tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00The Jon Rowe ArchivesJonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger2635125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-89403975841522562772018-08-30T02:34:35.087-04:002018-08-30T02:34:35.087-04:00Do you know who NG is? Maybe Nathaniel Giles? I...Do you know who NG is? Maybe Nathaniel Giles? I've never seen an assumption like that referring to GW.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-11118285811356916412018-08-30T02:16:46.877-04:002018-08-30T02:16:46.877-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-53870064145392025142018-08-29T17:26:20.941-04:002018-08-29T17:26:20.941-04:00I will ask Brad.
What comes up in the link is a ...I will ask Brad. <br /><br />What comes up in the link is a letter TO George Washington from "NG." The "orthodox" clergy sent GW tons of stuff like this. He usually just thanks them in a generic way.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-30072417225696056002018-08-29T02:47:38.976-04:002018-08-29T02:47:38.976-04:00Jon, I want to write a post on Athanasius on AC. C...Jon, I want to write a post on Athanasius on AC. Can you ask Brad?Have you seen this:<br />https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Athanasian Creed &s=1511311111&r=10Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-74009254861325471242016-11-28T19:55:43.208-05:002016-11-28T19:55:43.208-05:00I did not realize that you posted your piece over ...I did not realize that you posted your piece over there. I noticed that things were kinda quiet, so I checked in here and at TVD's place--thinking maybe everyone is working on their personal blogs. I'll post my comment there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-71929204755497307732016-11-28T08:44:52.656-05:002016-11-28T08:44:52.656-05:00Thank you for the comment. Are you going to post i...Thank you for the comment. Are you going to post it at AC?Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-65782098241758116482016-11-27T20:43:15.094-05:002016-11-27T20:43:15.094-05:00Jefferson's emphasis on "happiness" ...Jefferson's emphasis on "happiness" is echoed in many of the state constitutions drafted during the War for Independence, along with the expression "happiness and safety." Sadly we do not have any works (that I know of) that examine what "happiness" meant to 18th century Americans. One of my favorite historians, Jack P. Greene, wrote a book <i>Pursuits of Happiness</i> that describes the social and economic development of the colonies. In spite of the title, he devotes only a few pages near the end to that question. He does not examine it from a philosophical view, but rather describes it as a "cultural orientation" of Americans who seek a to live <i>at ease rather than in anxiety, in contentment rather than in want, in respectability rather than in meanness, and, per most important, in freedom from the will and control of other men</i>. Sounds a almost like that Eudaimonia (or thriving), at least in a material sense, that you alluded to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-11112378898013623462016-11-27T20:39:35.880-05:002016-11-27T20:39:35.880-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-74020962194416574872016-11-08T15:27:30.738-05:002016-11-08T15:27:30.738-05:00Are you trying to make money from your websites us...Are you trying to <b>make money</b> from your <b>websites</b> using <b>popunder advertisments</b>? <br />If so, did you try using <b><a href="http://syntaxlinks.com/affiliate-network-reviews/network/2/Clicksor/" rel="nofollow">Clicksor</a></b>?Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287821785570247118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-4666509139212917052016-04-10T11:55:22.328-04:002016-04-10T11:55:22.328-04:00My pleasure and thank you for the comment. My pleasure and thank you for the comment. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-762658778340113152016-04-10T11:46:56.608-04:002016-04-10T11:46:56.608-04:00Fascinating commentary, Jon. Thank you! As you wri... Fascinating commentary, Jon. Thank you! As you write, Bernard Bailyn identifies several strands contributing to the ideology of the Founders. Bailyn offers us a whimsical mnemonic based on 4 names, Locke, Abraham, Brutus and Cook. These names represent four 'disparate' strands, (i.e., Abraham represents the covenant theology of the New England Puritans).<br /><br />According to Bailyn, the 4 are harmonized somehow by the philosophy of the Commonwealthmen/Real Whigs/country party radicals. But I find the harmonizing process suggested by Bailyn difficult to understand. For example, it's not clear how the Commonwealthmen are able to harmonize Abraham and Locke.<br /><br />Nevertheless, however it happened, it is pretty clear that Abraham and Locke did get harmonized by the time of the American Revolution. Tocqueville writes admiringly about it: "In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reined in common over the same country."Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03437487057795781249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-5888961202061865842016-01-20T17:40:48.632-05:002016-01-20T17:40:48.632-05:00I don't agree with your ages. 18 & 19 year...I don't agree with your ages. 18 & 19 year olds are adults. People mature at different ages. But it's more like 12-16. People who are in, around and after puberty but below the age of consent. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-6517700455203392982016-01-20T13:36:17.842-05:002016-01-20T13:36:17.842-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Seaearth ponyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17582765918943640894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-22466772961977634302015-10-15T22:38:43.547-04:002015-10-15T22:38:43.547-04:00even if you study a fighting style and never took ...even if you study a fighting style and never took fighting seriously you guys don't know what you talking about and when you guys kiss genius ass without never seening bruce fight, you as a student of the martial art you not going to mount to nothing.charles benitezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366689707633169327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-20448855760538988162015-09-18T10:49:25.638-04:002015-09-18T10:49:25.638-04:00I'm shocked that you aren't a pastor (I th...I'm shocked that you aren't a pastor (I think I picked it up in viewing your public speaking at your church).<br /><br />I endorse rationalism to a point, to the extent that any truth I believe in must be consistent with reality. And we CAN learn about and test reality through things like the scientific method and canons of logic.<br /><br />But that method of knowing has its limits. If I thought truths that are falsifiable in this sense were the ONLY ACTUAL truths, I'd probably be an atheist. (Though I admit this kind of rationalism sometimes pulls me back into agnosticism). <br /><br />Though my mystical philosophy does embrace the "black box" element of agnosticism. (Einstein's theory of relativity was true before it was discovered, but remained hidden in a black box. There are tons of black boxes still out there.) <br /><br />But no, the truths that are beyond the limits of rationalism cannot in fact be "verified" by that method. I just don't think they contradict what rationalism tells us. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-45163624252611855252015-09-17T07:25:30.181-04:002015-09-17T07:25:30.181-04:00Okay, so the mystical truths still have to be cons...Okay, so the mystical truths still have to be consistent with each other. This doesn't just mean that you endorse rationalism. Rather it means that you use rationalism as a means of verifying the truth claims of mysticism. Therefore, as much as you may deny it, your own epistemology resolves to simple rationalism. This is apparent even in your assertions of the opposite, for you have yet to claim that your mystical approach is correct because you feel in your spirit that it is correct. Instead you have attempted to provide rational arguments against rationalism and for mysticism. If you really relied on mysticism then you would have provided mystical arguments instead of rational arguments.<br /><br />By the way, I'm not a pastor. I'm not sure where you picked up that idea, but it's not an honor that I can claim. I'm just a simple layman who enjoys studying the Bible.Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-19475820026859446072015-09-15T19:53:45.302-04:002015-09-15T19:53:45.302-04:00Re the Magesterium, I don't think you think th...Re the Magesterium, I don't think you think the Pope (Bishop of Rome) is who he claims to be. <br /><br />I'm not interested in proving he is or is not. Rather, what I do claim is that if you think, according to YOUR method of 1. scripture (which could mean 66 or less or 73 or more books in an inspired canon) plus 2. rationalism, you can, objectively speaking, "prove" the Pope is NOT who he claims to be, you are utterly fooling yourself. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-16473842897067654252015-09-15T19:30:21.165-04:002015-09-15T19:30:21.165-04:00"In regards to Jesus' interactions with t..."In regards to Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, I can't recall any instance of them arguing Him to a 'Mexican Standoff.'"<br /><br />I'm not going to cite the verses and chapter of scripture but I think you are aware of them. The fact that you can't "see" the point tells me that you are suffering from the very blindness that Jesus accused (at least some of the key members of) the Pharisees of suffering. He'd point something out, and they'd always have an "answer" -- and the process could go on forever.<br /><br />2+2=4 is a very simple elementary truth. You don't have to be an expert in any kind of complicated process to "see" it. And spiritual truth, such as the kind you believe in, is not in fact falsifiable in the sense that complicated scientific equations are. You are just claiming it so with a word salad. Since you are smarter than most folks in your flock, you'll get them to believe or follow you (until they doubt and fall away).<br /><br />If an actual skeptic with a philosophical and/or scientific background bothers to put your claims under the microscope, they will refute you or at least give reason for doubt. To which, of course, you will respond with something and the process can go on indefinitely.<br /><br />[I also think it ironic in that you seem to have embraced the notion of "primitive Christianity" which eschews reliance on any kind of complicated metaphysical or philosophical notions in order to discover true religion.]<br /><br />"But my actual [question] to you still remains unanswered. I still do not understand why your reason for rejecting rationalism and the concept of a majesterium would not also lead you to reject the value of the internal understanding of the Quakers. How do you determine whether your spirit is leading you to truth or to error?"<br /><br />Actually I think I did answer your question. And if you don't "understand" or "accept" it that's fine. These are truths you can't refute or emotionally coerce people into genuinely believing.<br /><br />The answer is, these kinds of truth, objective and non-relativistic as they are, are still different.<br /><br />How I know whether something is true: The spirit testifies to the truth and it resonates with my conscience. I can "see" it. Or not.<br /><br />If it makes sense, I do believe in a unified theory of truth where truth doesn't contradict truth. So I do endorse rationalism, empiricism, science, etc. I believe in evolution and a universe billions of years old because scientists have proven this.<br /><br />And the mystical truths that are "different" still have in some way be made to "fit" so truth doesn't contradict truth.<br /><br />But the mystical understanding is still truth in a different sense. If the lightbulb hasn't been turned on, I can't argue it on. And so my pointing out all of the different contradictory understandings of the method of scripture + rationalism isn't meant to prove my understanding right, simply note the failure of that method to teach ultimate truth.<br /><br />If you want to say my method fails, that's fine. My response is my method plays according to a different set of rules.<br /><br />It's not "special pleading" either because my method is humble enough to understand that it's not entitled to a monopoly on words at the Pastor's Pulpit on Sabbath Day. Rather it's entitled to silence. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-41755793332874010542015-09-14T07:41:23.950-04:002015-09-14T07:41:23.950-04:00When I say that the Bible has proven to be accurat...When I say that the Bible has proven to be accurate and consistent, I mean that this can be proven in the same manner in which 2+2 can be proven to equal 4. Of course there are many aspects of Scripture which are more complex than 2+2=4 just as there are many mathematical proofs that are vastly more complex. And the fact that the same Scriptural question has often produced competing proofs is also no different than the various competing proofs that are frequently offered for a single mathematical problem. Even the fact that some portions of Scripture are still "unsolved" finds an equivalence in the vast number of mathematical problems that remain unsolved such as the Hodge conjecture or Beal's conjecture. <br /><br />This is simply the nature of rational thought. The same basic principles which provide reliable answers to simple problems can be combined and expounded upon to solve increasingly more complex problems, but as the problems and solutions become more complex, there is a related increase in the potential for human error thus producing competing solutions which require a great deal of effort to eliminate. Take Mochizuki's proof of the abc conjecture. It was presented in 2012 and is so complex that it is still in the process of being verified. The complexity of Mochizuki's proof increases the likelihood that he made a mistake, and in fact one such mistake has already been found and corrected, but the fact that such mistakes are likely is not a valid reason for rejecting the possibility of a rational proof for the abc conjecture.<br /><br />In regards to Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, I can't recall any instance of them arguing Him to a "Mexican Standoff."<br /><br />But my actual to you still remains unanswered. I still do not understand why your reason for rejecting rationalism and the concept of a majesterium would not also lead you to reject the value of the internal understanding of the Quakers. How do you determine whether your spirit is leading you to truth or to error?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-17980720403759094582015-09-11T10:06:29.390-04:002015-09-11T10:06:29.390-04:00"Most of it I accept as true because I've..."Most of it I accept as true because I've put it to the test, and it has proven to be both accurate and consistent."<br /><br />What does it mean "to prove." That's a loaded term. If I bench press 500 pounds, I've proven something in an objective sense. If, on the other hand, I simply write a response and get the last word in, or get a last word in to the people I'm preaching to, the bullets are actually blanks. So you can simply claim the other person shot and miss, but your metaphorical bullet hit its mark.<br /><br />That's what I get from you. I actually don't see from you that you have "proven" that you -- as opposed to the the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Calvinists teach -- are right and they are wrong. And that the rationalistic method of argument can't in fact do it.<br /><br />Further I think Jesus recognized this dynamic with the Pharisees, and Sadducees. They were very learned and virtuosos at arguing. Using the method of scripture + rationalistic argumentation they could argue Jesus to a Mexican Standoff.<br /><br />Jesus had a different method. It was to speak in parable and hide the ball. There are different kinds of truths and battles. There's the way in which one argues in a court of law or Oxford style debate. Both those are battles that the Pharisees and Sadducees could beat just about anyone at. That's how I see you, Pastor Fortenberry.<br /><br />The higher truth of the religious understanding is where the individual in an uncoerced calm and still manner figures it out for himself.<br /><br />That's the whole point of Jesus speaking in parable. For people to have that necessary "aha" moment of discovery. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-74894935734272579372015-09-11T06:57:01.242-04:002015-09-11T06:57:01.242-04:00Most of it I accept as true because I've put i...Most of it I accept as true because I've put it to the test, and it has proven to be both accurate and consistent. There are a few portions that I have not been able to test yet, and I accept those based on the Bible's track record until such a time as I will be able to test those portions as well. The Bible instructs me to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good," and I have done my best to apply that instruction to the Bible itself. <br /><br />What process do you use in order to determine that your spirit leads you to truth and not to error?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-82211505839948276632015-09-10T11:54:53.413-04:002015-09-10T11:54:53.413-04:00How do you know what you believe about the Bible i...How do you know what you believe about the Bible is true?Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-28228199795550405922015-09-10T11:02:46.789-04:002015-09-10T11:02:46.789-04:00How do you know that your spirit always testifies ...How do you know that your spirit always testifies to the truth and that it does not occasionally testify in error?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-64783614433098849682015-09-09T08:45:32.183-04:002015-09-09T08:45:32.183-04:00Ultimately you are looking for truth that you can ...Ultimately you are looking for truth that you can "see" just as you can "see" 2+2=4. In more traditional religious sense, you would say "the spirit testifies" to the truth. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-1493785211820056392015-09-08T16:56:12.496-04:002015-09-08T16:56:12.496-04:00I understand that you are letting your conscience ...I understand that you are letting your conscience be your guide, but the real question is how do you know if it is guiding you to the truth?Bill Fortenberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14205053444988720146noreply@blogger.com