Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )










Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Early America, Historical Inaccuracies
Sonee 
Posted: 20-Jun-2006, 08:30 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 277
Joined: 05-Apr-2005
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Nebraska

female





So terribly sorry, my dear Robert, to have put you to sleep! I have had a few issues to deal with on the home front and haven't been able to devote the time I want to my answers here and I'm not going to give half-baked answers just to keep things moving at a certain pace. History is important to me and I want to make sure I'm accurate with whatever I say. Again, my apologies for boring you.

In answer to your question, my source for the definition of Puritanism, (and also of grace, btw) was a book entitled Adventures In American Literature copywrite 1985. It's an old texbook I found in my book collection that basically discusses the writings of American authors from what they title 'The beginnings of the American Tradition' all the way up to 'Literature in Modern America'. That is also where I read the sermon by Jonathan Edwards. As to my quotes of Winthrop that comes directly from a copy of his sermon. I did find that same sermon online however. There are 2 sites that reprint it completely, one copies it exactly as written with the rather obtuse wording and the other seems to 'clean it up' so to speak and make it a bit more understandable.

The first is http://history.hanover.edu/texts/winthmod.html

and the second is http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/s...ed/charity.html

As to your response to my post: I think that our definitions of grace are really the same. The difference is that yours talks about GOD bestowing the grace, or true love, on the believer. I believe that the Puritans felt God would give THEM the ability to love truly if they could attain grace. From the book I mention in the beginning they talked about many Puritans (which was an actual 'organized religion' in the 1600's in England.) keeping diaries in their "attempt to trace the rise of grace in their souls. Puritans who achieved grace often told of their experiences in a form called the spiritual autobiography". I haven't managed to get my hands on a copy of that yet, but I will!!


I also have been thinking, (just because I wasn't posting didn't mean I wasn't thinking about this topic!!! biggrin.gif ) that I'm going about this wrong. We could sit here forever and pick apart every little line from any writings of the Puritans we wanted. So far all this has amounted to is each of us giving our impression on what was MEANT by the words and/or phrases. There is absolutely no way either of us could know for certain what was behind the use of those words in the mind of the writer. We can only conjecture about them based on the context they are used in. As such, I must admit that my opinions where not based solely on the writings of one person, or even two. Everyone interprets things their own way in these situations so I think to get a true sense of the "superiority" that the Puritans felt we have to look, and perhaps disect, more than just the writings of one or two preachers. As a matter of fact I'm not so sure that they can be considered viable subjects in this matter because they come from a "religious'" frame of mind. In other words, it was their JOB to interpret the bible and then teach others of its meaning. As we have found out in other threads the method of that interpretation is strictly up to the interpretor and is why there are so many 'religions' on the earth at this time. Each could, and probably did, skew things in a way that made the bible 'agree' with the ideas they had and DISagree with anyone else. I am not saying that this was done all the time or that it was even done maliciously, but I'm sure it was done, Jim Jones and David Koresh couldn't have been the first ones to use the bible to further their own ends!

What I'm getting at here is that by reading things by regular citizens, of how they thought of the Indians, themselves in relation to the Indians, and how they interacted with others NOT of their religion shows a great deal about the mindset of the Puritans. Perhaps they took the sermons by people like Winthrop and Edwards and 'blew them out of proportion', but I haven't found anything to date that shows preachers like them admonition their congregation of getting out of control. If anything these writings by 'regular joes' puts a whole new spin on what the preachers were saying.

I believe I got ahead of myself in starting with Winthrop and Edwards, or perhaps I was just setting the stage for the rest of my ideas, I couldn't really say. I can say that I see your point about how both sermons could be interpreted other than the way that I saw/see them. However, having said this I also think by reading those other writings you will be able to see why I think that way about those sermons. If you will be patient with me as I do this and try to deal with home problems I will try to show you. I will also answer Steve's "quiz" along the way if that's all agreeable with everyone?!


--------------------
Sonee

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke

"If there's a book you really want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." ~Toni Morrison
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 20-Jun-2006, 10:05 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





Sonee, I too am a busy beaver, having two final projects due in class next week, so there's no rush at all. I'll wait to hear from you next, and try more coffee to fight off the sand man! tongue.gif


--------------------
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.
~Mark Twain
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Sonee 
Posted: 20-Jun-2006, 04:02 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 277
Joined: 05-Apr-2005
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Nebraska

female





To begin with the Church of England didn't really replace another church, per se, they evolved from and eventually broke away from the Roman Catholic church. Back when Britian was a Roman province in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD there was a British Roman Catholic Church. In the 5th century the invasions by "pagan" groups like the Saxons destroyed what organization there was in the church so, in 597 Pope Gregory the Great sent a mission led by St. Augustine of Canterbury to start converting the invaders. In 664 their success was evidenced by the establishment of the Ecclesia Anglicana- or the English Church. It was led by 2 Archbishops; one of Canterbury and one of York. Until the Reformation in the 16th century they were Roman Catholic and followed the rule of the Pope.

In 1509 Henry VIII got a special dispensation from the Pope allowing him to marry Catherine of Aragon, the widow of his older brother. When she got too old to have any more children, having only given him one daughter, he began to worry about an heir. His mistress, Anne Boleyn, was still young enough to have children but refused to do so unless Henry married her. The Pope wouldn't grant him a divorce so he took it upon himself to break with Rome and the Catholic church. With the help of Parlaiment he replaced papal authority with royal authority and, in 1534 created the Act of Supremacy which said that the English monarch had always been "Supreme Head of the Church of England".

His son, Edward VI took over the throne in 1547 and continued purging the Church of England of its "catholicism". Eventually Elizabeth I would get rid of Roman Catholicixm for good, but that gets into the questions of Calvinism, the Stuarts, and the English Civil War and I think this post is long enough as it is! biggrin.gif I'll pick up where I left off a bit later!

Sources: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/index.html (Church of England)
http://www.nps.gov/fora/church.htm (Fort Raleigh National Historic Site)
PMEmail Poster               
Top
ShadowDarkFyre 
Posted: 21-Jun-2006, 07:27 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



ur-Lord of the Domain and Realms
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 283
Joined: 09-Mar-2006
ZodiacBirch

Realm: Caer RivenMyst, Fantasia I.D.

male





rolleyes.gif cool.gif beer_mug.gif


--------------------
user posted image

There's magick in believing...

The Domain and Realms
http://www.thedomainandrealms.com
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Sonee 
Posted: 21-Jun-2006, 09:07 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 277
Joined: 05-Apr-2005
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Nebraska

female





Scott Atkins, of the American Studies Group at the University of Virginia, believes that the Puritans considered themselves separate from anyone else of the time. He contends that a passage from 2 Corinthians; “Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord,” fostered and bolstered that belief. Atkins says that “knowledge of scripture and divinity, for the Puritans, was essential. They considered religion a very complex, subtle and highly intellectual affair.”

In his book “A history of Plymouth Plantation” William Bradford described the journey to America and one of the first stories he recounts is one of an ill-fated sailor on board the ship. The man is described as “haughty” and “contemning the poor people in their sickness”. Bradford says that “…it pleased God before they came half seas over” that the man was struck down with “…a grievous disease…and so was himself the first that was thrown overboard”. He goes on to further say that the rest of the crew, “…noted it to be the just hand of God upon him” Bradford and the rest of the Puritan passengers believed that God was striking down any that went against them, whether in word or deed.

He also describes and incident that shows God’s mercy to those he finds favorable. A Puritan passenger called John Howland was accidentally tossed overboard but managed to save himself by holding on to a piece of the ship that hung overboard until he could be rescued. Bradford states that “it pleased God that he caught hold of the topsail halyards…and his life saved” (21). He also makes mention of what becomes of John Howland with “…yet he lived many years after and became a profitable member both in church and commonwealth” Both of these stories, as well as Winthrops and Edwards sermons, seem to be the Puritans way of seperating themselves from everyone else and not just because they were Christians. It was because they alone had this "special commission" from God and the fact that they chose to accept this commission put them above everyone else in God's eyes as well as their own. God would take a special interest in what they did and even intervene in certain situations for them. They also believed that God personally put the Indians here for them to find and then subjugate.

Increase Mather, who was the son of one of the first settlers and ministers Cotton Mather, had this to say about the Indians in his book "The Warre With the Indians in New-England": THAT the Heathen People amongst whom we live, and whose Land the Lord God of our Fathers hath given to us for a rightfull Possession, have at sundry times been plotting mischievous devices against that part of the Eng lish Israel
which is seated in these goings down of the Sun, no man that is an Inhabitant of any consid erable standing, can be ignorant. Especially that there have been (nec injuriâ) jealousies concerning the Narra gansets and Wompanoags, is notoriously known to all men. And whereas they have been quiet untill the last year, that must be ascribed to the wonderfull Providence of God, who did (as with Jacob of old, and after that with the Children of Israel) lay the fear of the English, and the dread of them upon all the Indians. The terror of God was upon them round about." So, to begin with he beleives that God actually gave them this land despite the fact that the Indians were here first. He also calls himself and his colony "English Israel", a direct comparison to the chosen people that God favored in the Bible.

I found this next bit, also from Mather, to be very conceited and self justifying:
"Yea the Indians killed a man of this Colony as he was travelling in the roade before such time as we took up arms : in which respect no man can doubt of the justness of our cause, since the enemy did shed the blood of some of ours who never did them (our enemyes themselves being judges) the least wrong before we did at all offend them, or attempt any act of hostility towards them." These colonists took the land right out from under the Indians and in so doing also took, or made leave, the food sources these Indians were living off of. Isn't that 'the least wrong' and very offenive? But the colonists didn't see it that way because of their elitist ideals. They were above the Indians, they having been put here for the servitude of the settlers by God himself so how dare these savages strike at them.

William Bradford describes another incounter with the Indians in which God shows whose side he's on, so to speak. The colonists had taken a shallop, a small boat, from the Mayflower to the shore and were in the process of going back to the Mayflower. They had already loaded up their weapons on the shallop and were just waiting to board it themselves when some Indians began firing arrows at them from behind the trees. Bradford says "Thus it pleased God to vanquish their enemies and five them deliverance...that not any one of them were either hurt or hit, though their arrows came close by them and on every side of them". In other words they were so special to God that He would make the Indians arrows miss even from so close a range and the colonists without weapons.

He also describes an Indian that he didn't consider a barbarian. On the contrary, this one could speak broken English and told the colonist things like "the state of the country, the people here, their names, number and strength", things that would be of immense value to the Puritans in their fight with the "heathens". Bradford says "He became profitable to them" because of this information and that he was "a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectation." So, evidentally, there were only two kinds of Indians; wild barbarians or 'instruments' to be used.

This is a start, Robert, your thoughts? biggrin.gif (as I sit back and sip my own coffee!)
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Dogshirt 
Posted: 21-Jun-2006, 07:53 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 12-Oct-2003
ZodiacElder

Realm: Washington THE State

male





Would that my people had killed them all and kept killing them! How would the world be today?


beer_mug.gif


--------------------
Hoka Hey!
The more Liberals I meet, the more I like my dogs!
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 22-Jun-2006, 09:14 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





Sonee,

Just got through reading your post, right after reading my email. I will reply a.s.a.p., but for now I sleep. Was up all night working on final projects for school. In the meantime, I wanted to share from one of my emails I got today, some interesting history ( I know, I know, very loosely worded biggrin.gif ). You've probably already seen it, I know I have, but it is still a fascinating read. Catch you quick as I can.

QUOTE
Have a history teacher explain this----- if they can.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.

Now it gets really weird.

Lincoln 's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.

Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.

Now hang on to your seat.

Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.'
Kennedy was shot in a car called ' Lincoln' made by 'Ford.'

Lincoln was shot in a theater and his assassin ran and hid in a warehouse.
Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran and hid in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.

And here's the kicker...

A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
ShadowDarkFyre 
Posted: 22-Jun-2006, 09:22 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



ur-Lord of the Domain and Realms
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 283
Joined: 09-Mar-2006
ZodiacBirch

Realm: Caer RivenMyst, Fantasia I.D.

male





QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 22-Jun-2006, 02:53 AM)
Would that my people had killed them all and kept killing them! How would the world be today?


beer_mug.gif

Probably a whole lot more balanced than what it is now.


PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 01-Jul-2006, 10:01 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





Sonee,

I haven't forgotten about you. One more day working on finals and I'll have a little time to spare. Hang in there, I'll reply sometime this coming week. wink.gif
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Sonee 
Posted: 03-Jul-2006, 12:43 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 277
Joined: 05-Apr-2005
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Nebraska

female





No worries, Robert! I'm in no hurry so take your time!

I really liked reading your "historical facts"!! biggrin.gif
I have read that before but had forgotten it! Thanks for the laugh! laugh.gif



It's strange, isn't it, how two of the most major political events in American history have so many 'coincidences'? Makes you sit back and think, that's for sure!


Again, take your time, I'll enjoy reading, (and of course, replying!! wink.gif ) to your post whenever you get to it!
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 03-Jul-2006, 10:18 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





Ok Sonee, you're last address to me in the discussion was to ask my thoughts. I have re-read your posts, and have come to a conclusion and more questions. First, the conclusion is that it appears you have set out in your research with some pre-conceived notions about the mindset of the Puritans, and about the attitudes of those who believed they had been led to America by God. If I read the book of Acts or Romans from the bible with the attitude that the early church people felt better than everyone else, I might come to some of the same conclusions. Or when Jesus told his disciples to shake the dust off themselves before leaving a town that would not receive them, it could easily be argued that He was telling them "you are better than anyone who doesn't believe what you say." Of course, as a Christian with a firm set of beliefs, I can tell you that I don't see that as being the spirit or intention of Christ or Peter, or the Puritans you mention for that matter. Knowing the stories and event that led to Christ's instructions gives it context--without which the reader might conclude a number of things. Perhaps I too am somewhat biased when I read these accounts you provide, and cannot see what you are interpreting. I suppose one would have to be completely objective...but then without biblical knowledge or knowledge of God's wishes for His children, it would be impossible to draw any other conclusion than the one you assert here. That said, I am neither conceding your points, nor affirming my interpretation. I do, however, feel the discussion has taken a turn from the original thought (or maybe its my absence of late), but I do wonder where you are heading with the examination of the Puritans. Perhaps you could move the discussion forward a bit, elaborating on the Puritan's influence through the break from the British kingdom.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Sonee 
Posted: 05-Jul-2006, 08:18 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 277
Joined: 05-Apr-2005
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Nebraska

female





Actually, Robert, I began my research on the Puritans with absolutely no preconceived ideas or, if any, the same notions many are spoonfed in elementary/high school: "Oh those poor Puritans/Pilgims. They were so put-upon and persecuted in England that they had to cross the big bad ocean and create a whole new world were they could practice their beliefs in peace." (I meant that rather tongue-in cheek! Just so ya know!!) I believe that in school we are taught very little about the origins of our country and more about the first thanksgiving which really is insignificant on the whole. What I remember from high school history classes was pretty much what I said earlier without the sarcasm! The Puritans weren't being treated properly in England and weren't allowed to practice their religion freely so they left and came to America to settle where they would be able to practice whatever they wanted to without interference.

To be perfectly honest my area of interest is in midievil history specifically Scotland and Ireland. Until last semester I had no real interest in American history (still don't, really, but I do enjoy this discussion!) and was introduced to this topic in one of my English classes. I actually found myself rather shocked at the things I was finding.

I think you ARE somewhat biased about this discussion for the very fact that you ARE a Christian with a firm set of beliefs. I have found that it is hard for many Christians to see any other point of view than their own. It's kind of like not being able to see the forest for the trees. Because "you" believe in the words of the bible and your denomination/religions interpretation of them "you" can't possibly see how anyone else can see them any different.

"I don't see that as being the spirit or intention of Christ or Peter, or the Puritans you mention for that matter."

Of course you don't. Because you believe in the same book that they did and to say that they were elitists and thought themselves better than everyone else would be to say that you, and everyone following your religion (and therefore the same book) was also elitist.

"without biblical knowledge or knowledge of God's wishes for His children, it would be impossible to draw any other conclusion than the one you assert here."

I grew up in a very Christian houshold, I attended church every Sunday, youth group, wednesday night services, participated in all kinds of 'churchly' activities like Bible Bowl and summer church camps. I DO have knowledge of the bible and also what it says are God's wishes for His children and I STILL draw these conclusions. Does that mean to say that ALL Christians are elitist and think themselves better than everyone else? No, not really. I do think that many people who follow an 'organized' religion, be that Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, etc. feel that they are on the "true path' and the rest of us are just heathens condemned to hell if we don't convert to their way of thinking. (That does sound rather elitist to me!) But that's not indicative of EVERYONE who follows an 'organized' religion. Just the most ardent and fanatical. But I do think that if you have strong 'faith' in the bible itself it skews your views.

"I do wonder where you are heading with the examination of the Puritans"

All I'm trying to say is that I think the Puritans used the words of the bible to place themselves above anyone NOT following their exact path and also to prove their superiority over those same people by finding examples of God's 'chosen', the Isrealites, from the bible and comparing it to their own situations. They arrogantly believed that God himself had 'deeded' America to them and, since the Indians were already here he must have also 'deeded' THEM to the Puritans. You can justify this any way you want by saying that "We believers are all equal in the eyes of God. Israel still holds its place, but we are all God's chosen people if we choose to be." but that still relates to 'those who CHOOSE to be are equal and those who DON'T choose to be, or choose NOT to be, are not equal.' And THAT puts one group above the other which is the whole idea of 'superiority' or 'elitism'.


P.S. the instances of the word you being in quotations are to denote it's use as a generality, not refering to any one person specifically!
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 05-Jul-2006, 03:14 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





Sonee,

I alluded to the fact that my faith makes me biased to a degree. I won't however, admit that it keeps me from looking at things objectively. That is why I said that
"without biblical knowledge or knowledge of God's wishes for His children, it would be impossible to draw any other conclusion than the one you assert here." Let me go on to say that knowledge biblical knowledge alone does not adequately equip a person to understand the viewpoint of a Christian. I can see how you think these people held themselves higher than others, based upon their words. That's where the concurrence ends. Just like being a preacher's child does not make you a Christian, knowing the bible does not make you a believer. In other words, I can glean something from the words of those you have quoted that you obviously can't. Just be assured, I do not mean that as an insult!

PMEmail Poster               
Top
Sonee 
Posted: 05-Jul-2006, 09:53 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 277
Joined: 05-Apr-2005
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Nebraska

female





It's not just their words, though, that makes me think they held elitist views of themselves. It was also their actions, both within their own communities and also in their dealings with others 'outside' their communities, most specifically the Indians.

I can see how it could be said that they were just trying to 'be the best Christians they could be' and that the words they used and the references they made were all in an attempt to get the whole community/congregation to do the same, (which is what I think you were saying, correct me if I'm wrong!!!) but I still believe that opinion is skewed. I'm not sure anyone but another Christian would actually hold with that idea because that is the Christian interpretation/belief in the bible and the Puritans were Christians so they must feel the same way. Does that make any sense?

You say that you won't admit that your faith keeps you from looking at things objectivly but I think it HAS to. You may be able to 'see' why I would think a certain way but because of your faith you will never, no matter how much 'proof' I put in front of you, be able to "conceed my point" because that isn't how you or your faith, interpret those same passages. You will always consider my opinions/interpretations wrong (or at least off the mark) because they aren't the accepted "Christian" ones. (none of that was intended as an insult either!! just my observations!!)

I agree that "being a preacher's child does not make you a Christian", but on the other hand, just because I don't have the same faith in the bible that you do does not mean that I don't understand the viewpoints of a Christian. Until about a year ago I WAS a Christian. I believed in the bible and it's teachings and had the same faith that you do. I have since 'lost' that belief and that faith but that doesn't mean that I have 'lost' the memory of the last 30 years. So I don't think that you 'glean' any more from those words than I do, I'm just not blinded by my 'faith' anymore and can accept that there might be other explanations. (again, not intended as an insult! just an 'insight'!) smile.gif

Isn't it possible that the notion of the Puritans running from persecution to the New World with the idea of just trying to be the best they could be is not entirely accurate? Isn't it possible that they were just snobby, self-centered elitists who felt they were too good to live under anyone else's rule and moved to the New World to live unfettered by those other rules? I'll admit that there were probably MANY average citizens who actually WERE there to live the "pure" Christian life they felt they couldn't get in England (or Holland) but I think that the "leaders" of these communities had superiority complexes and they built their towns and 'ministered' to their congregations with that superior attitude in full swing.

Let me ask you this, if the Puritans were nothing more than simple Christians trying to lead a good life why is their particular 'brand' of Christianity not practiced anymore? Why did it die out in the only place it was ever allowed to flourish?
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 06-Jul-2006, 03:28 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE (Sonee @ 05-Jul-2006, 10:53 PM)


Let me ask you this, if the Puritans were nothing more than simple Christians trying to lead a good life why is their particular 'brand' of Christianity not practiced anymore? Why did it die out in the only place it was ever allowed to flourish?

That's a bit of a loaded question, don't you think? The inference is that truly simple Christians trying to live a good life always remain, and do not ever die out. By implication, true Christianity then must be so sacred to the masses as to be worthy of protection and preservation by even the secular world. That's not reality. All religions undergo transformation and develop within them subsets that sometimes survive, and sometimes do not. Just because there are no mass congregations of Puritans today does not mean that they suffered extinction due to their error in faith, doctrine, practice, or any other such thing. I do think it would be interesting to learn how they lost prominence.

Now please allow me to try one last time to address this notion of feelings of superiority. I will say that it is possible the Puritans felt superior to everyone else. However, based on the information you have provided, I am not in the least convinced that they were. I would need much more than just the page and a half of text you have offered as proof. But it is possible. I know the Jehovah's Witnesses hold to certain doctrines that give them the same appearance. So do the Muslims. If one were to take only a cursory look at most religions, it could be reasonably argued that most all religions give this appearance to one degree or another. My personal faith is that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God, and the savior of the world. I believe that all of mankind will have the opportunity to accept Him as the savior of their soul, and that all who reject Him will suffer eternal separation from God. I have accepted Christ, so therefore I will remain with him eternally beyond the grave. So, a person who holds a different faith could make the claim that I think I am better than they. Would they be correct? No. I do not think I am better, because I believe the same grace that saves me can save them. Am I better because I accept that grace? No. I feel lucky, I feel blessed, but I don't feel superior. I can call myself a son of God, and not feel more worthy of anything than a person who cannot or will not. Not because of anything I have done, because having faith is not an act, but rather an affirmation of the heart. No, I do not feel better than anyone. How can I when my God commands me to love my enemies? to pray for those who would spitefully use me? And yes, I suppose I do believe in the same book as the Puritans did. But that would not prevent me from labelling them as elitists should I be convinced that is what they were. Again, I would need much more to go on than a few simple lines from a few simple people. I mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses. I have studied that religion ad nauseum because I have a sister who, for over 20 years, was a practicing Witness. I always found them to be in error of what I knew, and wanted to learn all I could. I was surprised to learn that they have a very stringent training program, and actually learn how to interact with prospective newcomers from a standardized book. I can go into more detail about this if you wish...but the point is that there is ample evidence available for anyone who so desires to draw conclusions as to the mindset of the average JW. You can learn that the Witnesses call us non-believers the "evil slave class", which speaks volumes about their position on socail status. As I said, the evidence points to the idea that the JW's think themselves better than everyone else. However, their unrelenting efforts to evangelize effectively counters that notion. It is illogical to think a person feels better than everyone else, and at the same time tries to convert them to be their equals. That's kind of a weak stance, wouldn't you agree?

Ok, enough of that. If you are interested in convincing me, or any other thinking person that the Puritans felt superior to everyone else, you really will need to produce more voluminous and compelling evidence. I have, since we started this discussion, done some research of my own. Primarily I find a lot of opinion from so-called "experts" and those opinions vary largely. I really don't care about other's opinions as much as I do learning about something myself and drawing my own opinion. Do you have more?
PMEmail Poster               
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topic Quick ReplyStart new topicStart Poll


 








© Celtic Radio Network
Celtic Radio is a TorontoCast radio station that is based in Canada.
TorontoCast provides music license coverage through SOCAN.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.








[Home] [Top]