- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,873
- Reaction score
- 8,364
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Search Results metaxasTo support his vision of America, Metaxas selectively refers to events in American history. When one is attempting to teach lessons from history, one should make sure the facts are right. Throughout the book, Metaxas is careless with facts and as a consequence misleads his readers and calls his conclusions into question.
Here are three basic errors. Metaxas calls John Adams a “committed and theologically orthodox Christian,” says Thomas Jefferson believed in Yahweh as his God, and implies that the Constitutional Convention acted favorably on Ben Franklin’s call to daily prayers. None of these claims are true. Adams did not believe in orthodox teachings including the Virgin Birth and deity of Christ, Jefferson believed Yahweh was vindictive and cruel, and the Constitutional Convention did not vote on Ben Franklin’s motion to have daily prayers. In fact, according to Franklin, the Convention, save three or four delegates, did not think prayers were necessary.
Read more: Eric Metaxas’ If You Can Keep It: A Critical Review | The Daily Caller
Metaxas claims that he is called by God to write such flawed history. He thus sees the criticism of his work as a “point of pride.” As an evangelical Christian who also believes he has a calling, I find this sort of “blessed are the persecuted” mentality to be offensive.
Read more: https://thewayofimprovement.com/category/review-series-on-metaxas-if-you-can-keep-it/
Another 'history' book has been published by an evangelical writer/radio host, Eric Metaxas, purporting to tell us that Christianity played far more of a role in the foundation of this nation that those secular, academics are willing to admit.
Mr Metaxas, though he failed to mention the influence of David Barton in his book, If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, has since publication admitted that his work owes a great deal to Mr Barton's various works of 'history'.
BUT, just as with Barton's books, Metaxas' volume is little more than yet another attempt to create a past which never was.
There are historians and academics who are evangelical Christians who are just a tad upset with Metaxas and his false history.
Links to a few reviews by such people
Warren Throckmorton, Professor of Psychology at Grove City College and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at the Center for Vision and Values which is a part of Grove City College.
Most recent project is Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, which is a book with GCC colleague Michael Coulter. In the book, we fact-check claims often made by Christian Nationalists about Thomas Jefferson. The book was triggered by the publication of David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies, a book which brings most of those claims together.
Search Results metaxas
John Fea, (Ph.D, Stony Brook University, 1999) is Professor of American History and Chair of the History Department at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, where he has taught since 2002.
continued in next post
Metaxas believes unabashedly in American exceptionalism, although he is quick to disavow all forms of jingoism or triumphant nationalism. The United States is exceptional, he contends, because we have a unique mission—a divinely ordained, unique mission—to be a blessing to the other nations of the world.
Although I’m sure he means well, the theological implications of this belief are enormous and appalling. One of my favorite historians of the American Civil War, Steven Woodworth, calls this blurring of the roles of the church and the nation “patriotic heresy.”
Read more: https://faithandamericanhistory.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/america-as-a-city-on-a-hill/
One of the more egregious historical errors is the claim that the “very first settlers on American shores” came “precisely” to gain religious freedom, along with the equally false claim that “in America the idea of religious freedom was paramount,” and that there was “a complete tolerance of all denominations and religions” from the beginning (34–35).
The first settlers to the American shores (that would become the United States) settled at Jamestown in 1607 and came seeking profits, not prophets. Like many on the Christian Right, Metaxas skips Jamestown altogether. He says: “Since the Pilgrims came to our shores in 1620, religious freedom and religious tolerance have been the single most important principle of American life” (70). The Pilgrims and Puritans did come seeking religious freedom, but only for themselves. They didn’t value or allow religious freedom for others.
Read more: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/book-reviews-if-you-can-keep-it
So, you don't like the guy or his version of history. Got it.
Publisher Thomas Nelson has withdrawn 'The Jefferson Lies" after a lengthy review found the author, David Barton, had included "historical details that were not adequately supported," said Brian Hampton, a senior vice president and publisher for Thomas Nelson.
Hampton said the move was "extremely rare" and he could not recall a time in the publisher's history when it had recalled a book in this manner. "We’re disappointed for everyone concerned," Hampton said.
Read more: Barton's 'Jefferson Lies' book yanked – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
Lies the Debunkers Told Me: How Bad History Books Win Us Over
Politicians quote them. Movie stars revere them. But these authors are so busy spinning good yarns that they don't have time to research the facts.
Earlier this month (July 2012), George Mason University's History News Network asked readers to vote for the least credible history book in print. The top pick was David Barton's right-wing reimagining of our third president, Jefferson's Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed about Thomas Jefferson. But just nine votes behind was the late Howard Zinn's left-wing epic, A People's History of the United States. Bad history, it turns out, transcends political divides.
If these books seem an unlikely pair, they also have a good deal in common. Both flatter their readers by promising to let them in on hidden truths of which most people, and most experts, are unaware. Both offer stark, simplistic accounts (buttressed, in Barton's case, by a litany of historical errors). And both undermine the notion that the past can be rationally interrogated, debated, and revised by people from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum.
All of this is worth remedying because a well-functioning democracy requires at least a minimal threshold of public trust and a modest baseline of historical agreement. When we repeatedly fall prey to partisan debunking, and when the validity of basic facts -- and even the method of defining them -- is subject to constant ideological chicanery, there's very little room for substantive debate and conversation.
The problem is not with the idiots who write such crap, but the morons who believe it and think it is gospel and unfortunately there are more than just a few.Who cares, idiots always try to lie about history to make themselves look better
The problem is not with the idiots who write such crap, but the morons who believe it and think it is gospel and unfortunately there are more than just a few.
The problem is that this is all over semantics. Was john adams a theologically orthodox christian? Well, it depends on what you think a 'theologically orthodox christian is'. I've been brought up in southern Christianity for 26 years, and I've never even heard of the phrase. With the kind of rhetoric spilled out on here and certainly on college campuses, anyone who regularly goes to church could be seen as a 'theologically orthodox christian". I've never read the book but the critics so far don't seem to be about facts, but simply on how one man may interpret the thoughts and opinions of another, and in the end a waste of time.Another 'history' book has been published by an evangelical writer/radio host, Eric Metaxas, purporting to tell us that Christianity played far more of a role in the foundation of this nation that those secular, academics are willing to admit.
Mr Metaxas, though he failed to mention the influence of David Barton in his book, If You Can Keep It: The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, has since publication admitted that his work owes a great deal to Mr Barton's various works of 'history'.
BUT, just as with Barton's books, Metaxas' volume is little more than yet another attempt to create a past which never was.
There are historians and academics who are evangelical Christians who are just a tad upset with Metaxas and his false history.
Links to a few reviews by such people
Warren Throckmorton, Professor of Psychology at Grove City College and Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at the Center for Vision and Values which is a part of Grove City College.
Most recent project is Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President, which is a book with GCC colleague Michael Coulter. In the book, we fact-check claims often made by Christian Nationalists about Thomas Jefferson. The book was triggered by the publication of David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies, a book which brings most of those claims together.
Search Results metaxas
John Fea, (Ph.D, Stony Brook University, 1999) is Professor of American History and Chair of the History Department at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, where he has taught since 2002.
continued in next post
The problem is that this is all over semantics. Was john adams a theologically orthodox christian? Well, it depends on what you think a 'theologically orthodox christian is'. I've been brought up in southern Christianity for 26 years, and I've never even heard of the phrase. With the kind of rhetoric spilled out on here and certainly on college campuses, anyone who regularly goes to church could be seen as a 'theologically orthodox christian". I've never read the book but the critics so far don't seem to be about facts, but simply on how one man may interpret the thoughts and opinions of another, and in the end a waste of time.
Here are three basic errors. Metaxas calls John Adams a “committed and theologically orthodox Christian,” says Thomas Jefferson believed in Yahweh as his God, and implies that the Constitutional Convention acted favorably on Ben Franklin’s call to daily prayers. None of these claims are true. Adams did not believe in orthodox teachings including the Virgin Birth and deity of Christ, Jefferson believed Yahweh was vindictive and cruel, and the Constitutional Convention did not vote on Ben Franklin’s motion to have daily prayers. In fact, according to Franklin, the Convention, save three or four delegates, did not think prayers were necessary.
One of the more egregious historical errors is the claim that the “very first settlers on American shores” came “precisely” to gain religious freedom, along with the equally false claim that “in America the idea of religious freedom was paramount,” and that there was “a complete tolerance of all denominations and religions” from the beginning (34–35)
Robert Tracy McKenzie, professor and chair of the Department of History at Wheaton College.
Gregg L. Frazer is professor of history and political studies at The Master’s College in Santa Clarita, California. He’s the author of The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution (University Press of Kansas). Gregg is a deacon at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California.
Why are liars such as Metaxas and David Barton so successful in spreading these false tales about America? Is it because they speak of their Christian faith in conjunction with their lies, that so many Americans fail to comprehend the prevarications?
So, you don't like the guy or his version of history. Got it.
So, you don't like the guy or his version of history. Got it.
The problem is that this is all over semantics. Was john adams a theologically orthodox christian? Well, it depends on what you think a 'theologically orthodox christian is'. I've been brought up in southern Christianity for 26 years, and I've never even heard of the phrase. With the kind of rhetoric spilled out on here and certainly on college campuses, anyone who regularly goes to church could be seen as a 'theologically orthodox christian". I've never read the book but the critics so far don't seem to be about facts, but simply on how one man may interpret the thoughts and opinions of another, and in the end a waste of time.
One thing's for sure. This country wasn't founded by a bunch of atheists.
They are successful because people by and large don't bother to study world history to see the true part religion played in the founding of this country. As a result, anybody cn go back and rearrange any set of documents and writings into any context that they wish, to tell whatever story they want to.
The only part that religion played in the founding of the US was, just like in Norther Ireland, a tool for attracting people to the plantation. King James VI had HIS version of the Bible written for just such a purpose, hoping that planters would go to Northern Ireland to spread the word. The Puritans were run out of England and sent on their way to the new plantation.
In those days, religion and territory went hand in hand.
Drivel.
Why so?
For one thing, the Puritans weren't "driven out" they huffed out because they weren't allowed their own religious excesses, spent a few years in Europe where they failed to gain traction either, and eventually set sail for the New World. They were even a minority on the Mayflower! Outnumbered by the economic migrants.
England had been sending prisoners to serve their sentence in the USA for a decade before the Mayflower sailed. (and right on through till 1770) Then Australia was discovered, even further away!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?