberal &quot;Christians&quot; tend to stress their difference to Evangelicals (them being not &quot;one of us&quot;, but &quot;the other&quot;)..



But that&#039;s a fight which can&#039;t be won. Liberal &quot;Christians&quot; can hardly make plausible that Evangelicals are no Christians at all. So, if they want to disassociate themselves from Evangelicals, they must tell us (at least implicitly) that  &quot;Christianity&quot; as the common denominator isn&#039;t much relevant. But if Christianity is not much relevant for them, why do they call themselves Christians?



That&#039;s why liberal Christianism tends to be transitory and to dissolve itself in universalism or transcendentalism etc.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As said before, it&#8217;s not so much a problem of historical facts (which Dr. Throckmorton laudibly tries to get correct). It&#8217;s a problem of concept formation, &#8220;in-grouping&#8221; and &#8220;out-grouping&#8221;.</p>
<p>At the moment, evangelical &#8220;Christians&#8221; like Cameron are prepared to look at Jefferson (and similar Jesus-followers) as &#8220;one of us &#8211; in spite of his deficits&#8221;. And in reverse, liberal &#8220;Christians&#8221; tend to stress their difference to Evangelicals (them being not &#8220;one of us&#8221;, but &#8220;the other&#8221;)..</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s a fight which can&#8217;t be won. Liberal &#8220;Christians&#8221; can hardly make plausible that Evangelicals are no Christians at all. So, if they want to disassociate themselves from Evangelicals, they must tell us (at least implicitly) that  &#8220;Christianity&#8221; as the common denominator isn&#8217;t much relevant. But if Christianity is not much relevant for them, why do they call themselves Christians?</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why liberal Christianism tends to be transitory and to dissolve itself in universalism or transcendentalism etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
