Comments on: Baptist Minister Reacts to David Barton's Justification of Indian Destruction

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:37:24 +0000

In reply to Patrocles. Pat - Hard to see how you got that message.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 21:37:24 +0000

In reply to jim. Jim - Thanks for that. The entire quote makes it even more clear that Barton is endorsing the concept as well as the book.

The concept of what a covenant truly is and means is unfamiliar to most today, for it far surpasses any legal understandings or obligations with which our current culture is acquainted. God established a covenant with Abraham and his posterity, the Bible recounts not only the duties but also the remarkable benefits produced by that mutual accord. Tim Ballard documents the "extension" of that covenant re-invoked during the establishment of this nation… a covenant made between God and America's early colonists and Founders. The Covenant not only shows the unprecedented blessings America has received as a result of obedience to God but also what every citizen today can do to honor our national covenant with God and thus ensure His continued blessings.

According to Barton, we have a national covenant with God. Honoring it leads to blessings; being unChristian leads to curses, just like Israel. I have not had time to look back at my posts on dominionism, but this seems to be a thread running through most of it -- the promises and challenges to Israel and for America today. Seems odd that if all that were so important that there would be no mention of the United States in holy writ.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:54:34 +0000

But Warren admitted he didn’t expect the bill to go far.
“I didn’t expect it to go anywhere,” he said, noting that the bill was read into the floor Tuesday morning and referred to the committee for Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House. “Quite often bills go there and never come out.”
FTR, I don’t like the council praying any sectarian prayer [i.e., mentioning “Christ”] and I also don’t think the ACLU and its 3 litigants are doing anything beneficial for the nation. A pox on them all with this chickenspit.
In the olden days, a cliche said, “Don’t make a federal case of it!” My sentiments exactly.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:54:34 +0000

Let’s hope it doesn’t (although I’m not entirely clear exactly what ‘it’ is)!
As is usually the case, my objections to any kind of ‘imposition of religion’ are primarily theological. If the Christian way were to be to ‘impose’ (regardless of what any parts of the OT might suggest) – if GOD’s way were to be to ‘impose’ – then Good Friday would never have happened.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:54:33 +0000

@ Tom
Interesting – and it would be interesting too to see what the (Rowan County) Defence of Religion Act 2013 has to say.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:54:33 +0000

A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide.
This is supposed to pass for legitimate journalism?
First, it baldly takes a side. Second, it’s not accurate.
Did you know that Massachusetts had an official established church [Congregationalism] up until 1833? The First Amendment/Bill of Rights only forbids the federal government from establishing religion.
Congress shall make no law….
Not one person in 100 knows that, though. The original Constitution and amendments left religion to the states. The only way to get to a state ban is via the 14th Amendment, via either incorporation [not completely settled yet] or by the “equal protection” clause.
And FTR, the proposed law
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H494v0.pdf
is symbolic: It does not establish Christianity as the state religion, it only asserts that constitutionally, a state may establish a state religion.
IOW, this one is not going the distance.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:54:32 +0000

Bill Fortenberry says:
April 1, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Warren,
How do you know that Barton believes that God gave the land to the settlers by covenant? I’ve asked you this before without receiving a response, and I am genuinely curious about the answer. I have never read or heard Barton make such a claim, but I have neither read nor heard a great deal of his material. If you could point me to a particular instance in which Barton expressed the belief that you accuse him of, I would be very appreciative.
I know I have read similar things in the many things by Barton I have read but I can’t place it now. I will look for it.
Bill Fortenberry has made a reasonable request of you on this, Warren. Perhaps you sincerely believe David Barton has said such things.
Perhaps David Barton has indeed said such things. It’s time to quote him directly, however, before this mess goes any further.

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:46:11 +0000

Susan – I don’t disagree, although I don’t have the knowledge base to know much about Indian tribes outside of the U.S.
What I object most to is the view of Chrisitan nationalists (e.g., the movie Monumental), that God gave the land to the Christian via covenant and that justifies the treatment of the natives. Barton calls it a just war, and Bryan Fischer says the Indians didn’t have the moral authority to keep their land. The view holds that Europeans were more civilized, didn’t do those nasty things the Indians did and therefore were in the right. However, as I am sure you know, the English and Spanish settlers did lots of nasty things and had their own barbarisms (e.g., drawn and quartered) which the Christian nationalists don’t want to discuss.
RE: Dialectics – Understand your position, however, there are some claims that are true or not true (e.g., Congress printed the first English Bible in American for the use of schools – not true).

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:33:54 +0000

But I have made no charge, Tom; all I have done is suggested that people could be forgiven for drawing a particular conclusion. And I agree that, if we are to sure of this possible opinion of Barton, we do need more of a ‘smoking gun’.
I agree with much of what you say about how one should look at the OT. Linguistics and hermeneutics are important when it comes to understanding the true meanings of these texts.
Is there a ‘difficult theological problem’? Not for me, I must say: as a Christian, I believe that the Revelation that trumps all other (supposed or real) revelations is that of Good Friday; all scriptural texts must be understood in the context of that revelation. And there is a strong hint of this revelation-to-be right back in Genesis, when God says to Abraham (who believed that God wanted him to sacrifice his son – misplaced ‘over-enthusiasm’ on Abraham’s part? we can all make that kind of mistake when we’re ‘fired up’ with devotion!), “I will provide the sacrifice.” (And we all know, from experience, that love demands the sacrifice of at least something of one’s self.)

By: jim

jim — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:33:53 +0000

TVD – “No direct quotes…”
Tom, the comments are on a direct quote from the back book jacket.