Celtic Radio Community [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Early America

Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Jun-2006, 02:31 AM

Ok, for anyone who doesn't know, this thread is one that evolved from another discussion, and deservedly should have its own place.

I am interested in hearing anyone's take on American history, but more specifically, the founding of our nation. Sonee, if you could elaborate on your discoveries, I would be grateful. The gist of it is that (Puritans) settlers of this country actually did not come here seeking freedom from religious persecution, but rather left because they didn't think the church of England was pure enough. That is quite interesting. I am no history professor by any means, but this would indeed counter all I have learned about this topic. Also, the Puritans were not the only Christians to settle here.

Although it be an arduous task, the reading of the Virginia Charters would indicate, at a minimum, the advancement of the Christian faith. This is what I have always understood the colonization to be about. Additionally, the Mayflower Compact further emphasizes this.

QUOTE

IN THE name of God, Amen.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.

I think this is enough for a good opener. I'm sure, as always, this community is full of far more educated people than myself, so if my interpretation of this era in American history is wrong, I want to know. Any thoughts?

Posted by: Sonee 12-Jun-2006, 09:36 AM

Okay, let me start with this: it is taken from John Winthrops sermon "A Model of Christian Charity" which he gave to the people aboard the Arbella in 1630 when they were making their first journey to America.

Fourthly, for the means whereby this must be effected. They are twofold, a conformity with the work and end we aim at. These we see are extraordinary, therefore we must not content ourselves with usual ordinary means. Whatsoever we did, or ought to have done, when we lived in England, the same must we do, and more also, where we go. That which the most in their churches maintain as truth in profession only, we must bring into familiar and constant practice; as in this duty of love, we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

Winthrop is saying, at least to me, that the Church of England "maintains as truth in profession only" the things that his group believes should be more more "familiar and constatnt practice". In other words the Church of England doesn't 'practice what it preaches."

Also from Winthrop's sermon:

Neither must we think that the Lord will bear with such failings at our hands as he doth from those among whom we have lived; and that for these three reasons:

First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

The first sentance says that the Church of England has failed the Lord, therefore they aren't 'pure'. It also says that Winthrops group is more important to the Lord and therefore he WON'T put up with that kind of behavior from them. It sets up the idea that the Puritans were better than those that they were leaving, meaning the Church of England.

The second paragraph show how the Puritans were attempting to compare themselves to the people of Isreal and thereby establish their 'chosen' status. It was, again, their way of putting themselves above all others, specifically the Church of England from whom they were 'fleeing'.

Lastly, (for this post at least

) we have this, again taken from Winthrops sermon:

Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.

I take this paragraph to mean that if they, meaning the Puritans, should actually make it to the New World intact than that is a sign from God that he really DOES favor them and that they were right in their beliefs and everyone else is wrong. It's like looking at days like June 6, 2006 and saying that every bad thing that happened was because of the evil associated with the numbers 666.

Does any of this mean to say that the Puritan/Christians WEREN'T persecuted in England? Not at all. I'm sure that there were occasions where they were persecuted., but I don't believe that was their SOLE reason or even a large PART of the reason they left. I believe, and I think Winthrop begins to back me up, that they felt themselves special and better than those professing Christianity in England and they wanted to seperate themselves from the "not chosen".

I have more but I'll get to that later, got things to do here now.

Posted by: jumbleberry_pie 12-Jun-2006, 04:07 PM

Thanks SC, for starting this discussion!

I'm not a historian either, although I love it, and minored in History in college. This may be a bit off topic, but has anyone else seen the PBS show Colonial House? It's one of my favorite documentary shows where volunteers try to live in a historically accurate representation of a past era.

I thought I'd bring it up b/c conflicting interpretations of why colonies were started and the religious inclinations of the settlers were a regular theme and caused quite a bit of dissent on the show. Some of the volunteers believed that the purpose of colonies was to create a religious utopia, and that colonies were created by peaceful devout Christians who were persecuted for their beliefs. It was fascinating to watch what happened when these volunteers were confronted with a "historically correct" colonial world (created by period experts and historians) where colonies were hierarchial, socially oppressive business ventures whose main goal was to make a profit for English investors at any cost.

If this is a time period that interests you, I really recommend watching this show!

Posted by: SCShamrock 12-Jun-2006, 06:47 PM

Sonee,

Thanks for the speedy reply. I would like to comment on the bulk of it, and if you will allow, try to demonstrate another interpretation of Winthrop's words.

QUOTE

Fourthly, for the means whereby this must be effected. They are twofold, a conformity with the work and end we aim at. These we see are extraordinary, therefore we must not content ourselves with usual ordinary means. Whatsoever we did, or ought to have done, when we lived in England, the same must we do, and more also, where we go. That which the most in their churches maintain as truth in profession only, we must bring into familiar and constant practice; as in this duty of love, we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently. We must bear one another’s burdens. We must not look only on our own things, but also on the things of our brethren.

Winthrop is saying, at least to me, that the Church of England "maintains as truth in profession only" the things that his group believes should be more more "familiar and constatnt practice". In other words the Church of England doesn't 'practice what it preaches."

Winthrop is speaking of the duty of his congregation, and the prescribed method by which it is to be accomplished. In the fourth sentence for me the inference is not so much that the Church of England doesn't practice what they preach, but rather those to whom he and his followers were associated were lacking in their conviction and fervent pursuit of their cause. It appears to be an admonition of his own kind. The fact that he charges them to do all this tempered with love is purely indicative of the charge given to Christians of the early church. In other words, I'm seeing that Winthrop was challenging his congregation to follow the "great commission", and to do so with unwavering determination.

QUOTE

First, in regard of the more near bond of marriage between Him and us, wherein He hath taken us to be His, after a most strict and peculiar manner, which will make Him the more jealous of our love and obedience. So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.

The first sentance says that the Church of England has failed the Lord, therefore they aren't 'pure'. It also says that Winthrops group is more important to the Lord and therefore he WON'T put up with that kind of behavior from them. It sets up the idea that the Puritans were better than those that they were leaving, meaning the Church of England.

The second paragraph show how the Puritans were attempting to compare themselves to the people of Isreal and thereby establish their 'chosen' status. It was, again, their way of putting themselves above all others, specifically the Church of England from whom they were 'fleeing'.

Again I disagree with your summation. The first thought I have when reading the first sentence is the biblical account of Jesus Christ, as the husband, and the Church, as his bride. The church, by the way, is not to be confused with any brick and mortar structure. The bible clearly explains there is only one church. You have to read the book to discover the true meaning of that claim. As for Wintrhop's group being more important to the Lord, I also disagree. Before Christ's death, there was no mediator between God and man. After Christ's death, the bible reads that the "veil of the temple was rent in two". The symbolism of this is that in the temple, there was a very thick curtain made of rope. There is some disagreement among bible scholars as to which of the veils--inner or outer--was torn. The vast majority, myself included, believe it was the inner veil; the veil that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple. Once a year, the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies, and take into it the prayers and offering of the people. The bible explains that no one except this priest was allowed to enter. Doing so would mean certain death. So the veil, being a symbol of the separation between God and man, was torn, giving meaning to Christ's words on the cross before he died....."it is finished." After Christ's death, there was no longer this division between God and man, and anyone could come to Him in prayer in the name of Jesus. Also, the bible explains that, after the death of Jesus, the Jew is one who is a Jew inwardly, not outwardly. In one explanation of this, the Jewish law of circumcision was brought up. It was explained that Christ was the "fulfillment of the Law", and circumcision, while certainly allowed, was no longer a requirement to please God because the people were then under grace.

So, the reason I preface this with such a verbose introduction is to give clarity to what Israel meant (or should have meant) to Winthrop. 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. I think Winthrop was again admonishing his congregation; warning of punishment if they fail to keep their faith.

Ok, that's how I see it. Your thoughts?

Posted by: Sonee 13-Jun-2006, 09:47 AM

I love history as well, which is why I’m majoring in History, I want to be an Historian when I grow up!!! (I also have a 2nd major in English with a writing emphasis so I’ll be able to write intelligently about my favorite subject when I’m done, but that’s beside the point!) I haven’t seen that show, jumbleberry. I thought it was just another stupid reality show and I wasn’t gonna waste my time, but maybe I’ll check it out!

As for the speedy reply, not a problem. As I’ve stated, history is one of my biggest passions so I will discuss it anywhere, anytime for as long as I have someone to discuss it with! (The eyes of my friends and family start to gloss over and drool starts dripping down their chins when I start speaking of anything even remotely historical, so I relish the opportunity to discuss this, and even dissect it, at length!! I thank you as well, for beginning this discussion! You have made my summer!)

This reply might be split up into a few posts, however, so please bear with me. During the day I have my children to take care of and housework to do so I don’t have as much time to devote to this as I do at night. I’ll respond to and write up what I can and then come back later and finish!

The reason that I said Winthrops group thought the C of E didn’t practice what they preached was because of this line: “That which the most in their churches maintain as truth in profession only,”

Truth in profession only says that they only SPEAK the truth they don’t actually LIVE it. I do agree with your assessment that he was saying that the C of E wasn’t as devout in their following of the Bible but I think it’s more then just Winthrop challenging his congregation. I think he was saying that his group needs to be “better” Christians than those they were leaving and that God would reward them for it as he DIDN’T reward the others. This is referenced here: “Neither must we think that the Lord will bear with such failings at our hands as he doth from those among whom we have lived;” In other words, (again, at least to me,) this says that God accepted the failings of the people among whom they lived but he wouldn’t accept the same failure from Winthrop’s group. They were better than those they lived with so God held them to a higher standard.

“You have to read the book to discover the true meaning of that claim.”

I have actually read the Bible through completely twice in my lifetime and I have also studied various individual books at length. I am familiar with its teachings and although I can no longer quote chapter and verse I do remember some of its passages such as; “Where two or more are gathered there I am in their midst”. Referencing the fact that if two or more people gather to study the Word of God and to worship Him than they constitute a church. I believe that is what you were getting at, right? (“The church, by the way, is not to be confused with any brick and mortar structure.”)

As to your story about Israel, I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. I think you are trying to make one sentence mean more than it does.

“So He tells the people of Israel, you only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore will I punish you for your transgressions.”

I think it’s pretty straight forward. God told the people of Israel that out of all the people on the earth he only recognized THEM as being worthy so he would punish them for their transgressions and not others who were less and/or not worthy. Winthrop and his group compared themselves numerous times (I will find those references at some point!!) to the people of Israel in an attempt to “prove” or back up their notion that they are, indeed, God’s chosen. Whether this was for the benefit of the “uneducated masses” as it were, or just a way of justifying and ‘rationalizing’ their separatist ideas for their own continued motivation I can’t really say.

“we are all God's chosen people if we choose to be. I think Winthrop was again admonishing his congregation; warning of punishment if they fail to keep their faith.”

I can agree with this statement but I think it goes even deeper than that. I think that Winthrop was saying that the only people who CHOOSE to be worthy were his congregation and that made them better than everyone else and not subjected to the same ‘rule’ as others. That is why they needed to find a new, ‘unspoiled’ place to call their own, so they could enact and enforce their ‘stricter and more pure’ form of Biblical law. They did not believe in the separation of Church and State. To them, there WAS no state without the Church. I don’t have the time right now to find and post my references for this but I will work on it and post it at a later time (probably over night tonight!!)

So, those are my thoughts and now I’m anxiously awaiting your comments to them!!

P.S. I had my quotes in different colors when I originally typed this but I can't get the colors here, how do I get certain text to change color? Or can I even do that?

Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Jun-2006, 10:19 AM

This is a wonderful discussion. Thank you both for the time and thought you are putting into it.

You should be able to get color by first highlighting the text as if you were going to bold it, for example, and then choosing and clicking on a color from the pull-down menu to the right of the size menu.

Posted by: Sonee 13-Jun-2006, 10:24 AM

Okay, lets try it...[COLOR=red]

Posted by: Sonee 13-Jun-2006, 10:26 AM

That didn't work...what am I doing wrong? I highlighted the text and then chose red from the drop down menu but it didn't work? I think I'm just technologically inept!!

Thanks for the help though!!

Posted by: SCShamrock 14-Jun-2006, 12:43 PM

Robert: “we are all God's chosen people if we choose to be. I think Winthrop was again admonishing his congregation; warning of punishment if they fail to keep their faith.”

QUOTE

As to your story about Israel, I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. I think you are trying to make one sentence mean more than it does.........

.............I can agree with this statement but I think it goes even deeper than that. I think that Winthrop was saying that the only people who CHOOSE to be worthy were his congregation and that made them better than everyone else and not subjected to the same ‘rule’ as others.

What I'm getting at is the same thing to which you agree, regardless of how much deeper we think it goes. Simply, if by faith we are under grace, and certainly in Winthrop's time that was the case, then there is no more holding to the law, there is the sense that one can be a Jew (Israel) inwardly, and that anyone who accepts that Christ fulfilled the law can be God's chosen people. So, if Winthrop believed his congregation had made this choice, does that necessarily mean he thought them to be better than anyone? No, that contradicts the tenets to which he adhered. He would have felt this choice required him to hold to a higher standard, and not lacking in commitment. This is the same reason many modern church goers leave their church after reaching a point of enlightenment, as they see the church as corrupt and/or the congregation as Jesus saw the scribes and Pharisees:

QUOTE

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness.

You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the platter, that its outside may become clean also.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitened tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

One footnote:

I didn't mean that I thought you hadn't read the bible. We have a lot of readers here. So if anyone has questions about anything I write in reference to biblical stories or text, contact me here or by email or pm. I'll be more than happy to explain anything. Some of these concepts cannot be adequately addressed by simply citing chapter and verse, particularly for those who may not have much knowledge of the Christian bible.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 14-Jun-2006, 05:06 PM

I'm not really sure where we're going with this so I created a little Quiz that might help to increase our understanding of "Puritanism".

This test is "open book", please reference sources for all your answers.

The results of this test will affect your final standing at the end of this course.

History 101 Pop Quiz, Puritanism, Fact or Fiction

1) Define "Puritan":

2)What Church did the Church of England replace?

3) What is the other major title of the person who is also the head of the Church of England?

4) Who was Jean Chauvin (a.k.a.: John Calvin) and how did he affect the Protestant Reformation?

5) Who was John Knox and what was his effect on Protestantism in Scotland?

6) How much effect did "Calvinism" have on Scottish and English Christianity, both within the Church of England and within the various "Puritan" religious groups (Presbyterians, Congregationalists, etc..)?

7) What was the Stuart (Royal Stewart) monarchs position on the "Divine Right of Kings"?

8) Who were the "Roundheads"?

9) Who was Oliver Cromwell? Was he a "Puritan"?

10) What was one of the major causes of the English Civil War(s) and subsequent execution of Charles I of England?

11) Who were the big losers with the restoration of the Stuart monarchy with Charles II?

12) Why did the Pilgrims have problems getting permission to leave England? Why did they need permission and who did they have to obtain it from?

13)Would Winthrop have defined himself as a "Puritan"?

14) Why did so many Americans (including "Puritan" groups), during the framing and ratification of the Constitution and "Bill of Rights", consider the 1st Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of a state church so critical?

Posted by: Sonee 14-Jun-2006, 07:34 PM

1) Define "Puritan":

Puritanism was as much a way of life as it was a religion. There are 3 main beliefs that infuse Puritan ideals:

First was the idea of grace. They wanted to cleanse themselves of things like vanity, lust and eny so they could better love God and God's creation. At the same time they knew that a person couldn't just change his feelings as they chose. No amount of bible reading or praying could MAKE a person love what they didn't already, that it could only happen through the miracle of grace. (Grace being dfined as the ability to love truly).

Second, they believed that Christianity should return to the simple forms described in the New Testement and should get rid of any practices created after the time of Christ. The most obvious being the large ornate cathedrals that they abandoned for plain, wooden buildings with no more ornamentation than white paint.

Thirdly they believed that they were on a "devine mission" decreed by God to take "true Christianity" to America, a place specifically chosen by God himself to be an example to the rest of the world, a "city upon a hill"

Winthrop, Model of Christian Charity; "For we must consider that we shal be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by- word through the world." This comes from Matthew 5:14-15 which reads "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house." Clearly anyone NOT practicing their version of 'true Christianity' could never be blessed by grace and therefore would never be able to 'love truly' like they would.

I'll start with this and answer the rest periodically throught the night!!

P.S. I was only giving you the background of my knowledge, so you would know that I was familiar with the subject and would understand your refernces!

Posted by: Sonee 14-Jun-2006, 09:13 PM

Here is another testament to the fact that Puritans felt themselves above everyone else. It is taken from a sermon given by Johnathan Edward. He was a Congretional minister who followed the rigorous principles of the original Puritans and believed those principles were fading and should be rekindled. His sermon is entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"

"Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of theSpirit of God upon your sould; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and begore altogether unexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God."

Again, we have reference to the afore mentioned idea of 'grace', that 'great change of heart'. This phrase seems indicative of not only Puritan belief but really all religions past AND present. If you don't believe exactly as 'they' do and practice the same way that 'they' do then you then you are somehow less than 'they' are. He goes on to say:

"However you may have reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction."

To me this backs up the idea of his religion (Puritan) being the only 'right' one. Even if you have a religion and practice it and worship in the house of God, if it isn't the Puritan way than you are going to Hell. To drive this point home even further he says:

"There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn sorship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell."

I think that's pretty point blank. The people sit in that church and claim to worship God but they don't do it the way the Puritans did, or at least the original Puritans, so they should be condemned to hell. Isn't that the idea behind 'I'm better than you"?

Posted by: SCShamrock 15-Jun-2006, 01:42 AM

Sonee,

I feel your reasoning is a bit askew due to the parenthetical definition you provide of "grace." It is a word used over and over in the bible, but as old saying goes I've heard.....a text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext. What is required to understand the application of many words translated from Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic is an exegetical study. The definition you provide is not entirely accurate, as it misses some very key elements of meaning. Again, it is context. So let's examine the word.

QUOTE (Merriam-Webster)

1 a : unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification b : a virtue coming from God c : a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine grace
2 a : APPROVAL, FAVOR <stayed in his good graces> b archaic : MERCY, PARDON c : a special favor : PRIVILEGE <each in his place, by right, not grace, shall rule his heritage -- Rudyard Kipling> d : disposition to or an act or instance of kindness, courtesy, or clemency e : a temporary exemption : REPRIEVE
3 a : a charming or attractive trait or characteristic b : a pleasingly graceful appearance or effect : CHARM c : ease and suppleness of movement or bearing
4 -- used as a title of address or reference for a duke, a duchess, or an archbishop
5 : a short prayer at a meal asking a blessing or giving thanks
6 plural, capitalized : three sister goddesses in Greek mythology who are the givers of charm and beauty
7 : a musical trill, turn, or appoggiatura
8 a : sense of propriety or right <had the grace not to run for elective office -- Calvin Trillin> b : the quality or state of being considerate or thoughtful

That is just our modern dictionary version. Next, from Strong's Concordance:

QUOTE

1 grace
that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm, loveliness: grace of speech

2 good will, loving-kindness, favour
of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues

3 what is due to grace
the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of divine grace
the token or proof of grace, benefit
a gift of grace
benefit, bounty

4 thanks, (for benefits, services, favours), recompense, reward

Applying your definition, and I don't know where that one comes from, you could draw some of the conclusions you have. However, you are speaking of Christian leaders, and as such, were most likely referring to the love bestowed them by God that was theirs by sanctification through the blood of Christ.

Now on to meatier matters. I quote your post:

QUOTE

"However you may have reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction."

To me this backs up the idea of his religion (Puritan) being the only 'right' one. Even if you have a religion and practice it and worship in the house of God, if it isn't the Puritan way than you are going to Hell.

I see this as him saying regardless of what you do, you can never be good enough to avoid hell. I reference the bible for this reasoning:

QUOTE

Romans 3:19-31
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

So he tells his congregation that yes, you may have changed your ways, gotten religious, pray with your family and go to church, but you are not spared from hell because of what you do, but rather by the grace of God. That's my interpretation. There is nothing in anything you have quoted so far that makes me think these people felt themselves better than anyone. In fact, I see humbleness and a strong sense of duty in their words. To me it is all too obvious that they were holding themselves to a high standard of accountability to obey the word of God.

QUOTE

"There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn sorship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell."

I suspect this is a continuation of the previous paragraph you quoted. But even if it is not, I agree with the idea. And that idea is that it doesn't matter how good you've been, or how you've worshiped, the only thing that keeps you out of hell is the love of God. For a person to think otherwise would make them prideful, which is contrary to biblical doctrine. So I see not 'better than you' reference here either.

But now I have to ask you....what do you think this means in the overall scheme of things--as they pertain to the colonization of this country anyway? Do you think either of our interpretations of "puritan" has any relevance to the country we live in today?

Posted by: SCShamrock 15-Jun-2006, 11:13 PM

Sonee,

I'm glad you started answering Steve's "Puritan Quiz." You seem to have a lot of knowledge about the Puritans, but I would ask you to please cite your sources for those things which you assert as facts. I'm not asking for APA or MLA, just a simple mention of the author, book, or whatever you have. You have sparked my interest, and I just may want to read some of what you have been researching. Thanks!

Posted by: SCShamrock 18-Jun-2006, 02:06 PM

Posted by: Sonee 20-Jun-2006, 08:30 AM

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/sacred/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!!!

) 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?!

Posted by: SCShamrock 20-Jun-2006, 10:05 AM

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!

Posted by: Sonee 20-Jun-2006, 04:02 PM

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!

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)

Posted by: ShadowDarkFyre 21-Jun-2006, 07:27 AM

Posted by: Sonee 21-Jun-2006, 09:07 AM

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?

(as I sit back and sip my own coffee!)

Posted by: Dogshirt 21-Jun-2006, 07:53 PM

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

Posted by: SCShamrock 22-Jun-2006, 09:14 AM

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

). 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.

Posted by: ShadowDarkFyre 22-Jun-2006, 09:22 AM

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?

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

Posted by: SCShamrock 01-Jul-2006, 10:01 PM

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.

Posted by: Sonee 03-Jul-2006, 12:43 PM

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

I really liked reading your "historical facts"!!

I have read that before but had forgotten it! Thanks for the laugh!

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!!

) to your post whenever you get to it!

Posted by: SCShamrock 03-Jul-2006, 10:18 PM

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.

Posted by: Sonee 05-Jul-2006, 08:18 AM

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!

Posted by: SCShamrock 05-Jul-2006, 03:14 PM

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!

Posted by: Sonee 05-Jul-2006, 09:53 PM

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'!)

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?

Posted by: SCShamrock 06-Jul-2006, 03:28 AM

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?