Deism's part in American Revolution
Rick Gardiner
>
> In <3809286B...@deism.com> "Robert L. Johnson" <b...@deism.com>
> writes:
> >
> >Do you think the fact that key founders like Jefferson, Franklin,
> >Washington, etc were Deists was a major motivation for the American
> >Revolution? Being Deists they wouldn't be tied to the Biblical verses
> >that claim kings rule by God's grace, etc.
>
> Some have argued - e.g., William McLoughlin in Revivals, Awakenings and
> Reforms (1978) - that the Great Awakening of the 1740s was
> instrumental in forging a new and uniquely American national identity,
> which culminated in the war for independence.
>
> - CMC
That sounds far more plausible than Mr. Johnson's suggestion that deism was
the major force behind the revolution. I think Alan Heimert of Harvard, in
RELIGION AND THE AMERICAN MIND, persuasively argued that the Great Awakening
created the social milieu which birthed the revolution.
The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal, and those few
who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
The thought that Deism is what freed them from the "divine right of Kings" is
absolutely absurd. Who was it in 1649 who chopped off Charles I's head as a
rejection of the "divine right of Kings"???
It was PURITANS!! And, according to Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin the same
political theory which motivated the Puritan Revolution in England, also
motivated the American revolution.
If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, written by
Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of Kings and an
articulation of Social Contract Theory. If one reads the Dutch Declaration of
Independence, written by Calvinists in 1581, one finds everything that
Jefferson said in June of 1776 in the exact same format.
These claims about deism are nonsense.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|These claims about deism are nonsense.
Hardly an unbiased account.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
Robert L. Johnson
the Great Awakening created the social milieu which birthed the revolution.
Wasn't the "Great Awakening" just a prolonged tent meeting of emotionally
charged Bible thumping?
The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal, and those few who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
Was it so minimal that it ended up in the Declaration of Independence
but the Christian religion did not??? If I remember right, the Declaration
is a somewhat important document in American history. Have you ever
read it????
If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, written by Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of Kings and an articulation of Social Contract Theory. If one reads the Dutch Declaration of Independence, written by Calvinists in 1581, one finds everything that Jefferson said in June of 1776 in the exact same format.
Does that mean that the Dutch Declaration is a Deist document too???
Why do you think Christianity and its tent meetings inspired the American Revolution when the Bible says people should be obedient to the authorities and even that slaves should obey their masters????? Doe's this sound Revolutionary to you????
Sincerely, Robert L. Johnson
http://www.deism.com
Rick Gardiner wrote:
These claims about deism are nonsense.
Rick Gardiner
>
> > the Great
> > Awakening
> > created the social milieu which birthed the revolution.
> >
>
> Wasn't the "Great Awakening" just a prolonged tent meeting
> of emotionally charged Bible thumping?
1. It's clear that you know little about the biographies of Patrick Henry, et
al, who attributed their formation to the Awakening. It's also clear that you
have not familiarized yourself with Heimert or any other reputable scholars of
the Awakening. As far as your implication of the Awakening being an
anti-intellectual movement, I don't think you could hold a candle to the
prodigious Jonathan Edwards, Yale at age 12, President of Princeton, author of
a number of metaphysical treatises, or any one of his colleagues (Finley,
Davies, Tennent, etc.)
2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great Awakening on the
frontier in the early 19th century.
3. Your treatment of the awakening is quite revealing about your historical
method and the fact that you promote so much pseudo-history regarding Deism's influence.
> > The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal, and those few
> > who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
> >
>
> Was it so minimal that it ended up in the Declaration of
> Independence but the Christian religion did not??? If I
> remember right, the Declaration is a somewhat important
> document in American history. Have you ever read it????
Oh, I see, John Witherspoon, a self-proclaimed hater of Deism simply put his
signature on that document because the rest of the gang just winked behind his back.
Funny.
Please point out anything in the Declaration of Independence, the essence of
which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
> > If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, written by
> > Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of Kings and an
> > articulation of Social Contract Theory. If one reads the Dutch Declaration of
> > Independence, written by Calvinists in 1581, one finds everything that
> > Jefferson said in June of 1776 in the exact same format.
> >
> Does that mean that the Dutch Declaration is a Deist
> document too???
What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism wasn't even a
seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581, but the substance of
the DOI is there.
See http://www.newswise.com/articles/1998/6/DECLARE.UWI.html
> Why do you think Christianity and its tent meetings
> inspired the American Revolution when the Bible says
> people should be obedient to the authorities and even that
> slaves should obey their masters????? Doe's this sound
> Revolutionary to you????
I guess Luther wasn't inspired by Christianity either when he told the civil
authorities that he was going to rebel.
I guess the Puritan regicides weren't inspired by Christianity when they cut
off Charles I's head in 1649, saying "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."
I guess Jonathan Mayhew and the Black Regiment weren't inspired by
Christianity as they preached incessantly in favor of Revolution in Boston.
I guess that the Quakers and the Abolitionist evangelicals (John Brown,
Charles Finney, etc.) weren't inspired by Christianity when they sought to
undo slavery.
I guess Martin Luther King Jr., was not inspired by Christianity when he
preached his sermons on equality.
Nope. They were all deists.
You really are entertaining, Bob
Rev Peter
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> Robert L. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > the Great
> > > Awakening
> > > created the social milieu which birthed the revolution.
> > >
> >
> > Wasn't the "Great Awakening" just a prolonged tent meeting
> > of emotionally charged Bible thumping?
>
>Henry, et
> al, who attributed their formation to the Awakening. It's also clear
that you
> have not familiarized yourself with Heimert or any other reputable
scholars of
> the Awakening. As far as your implication of the Awakening being an
> anti-intellectual movement, I don't think you could hold a candle to
the
> prodigious Jonathan Edwards, Yale at age 12, President of Princeton,
author of
> a number of metaphysical treatises, or any one of his colleagues
(Finley,
> Davies, Tennent, etc.)
Which proves what?
> 2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great Awakening
on the
> frontier in the early 19th century.
Yes, as the christians went out of their way to steal the land from the
aboriginal population and kill off those very aboriginals. The Christian
great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
> 3. Your treatment of the awakening is quite revealing about your
historical
> method and the fact that you promote so much pseudo-history regarding
Deism's influence.
Considering that Thomas Paine and other Deists were major contributors
to revolutionary thinking, one cannot dismiss the contribution of Deists
to the American Revolution.
> > > The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal, and
> > > those few
> > > who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
Not really, as thomas Paine pointed out in "the age of Reason", it was
the clerical faction which attacked Deism because it was becoming known
among the common people.
> > Was it so minimal that it ended up in the Declaration of
> > Independence but the Christian religion did not??? If I
> > remember right, the Declaration is a somewhat important
> > document in American history. Have you ever read it????
>
> Oh, I see, John Witherspoon, a self-proclaimed hater of Deism simply
>put his
> signature on that document because the rest of the gang just winked
>behind his back.
Strawman!
> Funny.
>
> Please point out anything in the Declaration of Independence, the
> essence of
> which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
Even as a Canadian, I know that the Declaration of Independence makes no
mention of the Christian God, nor the Christian religion. If the D.I.
was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the present
system with a theocracy. Puritans were even more intolerant than Roman
Catholics. In New England, the Puritans even inflicted a number of
genocides against the Indians, just so they could then steal the land
with a good conscience before their fictional human sacrificing god.
> > > If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos,
> > > written by
> > > Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of
> > > Kings and an
> > > articulation of Social Contract Theory.
Replacing the Divine Right of Kings, which is biblically sound [Rom. 13:
1 and I Peter 2: 13-14]; with the Divine Right of Pastors like the
protoHitler John Calvin. One need look no further than the disgraceful
treatment of the Quakers and Indians [who the Puritians totally
demonized as lice and servants of Satan] by the Puritans in New England
to see just how morally bankrupt this sect was. There is no witch
burnings in any decent religion.
> > > If one reads the Dutch
> > > Declaration of
> > > Independence, written by Calvinists in 1581, one finds
everything that Jefferson said in June of 1776 in the exact same format.
Everything?
> > Does that mean that the Dutch Declaration is a Deist
> > document too???
The Dutch were tolerant of religious differences, which proves that they
were not a Calvinist state.
> What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism wasn't
> even a seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581, but >
> the substance of the DOI is there.
Obviously you know nothing about Deism. Deism is the idea that there is
a Creator, and that the Creation is his/her/its handiwork. IN short,
Deism was the first religion to exist. One had to accept the idea of
God, before some fraud took it into his head to climb a mountain and
pretend to have had a REVELATION.
> See http://www.newswise.com/articles/1998/6/DECLARE.UWI.html
>
> > Why do you think Christianity and its tent meetings
> > inspired the American Revolution when the Bible says
> > people should be obedient to the authorities and even that
> > slaves should obey their masters????? Doe's this sound
> > Revolutionary to you????
>
> I guess Luther wasn't inspired by Christianity either when he told the
> civil authorities that he was going to rebel.
Luther did not revolt against the civil authorities, and even encouraged
the civil authorities to crush the peasants who revolted against the
civil status quo; Luther also hated Jews with a vengence, and believed
in witch burnings.
> I guess the Puritan regicides weren't inspired by Christianity when
> they cut off Charles I's head in 1649, saying "Rebellion to tyrants >
is obedience to God."
By killing the king, they violated the teachings of the bible. As for
the apologetic that "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" was
merely propaganda to justify their actions. Keep in mind that these
puritans than went on to murder thousands of Irish, and were obsessed
with social engeerning.
> I guess Jonathan Mayhew and the Black Regiment weren't inspired by
> Christianity as they preached incessantly in favor of Revolution in
> Boston.
Rom 13: 1 and I Peter 2: 13-14, along with Jesus supposedly saying that
one needed to render to Caesar the things which were Caesar's [clearly
indicating that Caesar had things given him from above]; is evidence
that they may have wrapped their rebellion in christian themes, but
nevertheless, what they did was unbiblical.
> I guess that the Quakers and the Abolitionist evangelicals (John
> Brown, Charles Finney, etc.) weren't inspired by Christianity when >
they sought to undo slavery.
The Quakers were not Puritians, and they only preached about freeing the
slaves, because since the leading industrialists and bankers of the age
were Quakers -- it was economically cheaper to preach about freeing the
slaves, than doing something about the inhuman treatment of wage
labourers in their factories. Freeing the slaves of southerners, had no
negative effect on their balance sheets.
> I guess Martin Luther King Jr., was not inspired by Christianity when
> he preached his sermons on equality.
And I guess that the people who resisted him, and finally murdered him
were not inspired by christianity either. Surprise, he was murdered by a
christian.
> Nope. They were all deists.
Strawman.
>
> You really are entertaining, Bob
At least he is not a revisionist like you.
peace
Rev Peter
--
The Bad News Page
http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Curtis
>which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
The "essence?" LOL!
Is this like the advertising claim that X is virtually something? It's
like an escape clause.
Of course Jefferson was the author of the document:
Jefferson was the author of the third and final Declaration of
Independence. In a letter to John Adams of April 11, 1823 Jefferson
has this to say about John Calvin:
The wishes expressed in your last favor, that I continue in life and
health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of 'mon
Dieu! jusque a quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join
Calvin in addressing *his god.* He was indeed an Atheist, which I can
never be; or rather his religion was Demonism. If ever man worshipped
a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the
God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent
governor of the world; but a demon of malignant spirit. It would be
more pardonable to believe in no god at all, then to blaspheme him by
the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed I think that every
Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma
that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the
being of a god. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be
Christians: the other five sixths then, who do not believe in the
Jewish and Christian revelation, are without knolege of the existence
of god! [. . .]
He goes on and on giving his view of Calvin and the religion of
Christianity in general. He disposes of Calvin's religious views. So
what might he have taken with him into that room in 1776 when he sat
down to compose the Declaration?
Mike Curtis
From Ambrose Bierce:
CHRISTIAN, n.
One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
CONVERSATION, n.
A fair to the display of the minor mental commodities, each exhibitor being too intent upon the arrangement of his own wares to observe those of his neighbor.
Please visit:
Write to time...@flash.net for the Rat Pack LIVE
Show at the 500 Club in Atlantic City in 1962. A 4am
morning show! $19.95 Compact Disc called RAT PACK UNCENSORED
http://www.jay-mar.com/stores.html
http://www.abebooks.com
http://www.bibliofind.com
Gardiner
>
> >Please point out anything in the Declaration of Independence, the essence of
> >which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
>
> Independence. In a letter to John Adams of April 11, 1823 Jefferson
> has this to say about John Calvin:
>
> The wishes expressed in your last favor, that I continue in life and
> health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of 'mon
> Dieu! jusque a quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join
> Calvin in addressing *his god.* He was indeed an Atheist, which I can
> never be; or rather his religion was Demonism. If ever man worshipped
> a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the
> God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent
> governor of the world; but a demon of malignant spirit. It would be
> more pardonable to believe in no god at all, then to blaspheme him by
> the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed I think that every
> Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma
> that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the
> being of a god. Now one sixth of mankind only are supposed to be
> Christians: the other five sixths then, who do not believe in the
> Jewish and Christian revelation, are without knolege of the existence
> of god! [. . .]
>
> He goes on and on giving his view of Calvin and the religion of
> Christianity in general. He disposes of Calvin's religious views. So
> what might he have taken with him into that room in 1776 when he sat
> down to compose the Declaration?
>
> Mike Curtis
Ahh, nice to see you're still alive, cousin.
But you're still attempting to run from the obvious.
No doubt Jefferson was a critic of the 5 points of Calvinism (i.e.,
predestination, etc.), which he addresses clearly in the letter to Adams which
you have posted above. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Jefferson
borrowed political ideas from the Puritans who happened to be Calvinists:
For example, at the outset of the Revolution, Jefferson wrote in his biography
(EMPHASIS ADDED):
"We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the
lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the
appointment of a day of general fasting & prayer would be most likely to call
up & alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since
the days of our distresses in the war of '55, since which a new generation had
grown up. With the help therefore of Rushworth, [the Puritan John Rushworth's
Historical Collections] whom WE RUMMAGED OVER FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY PRECEDENTS
& FORMS OF THE PURITANS OF THAT DAY, preserved by him, we cooked up a
resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases."
In other words, Jefferson admitted to turning to Puritan Political documents
as a model! It's right there, Mike. The fact that Jefferson did not like the
doctrine of predestination means nothing to the question of where his
political philosophy originated.
Furthermore, if Jefferson's aversion to Calvinism would prevent him from using
their ideas as a model, why did Jefferson adopt, as his own personal motto,
the epitaph of the Puritan John Bradshaw: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience
to God"?
So to answer your question,
> what might he have taken with him into that room in 1776 when he sat
> down to compose the Declaration?
The answer is that he likely took with him the Dutch Declaration of
Independence, composed by Calvinists
(see http://www.newswise.com/articles/1998/6/DECLARE.UWI.html and
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1581dutch.html)
Mike Curtis
[snipped the attempt at personalization]
[snipped accusation]
>No doubt Jefferson was a critic of the 5 points of Calvinism (i.e.,
>predestination, etc.), which he addresses clearly in the letter to Adams which
>you have posted above. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Jefferson
>borrowed political ideas from the Puritans who happened to be Calvinists:
He borrowed all kinds of ideas from all kinds of places. You know this
and I know this.
>For example, at the outset of the Revolution, Jefferson wrote in his biography
You mean autobiography. This came out when?
>(EMPHASIS ADDED):
>
>"We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the
>lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the
>appointment of a day of general fasting & prayer would be most likely to call
>up & alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since
>the days of our distresses in the war of '55, since which a new generation had
>grown up. With the help therefore of Rushworth, [the Puritan John Rushworth's
>Historical Collections] whom WE RUMMAGED OVER FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY PRECEDENTS
>& FORMS OF THE PURITANS OF THAT DAY, preserved by him, we cooked up a
>resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases."
>In other words, Jefferson admitted to turning to Puritan Political documents
>as a model! It's right there, Mike. The fact that Jefferson did not like the
>doctrine of predestination means nothing to the question of where his
>political philosophy originated.
This issue was Calvin. I'm not going to suggest that Jefferson limited
his scope as you are wont to do.
With you, no one is allowed to have their own mind. Everything, and I
mean everything can lead back to Greece and Rome. I can tunnel myself
directly in those directions. But then no real understanding of
history is to had. Sydney argued against the Divine right of Kings
while Calvin was all for it. Even from officials who were elected by
voters who were qualified to vote because of church membership had
their offices sanctioned by God. So President Clinton would, in those
days, be sanctioned by God.
And from an old post:
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>Dear Mr. Moeller,
>
>I have to apologize to you for my cousin's inability to grasp the significance
>of your citation. Although most people with a modicum of historical erudition
>understand that Jefferson's use of the concept of the "consent of the
>governed" is rooted in 16th and 17th century Puritan and Whig political theory
>(e.g., Rutherford, Sydney, Locke), my cousin (Mr. Curtis) is unfamiliar with
>the literature in this regard. His approach works like this: if Jefferson
>didn't footnote Calvin, then there is no evidence that the theory was Calvinistic.
>
>I know. It's an assanine approach. I just wanted to give you the heads up so
>you know how to proceed.
Dear Mr. Gardiner,
Hint: The discussion of the first phrase would come down to the
following names Hutcheson, Ferguson on the top with Hume and Locke
following behind. at least as far as Jefferson seems to be concerned.
Having presented these names I realize you will probably attach Calvin
to every one of those folks. I realize that even I, though not a
Christian, sometime in the future could be called or associated with
Calvin or Luther because the dominate religion in the town I could
call home was Christianity. So my thinking becomes Calvinistic. The
blood in my veins becomes the blood of Christianity and so in order to
score points someone get to belittle independent thought and attach a
label on it. How sad.
I, for one, think it is much more interesting to understand what
Jefferson used and why he used it by using Jefferson himself.
Especially his letters and also his commonplace book.
>> > Whether you agree or not that they apply
>> >is a different thing. No evasion though.
>>
>> Agree with what, David? I agree that Jefferson wrote that. what it
>> really means might not have anything to do with a Calvinistic concept
>> of Covenant. I've read a lot of Jefferson and unless I've missed it,
>> I've never read him putting political matters in those terms. So I
>> asked you to show me where Jefferson does this.
>
>See what I mean.
Could it be that Jefferson was using political bands in the same sense
as Ferguson used "the bands of political union?" Gary Wills applies
this to bands of affection in the moral sense terminology?
Is it fair that because influential philosophers came out of Scotland
and England and happen to be protestants mean that every thought they
had was religiously based? At what point to they get to think for
themselves with people like yourself attributing their minds to
something else?
At what point to those who discuss matters with you and disagree with
you get to put matters in their own terms without you redefining what
they say to suite your particular needs?
>Mr. Curtis, bless his heart, really is a pretty good chap though. He can be a
>bit cantankerous, but deep down he has a good bit to offer. Thanks for bearing
>with him.
>
>Blessings,
>Rick Gardiner
>http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html
Mike Curtis
**********************************************
From another:
"David Moeller" <dmoel...@email.msn.com> wrote:
I have a few problems up front. My expertise is in colonial
Massachusetts 1620/1 to abut 1700. Otherwise i'm an informed
generalist. History is a field of specialties. Should I teach a course
in general American history 101 I have to research my lectures and
take notes or use old notes. I will also teach it with a general
philosophy and force certain readings on the student.
So far there have been several monographs on the writing of the
Declaration and on Jefferson's philosophy and the meaning of that
document. Maybe rather than reinvent the wheel we need to understand
what has already been done and said by those who specialize in that
particular field. Time is precious and this exercise would consume
much of my time in research since I have the desire to be as accurate
as I can. Historians are an anal lot. What you have defined is pretty
much work that has been done.
Specific to the Declaration are:
There is John Hazelton's 1906 book.
Carl Becker's 1922 Work.
Julian Boyd's work in volume 1 of the Jefferson papers. There exists a
later pamphlet also.
Then there is Pauline Meiers book.
There are also volumes of articles in historical journals discussing
just these issues.
Then about Jefferson's philosophy we have:
Adrienne Koch book called aptly enough: The Philosophy of Thomas
Jefferson. Then there is her bibliography to wade through.
What you propose is something I'm not prepared to spend that much time
with. You and Gardiner are free to make claims and I'll comment now
and again if I disagree and I'll try and explain why I disagree.
I am, however, quite tired of this discussion with, Mr. Gardiner for
the very reasons you warned him about in a response. He has been
warned before and it has been to no avail. So I'm not exactly trusting
of further discusses taking on a new character. I hope you understand
my hesitation and my reasoning above about the character of past
discussions and also about the vastness of the project you are
proposing.
I can discuss this as a generalist who is trained in history and
understands how to use source material. But I am not prepared to fall
into a subject of this magnitude that has already been researched by
experts in the field. Maybe we need to understand if these scholars
have somehow were in error about their conclusions?
******************************************************
Vernon Rochon
news:7vkmoj$dpe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>If the D.I. was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace
the present
> system with a theocracy. Puritans were even more intolerant than Roman
> Catholics.
>
> treatment of the Quakers and Indians [who the Puritians totally
> demonized as lice and servants of Satan] by the Puritans in New England
> to see just how morally bankrupt this sect was. There is no witch
> burnings in any decent religion.
>
of
> God, before some fraud took it into his head to climb a mountain and
> pretend to have had a REVELATION.
(et al...)
Hear, hear. Well said.
Vernon
Rick Gardiner
>
>
> [snipped the attempt at personalization]
Aw, was that necessary? Haven't I grown on you yet? Perhaps at least like a cancer?
> [snipped accusation]
>
> >No doubt Jefferson was a critic of the 5 points of Calvinism (i.e.,
> >predestination, etc.), which he addresses clearly in the letter to Adams which
> >you have posted above. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Jefferson
> >borrowed political ideas from the Puritans who happened to be Calvinists:
>
> He borrowed all kinds of ideas from all kinds of places. You know this
> and I know this.
He sure did.
> >For example, at the outset of the Revolution, Jefferson wrote in his biography
>
> You mean autobiography. This came out when?
Yes, thank you. I meant Autobiography. It apparently was written in 1821 (see
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jeffauto.htm, but I might be mistaken).
> >(EMPHASIS ADDED):
> >
> >"We were under conviction of the necessity of arousing our people from the
> >lethargy into which they had fallen as to passing events; and thought that the
> >appointment of a day of general fasting & prayer would be most likely to call
> >up & alarm their attention. No example of such a solemnity had existed since
> >the days of our distresses in the war of '55, since which a new generation had
> >grown up. With the help therefore of Rushworth, [the Puritan John Rushworth's
> >Historical Collections] whom WE RUMMAGED OVER FOR THE REVOLUTIONARY PRECEDENTS
> >& FORMS OF THE PURITANS OF THAT DAY, preserved by him, we cooked up a
> >resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases."
>
> >In other words, Jefferson admitted to turning to Puritan Political documents
> >as a model! It's right there, Mike. The fact that Jefferson did not like the
> >doctrine of predestination means nothing to the question of where his
> >political philosophy originated.
>
> This issue was Calvin. I'm not going to suggest that Jefferson limited
> his scope as you are wont to do.
How was the issue Calvin??
Earlier in this thread, I posted the following challenge: "Please point out
anything in the Declaration of Independence, the essence of which is not in
the PURITAN LITERATURE of the previous centuries," and you decided to respond
directly with Jefferson's Criticism of the Five Points of Calvinism, which, in
your mind, proved my challenge wrong. Please note that I never mentioned
Calvin in my challenge. It is true, however, that the Puritans were Calvinists.
> With you, no one is allowed to have their own mind. Everything, and I
> mean everything can lead back to Greece and Rome. I can tunnel myself
> directly in those directions. But then no real understanding of
> history is to had. Sydney argued against the Divine right of Kings
> while Calvin was all for it.
Calvin was all for it?? What do you make of this:
"So far am I from forbidding these (lesser magistrates) officially to check
the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise
and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation
is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the
liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are
its appointed guardians." (INSTITUTES 4:20:31)
It is, however, encouraging to hear you admit that Algernon Sydney was a voice
against Divine Right of Kings. Most people are under the impression that
everyone accepted the doctrine until John Locke wrote the Second Treatise in 1689.
> Even from officials who were elected by
> voters who were qualified to vote because of church membership had
> their offices sanctioned by God. So President Clinton would, in those
> days, be sanctioned by God.
Yes. The theory was (and still is) vox populi est vox dei: the voice of the
people is the voice of God. Jefferson was one who subscribed to that theory.
> And from an old post:
>
What was the point of reposting the old posts? They were fun to read again,
but I didn't see where you showed that the Declaration introduced concepts not
previously articulated by Puritans.
Rick Gardiner
>
> > 2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great Awakening
> on the
> > frontier in the early 19th century.
>
> Yes, as the christians went out of their way to steal the land from the
> aboriginal population and kill off those very aboriginals. The Christian
> great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
> 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
> > 3. Your treatment of the awakening is quite revealing about your
> historical
> > method and the fact that you promote so much pseudo-history regarding
> Deism's influence.
>
> Considering that Thomas Paine and other Deists were major contributors
> to revolutionary thinking, one cannot dismiss the contribution of Deists
> to the American Revolution.
If you are familiar enough with Paine you know that he did not go public with
his Deism until long after the Revolution was over. At the time he wrote
Common Sense, the public was under the impression that he was as much a Scotch
Presbyterian as Witherspoon. Not until he published Age Of Reason, which his
best buddy Franklin warned him not to publish, did the world find out what his
religious convictions were. That was @ 1795.
Thus, at least in the case of Paine, the fact that he was a deist really meant
nothing as far as the Revolution was concerned.
> > > > The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal, and
> > > > those few
> > > > who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
>
> Not really, as thomas Paine pointed out in "the age of Reason", it was
> the clerical faction which attacked Deism because it was becoming known
> among the common people.
Would you call President John Adams "the clerical faction"?? He was one of
Paine's sharpest critics.
> > > Was it so minimal that it ended up in the Declaration of
> > > Independence but the Christian religion did not??? If I
> > > remember right, the Declaration is a somewhat important
> > > document in American history. Have you ever read it????
> >
> > Oh, I see, John Witherspoon, a self-proclaimed hater of Deism simply
> >put his
> > signature on that document because the rest of the gang just winked
> >behind his back.
>
> Strawman!
Don't say "strawman," answer the damned question! If the Declaration of
Independence was so much of a Deist document, how did they get it past John
Witherspoon who would have never assented to anything Deist?
Do you have any substantive response, or can you only say "strawman"?
> > Please point out anything in the Declaration of Independence, the
> > essence of
> > which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
>
> Even as a Canadian, I know that the Declaration of Independence makes no
> mention of the Christian God, nor the Christian religion.
Well then as a Canadian, answer one very simple question. If the God mentioned
throughout the Declaration of Independence was not the Christian God, as you
claim, how do you explain the consent of men like Roger Sherman, Samuel Adams,
and John Witherspoon, to the document?? These men were orthodox Calvinists. Do
you think that they would have made an oath to a non-Christian God?? Or are
you alleging that they just didn't have the wits to understand what they were reading?
How about a substantive response this time?
> If the D.I.
> was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the present
> system with a theocracy.
Is that why when the Puritans came into power in England in 1653, the first
thing they did was disestablish religion and proclaim tolerance throughout the
Kingdom?? (see Instrument of Gov't, Section 37)
Secondly, I did not say that the DOI is a Puritan Document per se. What I have
said is that Jefferson used Puritan Models and other Calvinistic Models as he
wrote this and other political documents.
> Puritans were even more intolerant than Roman
> Catholics. In New England, the Puritans even inflicted a number of
> genocides against the Indians, just so they could then steal the land
> with a good conscience before their fictional human sacrificing god.
The Puritans had no monopoly on Native American genocide. Anglicans,
Catholics, and Atheists all participated in that pasttime as Europeans moved
from sea to shining sea. I would even bet that the property you currently
occupy was once occupied by natives, and you don't seem to be a Puritan.
Perhaps you should return it to its native family.
> > > > If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos,
> > > > written by
> > > > Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of
> > > > Kings and an
> > > > articulation of Social Contract Theory.
>
> One need look no further than the disgraceful
> treatment of the Quakers and Indians [who the Puritians totally
> demonized as lice and servants of Satan] by the Puritans in New England
> to see just how morally bankrupt this sect was. There is no witch
> burnings in any decent religion.
Tell me friend. Just how many witch-burnings were there in Puritan New
England?? I'll bet you can't give me a citation for even one. That's because
you and your revisionist history club play fast and loose with colonial
history, especially with respect to Deism.
> > > > If one reads the Dutch
> > > > Declaration of
> > > > Independence, written by Calvinists in 1581, one finds
> everything that Jefferson said in June of 1776 in the exact same format.
>
> Everything?
What do you find in Jefferson that you don't find in the Dutch DOI?
> > > Does that mean that the Dutch Declaration is a Deist
> > > document too???
>
> The Dutch were tolerant of religious differences, which proves that they
> were not a Calvinist state.
Oh really?? Ever heard of a group of Dutch Protestants called Remonstrants??
Do you know how the Dutch Calvinist establishment tolerated them? Can you say
"persecution"? "exile"? Perhaps you better do an internet search on them
before you go spouting any more historical inaccuracies. (try http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE043719.html)
> > What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism wasn't
> > even a seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581, but >
> > the substance of the DOI is there.
>
> Obviously you know nothing about Deism. Deism is the idea that there is
> a Creator, and that the Creation is his/her/its handiwork. IN short,
> Deism was the first religion to exist. One had to accept the idea of
> God, before some fraud took it into his head to climb a mountain and
> pretend to have had a REVELATION.
The first religion, as best as anthropologists have been able to inform us,
was probably Animism.
> > I guess Luther wasn't inspired by Christianity either when he told the
> > civil authorities that he was going to rebel.
>
> Luther did not revolt against the civil authorities,
Oh really? And just who did he refuse to obey at the Diet of Worms? Who was it
who told him to recant his theology? Have you ever heard of Emperor Charles V?
In case you are not clear about this, he was a CIVIL authority, and his
command is that which Luther rejected.
> > I guess the Puritan regicides weren't inspired by Christianity when
> > they cut off Charles I's head in 1649, saying "Rebellion to tyrants >
> is obedience to God."
>
> By killing the king, they violated the teachings of the bible.
Is that right? and whose teachings was Daniel violating when he rebelled
against King Nebudchadnezzar? Whose teachings was Moses violating when he
initiated rebellion to Pharaoh, eventually leading to the death of the Prince?
> As for
> the apologetic that "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" was
> merely propaganda to justify their actions. Keep in mind that these
> puritans than went on to murder thousands of Irish, and were obsessed
> with social engeerning.
Sounds much like the ancient Hebrews who systematically attempted to destroy
all the inhabitants of Canaan: Philistines, Amalekites, Hittites, etc. Perhaps
they were biblical after all.
> > I guess Jonathan Mayhew and the Black Regiment weren't inspired by
> > Christianity as they preached incessantly in favor of Revolution in
> > Boston.
>
> Rom 13: 1 and I Peter 2: 13-14, along with Jesus supposedly saying that
> one needed to render to Caesar the things which were Caesar's [clearly
> indicating that Caesar had things given him from above]; is evidence
> that they may have wrapped their rebellion in christian themes, but
> nevertheless, what they did was unbiblical.
I guess Peter's statement about the civil authorities in Acts 5 is also
unbiblical: "we must obey God rather than men."
I guess Daniel's resistance to the royal edict was unbiblical as well?
Apparently the 17th century Puritans had a more clear understanding of the
scriptures than your "authoritative" view.
> > I guess that the Quakers and the Abolitionist evangelicals (John
> > Brown, Charles Finney, etc.) weren't inspired by Christianity when >
> they sought to undo slavery.
>
> The Quakers were not Puritians,
I never said they were. I implied that they were Christians. Do you deny that
they were?
> and they only preached about freeing the
> slaves, because since the leading industrialists and bankers of the age
> were Quakers -- it was economically cheaper to preach about freeing the
> slaves, than doing something about the inhuman treatment of wage
> labourers in their factories. Freeing the slaves of southerners, had no
> negative effect on their balance sheets.
And what is your take on Theodore Weld? John Brown? Charles Finney?
> > I guess Martin Luther King Jr., was not inspired by Christianity when
> > he preached his sermons on equality.
>
> And I guess that the people who resisted him, and finally murdered him
> were not inspired by christianity either. Surprise, he was murdered by a
> christian.
Ah, I see, and your deists are morally superior! Take a close look at the
moral advice of America's most famous deist
(http://www.universitylake.org/history/mistress.html); in a nutshell, he says,
find an old woman who is past menopause, have a sexual affair with her, first
putting a bushel basket over her head since she is probably all old and
wrinkled and you don't want to have to look at that; and when you're done you
can look forward to the fact that she will probably iron your clothes and do
"a thousand services small and great" for you.
So much for the moral superiority of your Deism.
> > Nope. They were all deists.
>
> Strawman.
What a profound rebuttal! Can you say anything substantive?
> > You really are entertaining, Bob
>
> At least he is not a revisionist like you.
He is a mythologist.
John L. Nelson
Back again with this off-subject stuff?
I thought you had taken this whole thing to the newsgroups that would be
interested. This is a Rev. war newsgroup, not alt.religion.deism or
alt.deism.
As the bunch of you cross-post to these also, I would believe that you
KNOW that this is not the place for this discussion.
Please take it to one of the Deism groups, this is for discussion of Rev.
War things, NOT FOR THE DISCUSSION OF RELIGION, THE BELIEFS OF THE
FOUNDERS, OR THE PERSONAL BELIEFS OF A FEW PEOPLE THAT THINK THAT THEIR
IDEAS, (FOOLISH, STUPID, INANE OR INSPIRED) ARE NEEDED IN THIS GROUP.
Keep it on topic or go to the correct group, please
Thank you,
John Nelson
Rick Gardiner
Are you serious?? Do you really mean to say that the causes and motivations
of a war have nothing to do with the war? Are guns and strategies the only
thing important when discussing a war? Perhaps it would behoove you to read a
bit of John Adams regarding what the revolution really was
(try http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=144&parent=54)
"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war?
The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in
the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of
their duties and obligations"
Adams to H. Niles, 2/13/1818
The discussion as to the ideas behind the revolution is as pertinent as can
be. Quite frankly, I don't find a discussion of muskets, etc., very
interesting; so please keep take such off-subject banter to alt.guns or something.
RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Robert L. Johnson wrote:
>:|>
>:|> > the Great
>:|> > Awakening
>:|> > created the social milieu which birthed the revolution.
>:|> >
>:|>
>:|> Wasn't the "Great Awakening" just a prolonged tent meeting
>:|> of emotionally charged Bible thumping?
>:|
>:|1. It's clear that you know little about the biographies of Patrick Henry, et
>:|al, who attributed their formation to the Awakening. It's also clear that you
>:|have not familiarized yourself with Heimert or any other reputable scholars of
>:|the Awakening. As far as your implication of the Awakening being an
>:|anti-intellectual movement, I don't think you could hold a candle to the
>:|prodigious Jonathan Edwards, Yale at age 12, President of Princeton, author of
>:|a number of metaphysical treatises, or any one of his colleagues (Finley,
>:|Davies, Tennent, etc.)
Patrick Henry? Oh yes, him, hmmmmm well he did seem to switch sides of the
fence on a number of times, and ultimately lost when he wanted to establish
Christianity os the official state supported religion of Va.
There is at least one works out now (available through the History Book
Club) that says the great awakening has been grossly over rated.
As in most cases, you can find viewpoints across the spectrum.
>:|
>:|2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great Awakening on the
>:|frontier in the early 19th century.
>:|
>:|3. Your treatment of the awakening is quite revealing about your historical
>:|method and the fact that you promote so much pseudo-history regarding Deism's influence.
You should talk, as Mike Curtis says, you find Calvin in fence posts.
I do know that you seem to find either Calvin or Luther in any word
expressed by Madison, and you tried like hell to find Luther or Calvin in
the opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court in its decision
DECEMBER TERM, 1872.
Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati v. Minor.
>:|
>:|> > The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal, and those few
>:|> > who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
And you know as well as the rest of us know this isn't all that true.
You are aware of the fact that most scholars concede that the first six
Presidents were not what could be called orthodox Christians.
That they held beliefs that were a cross between Deism, Enlightenment
thinking, and Unitarian ideas.
Information has been presented by respected scholars, at least one of whom
you say was one of your professors, that doesn't quite go along with what
you stated above.
>:|> >
>:|>
>:|> Was it so minimal that it ended up in the Declaration of
>:|> Independence but the Christian religion did not??? If I
>:|> remember right, the Declaration is a somewhat important
>:|> document in American history. Have you ever read it????
>:|
>:|Oh, I see, John Witherspoon, a self-proclaimed hater of Deism simply put his
>:|signature on that document because the rest of the gang just winked behind his back.
Nice side step.
>:|
>:|Funny.
>:|
>:|Please point out anything in the Declaration of Independence, the essence of
>:|which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
>:|
Calvin in fence posts. Oh yes, you do think that the real founders of
America was Luther and Calvin, all others were just puppets of those two,
without an original thought, action, etc of their own.
>:|> > If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, written by
>:|> > Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of Kings and an
>:|> > articulation of Social Contract Theory. If one reads the Dutch Declaration of
>:|> > Independence, written by Calvinists in 1581, one finds everything that
>:|> > Jefferson said in June of 1776 in the exact same format.
>:|> >
>:|> Does that mean that the Dutch Declaration is a Deist
>:|> document too???
>:|
>:|What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism wasn't even a
>:|seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581, but the substance of
>:|the DOI is there.
Substance? I see, nice word substance, it means that you see what you want
to see in things.
Calvin in fence posts.
>:|
>:|See http://www.newswise.com/articles/1998/6/DECLARE.UWI.html
>:|
>:|> Why do you think Christianity and its tent meetings
>:|> inspired the American Revolution when the Bible says
>:|> people should be obedient to the authorities and even that
>:|> slaves should obey their masters????? Doe's this sound
>:|> Revolutionary to you????
>:|
>:|I guess Luther wasn't inspired by Christianity either when he told the civil
>:|authorities that he was going to rebel.
Calvin/Lurther, why hell those two men founded the entire world, or at
least Gardiner thinks so.
There are over 600 books here in my "office" All deal with law
(Constitution, Supreme court, Constitutional law, etc) and history (late
1700s constitution, state constitutions church/state, founding, etc.)
I bet that probably not more then 50 or so of those books mention Calvin
and or Luther in them, and what mention there is is very little.
Isn't that remarkable for two men who played such a huge role (according to
Gardiner) in this country, in its founding, its law, etc.?
>:|
>:|I guess the Puritan regicides weren't inspired by Christianity when they cut
>:|off Charles I's head in 1649, saying "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."
>:|
>:|I guess Jonathan Mayhew and the Black Regiment weren't inspired by
>:|Christianity as they preached incessantly in favor of Revolution in Boston.
>:|
>:|I guess that the Quakers and the Abolitionist evangelicals (John Brown,
>:|Charles Finney, etc.) weren't inspired by Christianity when they sought to
>:|undo slavery.
>:|
>:|I guess Martin Luther King Jr., was not inspired by Christianity when he
>:|preached his sermons on equality.
>:|
>:|Nope. They were all deists.
>:|
>:|You really are entertaining, Bob
I find you to be quite entertaining.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Rev Peter wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Even as a Canadian, I know that the Declaration of Independence makes no
>:|> mention of the Christian God, nor the Christian religion.
>:|
>:|Well then as a Canadian, answer one very simple question. If the God mentioned
>:|throughout the Declaration of Independence was not the Christian God, as you
>:|claim, how do you explain the consent of men like Roger Sherman, Samuel Adams,
>:|and John Witherspoon, to the document?? These men were orthodox Calvinists. Do
>:|you think that they would have made an oath to a non-Christian God?? Or are
>:|you alleging that they just didn't have the wits to understand what they were reading?
Oath?
Words can be a wonderful thing.
First of all we all know that the DOI was written for a specific purpose.
Most of all the crap that has been added to it, as far as meaning and this
and that were added much later, by people totally removed from those
events.
Secondly, you can't prove that the creator or God or whomever was being
referred to in the DOI was in fact the so called Christian God. That is the
wonderful thing about the words that were used. Anyone can fill in the
details they wish to fill in, by those labels, to make themselves feel at
ease and comfortable.
It would have been just as simple to have use Christian labels as it was to
use the labels that were used. Why didn't they?
>:|Secondly, I did not say that the DOI is a Puritan Document per se. What I have
>:|said is that Jefferson used Puritan Models and other Calvinistic Models as he
>:|wrote this and other political documents.
He did, huh?
Hmmmmmmmm
What else did he use? What was the ratio?
Why don't you list the other things you feel he used when you make you
Calvin in fence post claims?
>:|Tell me friend. Just how many witch-burnings were there in Puritan New
>:|England?? I'll bet you can't give me a citation for even one. That's because
>:|you and your revisionist history club play fast and loose with colonial
>:|history, especially with respect to Deism.
Gee, is that like how you play fast and loose with history, especially with
respect with Christianity?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Rev Peter wrote:
>:|> Not really, as thomas Paine pointed out in "the age of Reason", it was
>:|> the clerical faction which attacked Deism because it was becoming known
>:|> among the common people.
>:|
>:|Would you call President John Adams "the clerical faction"?? He was one of
>:|Paine's sharpest critics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|> "Richard Weatherwax" <Weath...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|Bobbi wrote in message <37AF9159...@home.com>...
>:|> >:|> >:|>Yet who was the last non-christian President????????????????
>:|> >:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> >:|
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> A better question is:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Who was the first Christian President?
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Washington is somewhat of a mystery. Although he often attended church
>:|> >:|> services, it is known that he always left before communion.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|As you would say, citations please!
>:|>
>:|> Kewl, ask him.
>:|
>:|Ah, nice evasion. That's not how the academics do it, is it, Jim? Aren't you
>:|the one who is always so demanding about sources? You were the one who chose
>:|to invoke this guy's material. Therefore, you have the burden of showing the
>:|fellow's data to be reputable. At least that's what you say to others who
>:|invoke Barton, Federrer, Kennedy, Pat Robertson, etc.
>:|
>:|You don't like playing by your own rules, do you Jim?
>:|
Ask him, is that hard to do?
>:|> He isn't in this news group or this thread. But the information you need to
>:|> find him is given above.. By all means, ask him.
>:|
>:|As you would say, "its not my responsibility: you were the one who posted the
>:|material, you defend it."
>:|
>:|When you challenged me in that way, I often did a lot of searching to satisfy
>:|your demand for proof (successfully, of course). But I'll bet you won't lift a
>:|finger to validate these wild claims about these presidents ABSOLUTELY not
>:|being Christian.
LOL
>:|
>:|That's because you are an ideologue and not a scholar.
>:|
You forgot to say IYO
>:|
>:|> >:|Nonetheless, I'm not certain that leaving church early is proof positive of
>:|> >:|one's non-Christianity.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|> One of his
>:|> >:|> pastors stated, "Washington was a Deist."
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|Citation please.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Ask him.
>:|
>:|You were the one who posted, Jim. Don't post what you don't want to defend.
>:|
Ask him. You afraid to?
>:|> >:|> Adams, Jefferson, and Madison were absolutely not Christian.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|John Adams?? Really?? The one who said that good citizenship required that the
>:|> >:|citizen be a Christian?
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Actually, Adams was considered to be a Universalist, with some Deist
>:|> leanings. He began as a Calvinist.
>:|
>:|Citations?
>:|
Ok,
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 85 - 97 should be good.
For Washington:
Well the book I have been citing:
George Washington & Religion, by Paul F. Boller, Southern Methodist
University Press: Dallas TX (1962)
Then:
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 71 - 85 has some good material
And don't forget this:
"Though the cool deism of Washington can hardly be distinguished in broad
outline from that of Jefferson, the public reaction to the two men and
their religious views differed sharply. Only Jefferson was denounced as the
'howling atheist,' never Washington. Only Jefferson was attacked as the
enemy of the churches and the clergy, never Washington. A curious public
probed and punches Adams, Franklin and Jefferson regarding their Christian
convictions, but never Washington."
Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation. Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper
& Row, (1987) pp 77
>:|> There is at least one letter where he gets down on his son for being such a
>:|> orthodox Christian.
>:|
>:|Sounds like a distortion. Citations?
>:|
LOL
The founders were not as easy to classify as you would like to think and
try so hard to tell others.
They were complex, as most humans are, and that complexity extended to
their religious beliefs and thoughts as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to his son a few months later, Adams expressed amazement that, after
all that had been written by samuel Clarke, Daniel Waterland, and Joseph
Priestly, John Quincy persisted in holding to the Athanasian creed.(18)
FOOTNOTE:
(18) JA to John Quincy Adams, November 3, 1815; Adams Papers, reel 122 On
January 3, 1817, John Quincy Adams wrote his father that all his "hopes
of a future life" were "founded upon the Gospel of Christ." Nor, he added,
would he "cavil or quibble away" was seemed to him clear assertions by
Jesus that he was God."You see my orthodoxy grows upon me." Adrienne Koch
and William Peden, eds., The Selected Writings of John and John Quincy
Adams (New York, 1946), 291-92
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Faith of Our Fathers, Religion and the New Nation,
Edwin S. Gaustad, Harper and Row, (1987) pp 90
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As maff91 likes to finish his posts with:
Gardiner ineffectually crosses swords with Jim Alison.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Rev Peter wrote:
>:|> > Oh, I see, John Witherspoon, a self-proclaimed hater of Deism simply
>:|> >put his
>:|> > signature on that document because the rest of the gang just winked
>:|> >behind his back.
>:|>
>:|> Strawman!
>:|
>:|Don't say "strawman," answer the damned question!
WOW!!!!!!
Calm down, you are going to trigger a stroke or something. LOL
Mike Curtis
>Rev Peter wrote:
>>
>> > 2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great Awakening
>> on the
>> > frontier in the early 19th century.
>>
>> Yes, as the christians went out of their way to steal the land from the
>> aboriginal population and kill off those very aboriginals. The Christian
>> great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
>> 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
>
>The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
Actually many were Catholics and Lutherans. Both of those groups are
typically christian.
>> If the D.I.
>> was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the present
>> system with a theocracy.
>
>Is that why when the Puritans came into power in England in 1653,
They came to power because they won a civil war. then they installed a
dictatorship.
> the first
>thing they did was disestablish religion and proclaim tolerance throughout the
>Kingdom?? (see Instrument of Gov't, Section 37)
That's why there was such partying when Charles II was placed on the
thrown.
>Secondly, I did not say that the DOI is a Puritan Document per se. What I have
Well, you tried to.
>said is that Jefferson used Puritan Models and other Calvinistic Models as he
>wrote this and other political documents.
It's the OTHER political documents you brush aside.
>> Puritans were even more intolerant than Roman
>> Catholics. In New England, the Puritans even inflicted a number of
>> genocides against the Indians, just so they could then steal the land
>> with a good conscience before their fictional human sacrificing god.
>
>The Puritans had no monopoly on Native American genocide.
In New England they did. We had the Pequot War in 1637. Then King
Phillip's War in 1677. That's two of the big ones.
>> > > > If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos,
>> > > > written by
>> > > > Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of
>> > > > Kings and an
>> > > > articulation of Social Contract Theory.
>>
>> One need look no further than the disgraceful
>> treatment of the Quakers and Indians [who the Puritians totally
>> demonized as lice and servants of Satan] by the Puritans in New England
>> to see just how morally bankrupt this sect was. There is no witch
>> burnings in any decent religion.
>
>Tell me friend. Just how many witch-burnings were there in Puritan New
>England??
I'll tell you. None. They hung 'em in New England in extreme cases. In
others they banished them.
> I'll bet you can't give me a citation for even one. That's because
>you and your revisionist history club play fast and loose with colonial
>history, especially with respect to Deism.
Pot - Kettle - Black.
>> > What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism wasn't
>> > even a seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581, but >
>> > the substance of the DOI is there.
>>
>> Obviously you know nothing about Deism. Deism is the idea that there is
>> a Creator, and that the Creation is his/her/its handiwork. IN short,
>> Deism was the first religion to exist. One had to accept the idea of
>> God, before some fraud took it into his head to climb a mountain and
>> pretend to have had a REVELATION.
>
>The first religion, as best as anthropologists have been able to inform us,
>was probably Animism.
Is this an evil kind of religion?
>Apparently the 17th century Puritans had a more clear understanding of the
>scriptures than your "authoritative" view.
They had their interpretation. It differed depending on various
extremes, however.
>> > I guess that the Quakers and the Abolitionist evangelicals (John
>> > Brown, Charles Finney, etc.) weren't inspired by Christianity when >
>> they sought to undo slavery.
>>
>> The Quakers were not Puritians,
>
>I never said they were. I implied that they were Christians. Do you deny that
>they were?
But that didn't matter much to the Puritans, did it?
Mike Curtis
>Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
>>:|Robert L. Johnson wrote:
>You should talk, as Mike Curtis says, you find Calvin in fence posts.
Speaking of animism. LOL!
Gardiner
>
[cut]
>
> Patrick Henry? Oh yes, him, hmmmmm well he did seem to switch sides of the
> fence on a number of times, and ultimately lost when he wanted to establish
> Christianity os the official state supported religion of Va.
I'm amazed that you admit what he wanted to do! Are you sure that he wasn't an
atheist or a deist or something. After all, according to the alt.deism club,
all of the patriots were deists and this country was founded on deism. They
are going to be shocked that you, jim alison, the great defender of Robert
Johnson, are admitting that Patrick Henry wanted to establish Christianity.
> There is at least one works out now (available through the History Book
> Club) that says the great awakening has been grossly over rated.
> As in most cases, you can find viewpoints across the spectrum.
Yes, there is at least one book out which claims that George Washington was an
alien from a distant planet, and that the Native Americans were descendents of
the Jews who came across the Atlantic ocean several milleniums ago.
Just because there is a best-selling book about it, doesn't make it
historically responsible.
> You should talk, as Mike Curtis says, you find Calvin in fence posts.
>
> I do know that you seem to find either Calvin or Luther in any word
> expressed by Madison, and you tried like hell to find Luther or Calvin in
> the opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court in its decision
> DECEMBER TERM, 1872.
> Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati v. Minor.
What you find in that decision, is found in Madison and in Jefferson: the idea
that liberty of conscience actually promotes Christianity. Madison and
Jefferson explicitly gleaned this thought largely from Locke's LETTERS
CONCERNING TOLERATION; Locke explicitly gleaned the position from John
Milton's AREOPAGITICA.
Now, I don't know what you know about Milton and what his ideas were, but
Puritanism is in there somewhere;
And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of conscience
in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither open
nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most important
person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg and
Newton).
His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just "seeing
Luther in fenceposts"
> >:|> > The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal, and those few
> >:|> > who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
>
> And you know as well as the rest of us know this isn't all that true.
> You are aware of the fact that most scholars concede that the first six
> Presidents were not what could be called orthodox Christians.
>
> That they held beliefs that were a cross between Deism, Enlightenment
> thinking, and Unitarian ideas.
Uhhh.... you don't think that traditional Christianity was part of that cross-section??
> >:|> Was it so minimal that it ended up in the Declaration of
> >:|> Independence but the Christian religion did not??? If I
> >:|> remember right, the Declaration is a somewhat important
> >:|> document in American history. Have you ever read it????
> >:|
> >:|Oh, I see, John Witherspoon, a self-proclaimed hater of Deism simply put his
> >:|signature on that document because the rest of the gang just winked behind his back.
>
> Nice side step.
It's actually quite relevant, and no one seems to be able to respond to it.
> >:|Please point out anything in the Declaration of Independence, the essence of
> >:|which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
> >:|
>
> Calvin in fence posts. Oh yes, you do think that the real founders of
> America was Luther and Calvin, all others were just puppets of those two,
> without an original thought, action, etc of their own.
Okay, meet the challenge then. What do you find in the DOI which is not in
Rushworth or in the Dutch DOI?
> >:|> > If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, written by
> >:|> > Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of Kings and an
> >:|> > articulation of Social Contract Theory. If one reads the Dutch Declaration of
> >:|> > Independence, written by Calvinists in 1581, one finds everything that
> >:|> > Jefferson said in June of 1776 in the exact same format.
> >:|> >
> >:|> Does that mean that the Dutch Declaration is a Deist
> >:|> document too???
> >:|
> >:|What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism wasn't even a
> >:|seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581, but the substance of
> >:|the DOI is there.
>
> Substance? I see, nice word substance, it means that you see what you want
> to see in things.
>
> Calvin in fence posts.
Meet the challenge. Put up or shut up.
> >:|> Why do you think Christianity and its tent meetings
> >:|> inspired the American Revolution when the Bible says
> >:|> people should be obedient to the authorities and even that
> >:|> slaves should obey their masters????? Doe's this sound
> >:|> Revolutionary to you????
> >:|
> >:|I guess Luther wasn't inspired by Christianity either when he told the civil
> >:|authorities that he was going to rebel.
>
> Calvin/Lurther, why hell those two men founded the entire world, or at
> least Gardiner thinks so.
Respond to the issue. I was simply responding to the guy's claim that Luther
did not rebel against the emperor. Are you denying it? Of course not, you
can't... so you just change the subject and blow smoke screens.
> There are over 600 books here in my "office" All deal with law
> (Constitution, Supreme court, Constitutional law, etc) and history (late
> 1700s constitution, state constitutions church/state, founding, etc.)
> I bet that probably not more then 50 or so of those books mention Calvin
> and or Luther in them, and what mention there is is very little.
Oh, I forget, if there's not an explicit reference, then there's no influence, right??
That's why you always dodge the ROMAN LETTERS issue and call it silly...
because it directly refutes your narrow and reductionist approach to history.
The letters I'm typing didn't come from Rome. I have 300 books on my shelf
written with these same letters, and none of them say that the letters came
from Rome.
Call it silly if you'd like. It goes to the issue of how influence occurs.
RG
Mike Curtis
>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>[cut]
>>
>> Patrick Henry? Oh yes, him, hmmmmm well he did seem to switch sides of the
>> fence on a number of times, and ultimately lost when he wanted to establish
>> Christianity os the official state supported religion of Va.
>
>I'm amazed that you admit what he wanted to do! Are you sure that he wasn't an
>atheist or a deist or something. After all, according to the alt.deism club,
>all of the patriots were deists and this country was founded on deism. They
>are going to be shocked that you, jim alison, the great defender of Robert
>Johnson, are admitting that Patrick Henry wanted to establish Christianity.
I don't think I or Jim Alison is defending the positions of Robert
Johnson. What is happening here is an attempt to show that there were
many influences working when the DOI was composed. Patrick Henry
wasn't a well respected lawyer in his time. He was viewed as a
pettifogger. But he did speak well and that's where his influence was
used. As Jim points out, Henry tended to change and waffle about most
of his life. He was a politician in a very modern sense. He would do
what he had to do to get elected and to continue getting that public
paycheck.
>> There is at least one works out now (available through the History Book
>> Club) that says the great awakening has been grossly over rated.
>> As in most cases, you can find viewpoints across the spectrum.
>
>Yes, there is at least one book out which claims that George Washington was an
>alien from a distant planet,
I think he's talking about an historical study. What might have been
more impressive is for you to ask what that book was or is. But no,
you went off on this silly tirade.
> and that the Native Americans were descendents of
>the Jews who came across the Atlantic ocean several milleniums ago.
>
>Just because there is a best-selling book about it, doesn't make it
>historically responsible.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
>> You should talk, as Mike Curtis says, you find Calvin in fence posts.
>>
>> I do know that you seem to find either Calvin or Luther in any word
>> expressed by Madison, and you tried like hell to find Luther or Calvin in
>> the opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court in its decision
>> DECEMBER TERM, 1872.
>> Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati v. Minor.
>
>What you find in that decision, is found in Madison and in Jefferson: the idea
>that liberty of conscience actually promotes Christianity.
Jefferson would be the last person to support any form of organized
Christianity since he wasn't a Christian in any Christian
understanding of the term.
> Madison and
>Jefferson explicitly gleaned this thought largely from Locke's LETTERS
>CONCERNING TOLERATION; Locke explicitly gleaned the position from John
>Milton's AREOPAGITICA.
Gleaned. Now there is a new word. LOL!
>Now, I don't know what you know about Milton and what his ideas were, but
>Puritanism is in there somewhere;
Why don't you continue to belittle your opponents intelligence along
the way. Good show!
[snip]
>His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just "seeing
>Luther in fenceposts"
Not as you do with Calvin.
>> >:|> > The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal, and those few
>> >:|> > who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
>>
>> And you know as well as the rest of us know this isn't all that true.
>> You are aware of the fact that most scholars concede that the first six
>> Presidents were not what could be called orthodox Christians.
>>
>> That they held beliefs that were a cross between Deism, Enlightenment
>> thinking, and Unitarian ideas.
>
>Uhhh.... you don't think that traditional Christianity was part of that cross-section??
Not as wide a cross-section as you must make it in order to make
yourself feel good.
>> >:|> Was it so minimal that it ended up in the Declaration of
>> >:|> Independence but the Christian religion did not??? If I
>> >:|> remember right, the Declaration is a somewhat important
>> >:|> document in American history. Have you ever read it????
>> >:|
>> >:|Oh, I see, John Witherspoon, a self-proclaimed hater of Deism simply put his
>> >:|signature on that document because the rest of the gang just winked behind his back.
>>
>> Nice side step.
>
>It's actually quite relevant, and no one seems to be able to respond to it.
It's a diversion not within the scope of time or place.
>> >:|Please point out anything in the Declaration of Independence, the essence of
>> >:|which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
>> >:|
>>
>> Calvin in fence posts. Oh yes, you do think that the real founders of
>> America was Luther and Calvin, all others were just puppets of those two,
>> without an original thought, action, etc of their own.
>
>Okay, meet the challenge then. What do you find in the DOI which is not in
>Rushworth or in the Dutch DOI?
Haven't seen the Dutch DOI.
>> There are over 600 books here in my "office" All deal with law
>> (Constitution, Supreme court, Constitutional law, etc) and history (late
>> 1700s constitution, state constitutions church/state, founding, etc.)
>> I bet that probably not more then 50 or so of those books mention Calvin
>> and or Luther in them, and what mention there is is very little.
>
>Oh, I forget, if there's not an explicit reference, then there's no influence, right??
Close. Let's play pretend with Gardiner.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
Smart assed Gardiner is at it again, being his usual lovable self. Yea,
right LOL
>:|Mr. Nelson,
>:|
>:| Are you serious?? Do you really mean to say that the causes and motivations
>:|of a war have nothing to do with the war? Are guns and strategies the only
>:|thing important when discussing a war? Perhaps it would behoove you to read a
>:|bit of John Adams regarding what the revolution really was
>:|
>:|(try http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=144&parent=54)
>:|
>:|"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war?
>:|The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in
>:|the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of
>:|their duties and obligations"
>:|
>:|Adams to H. Niles, 2/13/1818
>:|
>:|The discussion as to the ideas behind the revolution is as pertinent as can
>:|be. Quite frankly, I don't find a discussion of muskets, etc., very
>:|interesting; so please keep take such off-subject banter to alt.guns or something.
**********************************************
Mike Curtis
>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> Smart assed Gardiner is at it again, being his usual lovable self. Yea,
>> right LOL
>
>Dumb assed alison
See http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
> hasn't changed much either; still refusing to deal with the
>substance of an argument, but rather opting to give the one-liner ad hominems.
See
http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
and See
http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
>Next approach is sure to follow: alison will post 67 pages of irrelevant
>letters and supreme court decisions having nothing whatsoever to do with the
>theory of the Declaration of Independence, and then he will proclaim "see, I
>buried gardiner in evidence."
See
http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> Smart assed Gardiner is at it again, being his usual lovable self. Yea,
> right LOL
Dumb assed alison hasn't changed much either; still refusing to deal with the
substance of an argument, but rather opting to give the one-liner ad hominems.
Next approach is sure to follow: alison will post 67 pages of irrelevant
letters and supreme court decisions having nothing whatsoever to do with the
theory of the Declaration of Independence, and then he will proclaim "see, I
buried gardiner in evidence."
I suppose that's the best approach when the evidential well is dry.
Oh, I forgot, he is also sure to appeal to Maff91 as the authoritative judge
of the debate.
Gardiner
>
> >> If the D.I.
> >> was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the present
> >> system with a theocracy.
> >
> >Is that why when the Puritans came into power in England in 1653,
>
> dictatorship.
That may be your spin on it, but the historical documents indicate that they
declared the Kingdom a commonwealth and a constitutional republic. I can cite
you a primary source if disagree. Can you cite any primary sources for your
warped interpretation? I didn't think so.
> > the first
> >thing they did was disestablish religion and proclaim tolerance throughout the
> >Kingdom?? (see Instrument of Gov't, Section 37)
>
> That's why there was such partying when Charles II was placed on the
> thrown.
Exactly! Under Charles II, not under the Puritan Protectorate, was the church
Re-established. This entirely contradicts the nonsensical view propounded by
the first poster who claimed that Puritans did not believe in liberty of conscience.
> >Secondly, I did not say that the DOI is a Puritan Document per se. What I have
> >said is that Jefferson used Puritan Models and other Calvinistic Models as he
> >wrote this and other political documents.
>
> It's the OTHER political documents you brush aside.
What?? I am referring to such documents as the Declaration of the Causes and
Necessities for Taking Up Arms.
> >> Puritans were even more intolerant than Roman
> >> Catholics. In New England, the Puritans even inflicted a number of
> >> genocides against the Indians, just so they could then steal the land
> >> with a good conscience before their fictional human sacrificing god.
> >
> >The Puritans had no monopoly on Native American genocide.
>
> In New England they did. We had the Pequot War in 1637. Then King
> Phillip's War in 1677. That's two of the big ones.
You are right. But the former poster was implying that the genocide of Native
Americans was particularly associated with Puritanism; in fact, throughout the
history of America, all European groups participated in this practice,
regardless of creed.
> >> > > > If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos,
> >> > > > written by
> >> > > > Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of
> >> > > > Kings and an
> >> > > > articulation of Social Contract Theory.
> >>
> >> One need look no further than the disgraceful
> >> treatment of the Quakers and Indians [who the Puritians totally
> >> demonized as lice and servants of Satan] by the Puritans in New England
> >> to see just how morally bankrupt this sect was. There is no witch
> >> burnings in any decent religion.
> >
> >Tell me friend. Just how many witch-burnings were there in Puritan New
> >England??
>
> I'll tell you. None.
Thank you.
> >> > What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism wasn't
> >> > even a seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581, but >
> >> > the substance of the DOI is there.
> >>
> >> Obviously you know nothing about Deism. Deism is the idea that there is
> >> a Creator, and that the Creation is his/her/its handiwork. IN short,
> >> Deism was the first religion to exist. One had to accept the idea of
> >> God, before some fraud took it into his head to climb a mountain and
> >> pretend to have had a REVELATION.
> >
> >The first religion, as best as anthropologists have been able to inform us,
> >was probably Animism.
>
> Is this an evil kind of religion?
Who cares? What does that have to do with Deism and the Declaration of
Independence? Why are you so bent on changing the subject of a thread?
> >Apparently the 17th century Puritans had a more clear understanding of the
> >scriptures than your "authoritative" view.
>
> They had their interpretation. It differed depending on various
> extremes, however.
Agreed. So what?
> >> > I guess that the Quakers and the Abolitionist evangelicals (John
> >> > Brown, Charles Finney, etc.) weren't inspired by Christianity when >
> >> they sought to undo slavery.
> >>
> >> The Quakers were not Puritians,
> >
> >I never said they were. I implied that they were Christians. Do you deny that
> >they were?
>
> But that didn't matter much to the Puritans, did it?
The poster's point is that Christianity has only bred oppression, but
Christianity bred Quakers who were the movers and shakers in the Abolitionist
movement. The red herring of the conflict between Puritans and Quakers is not
pertinent to this claim.
It's great to see you again,
RG
Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>
> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Smart assed Gardiner is at it again, being his usual lovable self. Yea,
> >> right LOL
> >
> >Dumb assed alison
>
Thanks Mike. Perhaps you noticed who was the first to call who a "smart ass."
I hope your buddy alison takes a close look at your fallacy page.
RG
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> >> If the D.I.
>> >> was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the present
>> >> system with a theocracy.
>> >
>> >Is that why when the Puritans came into power in England in 1653,
>>
>> They came to power because they won a civil war. then they installed a
>> dictatorship.
>
>That may be your spin on it, but the historical documents indicate that they
>declared the Kingdom a commonwealth and a constitutional republic.
That is not the historical spin on it. It was called the Protectorate.
Historians give George Washington credit for NOT becoming a Cromwell
when he could easily have done so.
> I can cite
>you a primary source if disagree. Can you cite any primary sources for your
>warped interpretation? I didn't think so.
Primary sources must go with the actions of the period. Primary
sources do not stand alone but fit in with other contemporary
documents.
>> > the first
>> >thing they did was disestablish religion and proclaim tolerance throughout the
>> >Kingdom?? (see Instrument of Gov't, Section 37)
>>
>> That's why there was such partying when Charles II was placed on the
>> thrown.
>
>Exactly! Under Charles II, not under the Puritan Protectorate, was the church
>Re-established.
As it still is in England. Yet the true religion was that of
Protestantism as Cromwell saw it.
> This entirely contradicts the nonsensical view propounded by
>the first poster who claimed that Puritans did not believe in liberty of conscience.
As long as it was a shared conscience. Otherwise Connecticut wouldn't
have had Hooker or Rhode Island Roger Williams.
>> >Secondly, I did not say that the DOI is a Puritan Document per se. What I have
>> >said is that Jefferson used Puritan Models and other Calvinistic Models as he
>> >wrote this and other political documents.
>>
>> It's the OTHER political documents you brush aside.
>
>What?? I am referring to such documents as the Declaration of the Causes and
>Necessities for Taking Up Arms.
I'm sure you are. Yet there were three (3) declarations of
Independence. I'm sure you knew this?
>> >> Puritans were even more intolerant than Roman
>> >> Catholics. In New England, the Puritans even inflicted a number of
>> >> genocides against the Indians, just so they could then steal the land
>> >> with a good conscience before their fictional human sacrificing god.
>> >
>> >The Puritans had no monopoly on Native American genocide.
>>
>> In New England they did. We had the Pequot War in 1637. Then King
>> Phillip's War in 1677. That's two of the big ones.
>You are right. But the former poster was implying that the genocide of Native
>Americans was particularly associated with Puritanism;
I associate it with a lot of factors. Mostly a culture clash and then
total warfare.
> in fact, throughout the
>history of America, all European groups participated in this practice,
>regardless of creed.
Most Europeans were a form of Christian. Nice folks.
[snip]
>> >> > What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism wasn't
>> >> > even a seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581, but >
>> >> > the substance of the DOI is there.
>> >>
>> >> Obviously you know nothing about Deism. Deism is the idea that there is
>> >> a Creator, and that the Creation is his/her/its handiwork. IN short,
>> >> Deism was the first religion to exist. One had to accept the idea of
>> >> God, before some fraud took it into his head to climb a mountain and
>> >> pretend to have had a REVELATION.
>> >
>> >The first religion, as best as anthropologists have been able to inform us,
>> >was probably Animism.
>>
>> Is this an evil kind of religion?
>
>Who cares?
I do. I'm curious. There's an interesting discussion going on in
another news group. That's why I asked you the Calvinist the question.
>> >> > I guess that the Quakers and the Abolitionist evangelicals (John
>> >> > Brown, Charles Finney, etc.) weren't inspired by Christianity when >
>> >> they sought to undo slavery.
>> >>
>> >> The Quakers were not Puritians,
>> >
>> >I never said they were. I implied that they were Christians. Do you deny that
>> >they were?
>>
>> But that didn't matter much to the Puritans, did it?
>
>The poster's point is that Christianity has only bred oppression, but
All depends on whose ox is gored.
>Christianity bred Quakers who were the movers and shakers
The shakers are no more, alas. <smile>
> in the Abolitionist
>movement.
At first.
> The red herring of the conflict between Puritans and Quakers is not
>pertinent to this claim.
It is to me. It fit in real well.
>It's great to see you again,
You can *see* me?!
Mike Curtis
I think you need to look as this URL closer.
and See
http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
PaulDanaher
news:381E41BB...@pitnet.net...
> Rev Peter wrote:
> >
> > > 2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great Awakening
> > on the
> > > frontier in the early 19th century.
> >
> > Yes, as the christians went out of their way to steal the land from the
> > aboriginal population and kill off those very aboriginals. The Christian
> > great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
> > 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
>
> The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see
http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
>
Christians were not overwhelmingly Nazis!
Rick Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>
> >Mike Curtis wrote:
> >>
> >> >> If the D.I.
> >> >> was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the present
> >> >> system with a theocracy.
> >> >
> >> >Is that why when the Puritans came into power in England in 1653,
> >>
> >> They came to power because they won a civil war. then they installed a
> >> dictatorship.
> >
> >That may be your spin on it, but the historical documents indicate that they
> >declared the Kingdom a commonwealth and a constitutional republic.
>
> That is not the historical spin on it. It was called the Protectorate.
> Historians give George Washington credit for NOT becoming a Cromwell
> when he could easily have done so.
Just because Washington retired his sword and went back to farm Mt. Vernon
does not mean that Cromwell was a dictator. I'm not sure how anyone could come
to that conclusion.
But leave it to you to warp everything you can to disparage puritans.
> > I can cite
> >you a primary source if disagree. Can you cite any primary sources for your
> >warped interpretation? I didn't think so.
>
> Primary sources must go with the actions of the period. Primary
> sources do not stand alone but fit in with other contemporary
> documents.
In other words, you have no primary sources to support your claim. All you had
to do was say so.
> >> > the first
> >> >thing they did was disestablish religion and proclaim tolerance throughout the
> >> >Kingdom?? (see Instrument of Gov't, Section 37)
> >>
> >> That's why there was such partying when Charles II was placed on the
> >> thrown.
> >
> >Exactly! Under Charles II, not under the Puritan Protectorate, was the church
> >Re-established.
>
> As it still is in England. Yet the true religion was that of
> Protestantism as Cromwell saw it.
If you knew anything about the Protectorate, you would know that people were
quite upset that Cromwell refused to establish "the true religion as Cromwell
saw it." It doesn't take a whole lot of historical study to find that out.
> > This entirely contradicts the nonsensical view propounded by
> >the first poster who claimed that Puritans did not believe in liberty of conscience.
>
> As long as it was a shared conscience. Otherwise Connecticut wouldn't
> have had Hooker or Rhode Island Roger Williams.
Hooker and Williams both considered themselves Puritans! You know that, Mike.
You have adopted the strange view that Puritans were only the people who
controlled Boston.
> >> >Secondly, I did not say that the DOI is a Puritan Document per se. What I have
> >> >said is that Jefferson used Puritan Models and other Calvinistic Models as he
> >> >wrote this and other political documents.
> >>
> >> It's the OTHER political documents you brush aside.
> >
> >What?? I am referring to such documents as the Declaration of the Causes and
> >Necessities for Taking Up Arms.
>
> I'm sure you are. Yet there were three (3) declarations of
> Independence. I'm sure you knew this?
Okay. What does that have to do with whether Jefferson appealed to Puritan models?
> >> >> Puritans were even more intolerant than Roman
> >> >> Catholics. In New England, the Puritans even inflicted a number of
> >> >> genocides against the Indians, just so they could then steal the land
> >> >> with a good conscience before their fictional human sacrificing god.
> >> >
> >> >The Puritans had no monopoly on Native American genocide.
> >>
> >> In New England they did. We had the Pequot War in 1637. Then King
> >> Phillip's War in 1677. That's two of the big ones.
>
> >You are right. But the former poster was implying that the genocide of Native
> >Americans was particularly associated with Puritanism;
>
> I associate it with a lot of factors. Mostly a culture clash and then
> total warfare.
Okay.
> > in fact, throughout the
> >history of America, all European groups participated in this practice,
> >regardless of creed.
>
> Most Europeans were a form of Christian. Nice folks.
Ah, you'll admit it when talking about the genocide of the natives, but when
it comes to the founders, suddenly most of those Europeans become something
other than Christian in your view.
That's convenient.
> >> >> > What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism wasn't
> >> >> > even a seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581, but >
> >> >> > the substance of the DOI is there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Obviously you know nothing about Deism. Deism is the idea that there is
> >> >> a Creator, and that the Creation is his/her/its handiwork. IN short,
> >> >> Deism was the first religion to exist. One had to accept the idea of
> >> >> God, before some fraud took it into his head to climb a mountain and
> >> >> pretend to have had a REVELATION.
> >> >
> >> >The first religion, as best as anthropologists have been able to inform us,
> >> >was probably Animism.
> >>
> >> Is this an evil kind of religion?
> >
> >Who cares?
>
> I do. I'm curious. There's an interesting discussion going on in
> another news group. That's why I asked you the Calvinist the question.
Believe it or not, Mike, I'm not, and have never been, the Puritan that you
have painted me to be. Actually I dislike Puritanism per se. But my dislike
for it doesn't cloud my ability to recognize that it had a larger role in
early American history than my atheist, deist, and other liberal-minded people
want to believe as they revise history to fit their agenda.
My answer, therefore, to your question, is that Animism is neither good nor
bad from my perspective; it just was. The Hebrew and Christian religions owe a
lot to their Animist ancestors. The whole process of making the pre-meal
slaughter a religious ritual (e.g., lamb sacrifices) traces back to the
Animism of the Paleo-lithic peoples.
If it weren't for the Animists, therefore, Jesus probably would have never
been considered "the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."
This is off subject, but you asked.
> >> >> > I guess that the Quakers and the Abolitionist evangelicals (John
> >> >> > Brown, Charles Finney, etc.) weren't inspired by Christianity when >
> >> >> they sought to undo slavery.
> >> >>
> >> >> The Quakers were not Puritians,
> >> >
> >> >I never said they were. I implied that they were Christians. Do you deny that
> >> >they were?
> >>
> >> But that didn't matter much to the Puritans, did it?
> >
> >The poster's point is that Christianity has only bred oppression, but
>
> All depends on whose ox is gored.
Yes.
> >Christianity bred Quakers who were the movers and shakers
>
> The shakers are no more, alas. <smile>
Yet the movers remain, thanks to U-Haul and Mayflower.
> > in the Abolitionist
> >movement.
>
> At first.
then it was taken over by the Second Great Awakening Evangelicals such as
Weld, Beecher, and Beecher-Stowe, Transcendentalists such as Thoreau and
Emerson, and other Bostonian and Philadelphian journalists such as Garrison,
Douglass, and Tappan.
> > The red herring of the conflict between Puritans and Quakers is not
> >pertinent to this claim.
>
> It is to me. It fit in real well.
I forgot the fact that you are into freudian "free association" in these forums.
> >It's great to see you again,
>
> You can *see* me?!
Not really. I have a vague conception of a fellow working in a bookstore who
takes a number of breaks each day to tinker around in newsgroups. Yet I do
feel like I know you quite well.
Rick Gardiner
> >:|throughout the Declaration of Independence was not the Christian God, as you
> >:|claim, how do you explain the consent of men like Roger Sherman, Samuel Adams,
> >:|and John Witherspoon, to the document?? These men were orthodox Calvinists. Do
> >:|you think that they would have made an oath to a non-Christian God?? Or are
> >:|you alleging that they just didn't have the wits to understand what they were reading?
>
"In support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of
Divine Providence... we mutually pledge... our sacred honor"
Yes, I'd call that an oath.
> Words can be a wonderful thing.
>
> First of all we all know that the DOI was written for a specific purpose.
Yes. It was a "British Deposition Apologia"--
Do you remember the guy who was on the A & E biography special regarding the
Declaration of Independence... the guy who you cited as an expert, Dr. Stephen
Lucas? He's the Professor at University of Wisconsin who has dedicated his
career to studying the origins of the Declaration of Independence. Here's what
he has had to say about the purpose of the document:
"The Declaration had roots in another traditional mode of British public
address. Seven times since the Norman conquest English monarchs had been
deposed from their thrones: Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V, Richard
III, Charles I, and James II. Each time the change in rulers was accompanied
by a public apologia [document] sanctioning the removal of the King... [the
purpose of] the Declaration of Independence was to justify America's secession
from the empire by indicting George III as a tyrant and assigning to him all
the blame for the British American conflict. In doing so, the Declaration
emulated--in form as well as content--the rhetorical tradition Englishmen had
followed for centuries when dethroning a "tyrannical" monarch"
SOURCE, Lucas, THE RHETORICAL ANCESTRY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
> Most of all the crap that has been added to it, as far as meaning and this
> and that were added much later, by people totally removed from those
> events.
What meaning has been added to it?
> Secondly, you can't prove that the creator or God or whomever was being
> referred to in the DOI was in fact the so called Christian God.
One can show that in other places when Jefferson wrote of God he had the
Christian God in mind.
For example, his famous Statute for religious freedom includes these words:
"the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet
chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power
to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone"
Scholars indicate that according to Jefferson's "the life and morals of
Jesus," that this "choice" he is referring to is Jesus' refusal to force
people to accept him in Luke 9.
Thus, the "holy author of our religion" identified by Jefferson in 1779, was Jesus.
> That is the
> wonderful thing about the words that were used. Anyone can fill in the
> details they wish to fill in, by those labels, to make themselves feel at
> ease and comfortable.
That's wrong and you know it: if atheists are comfortable with those labels:
creator, Supreme Judge of the World, Nature's God, Divine Providence, etc.,
then atheism is schizophrenic.
> It would have been just as simple to have use Christian labels as it was to
> use the labels that were used. Why didn't they?
He used the same language as Christians had been using since the 1550's when
dealing with political topics. Even Calvin talked about the Law of Nature,
Divine Providence, etc. Does that mean Calvin was a deist who was trying to be
specifically ambiguous so that all sects would be happy with his writings?
> >:|Secondly, I did not say that the DOI is a Puritan Document per se. What I have
> >:|said is that Jefferson used Puritan Models and other Calvinistic Models as he
> >:|wrote this and other political documents.
>
> He did, huh?
> Hmmmmmmmm
> What else did he use? What was the ratio?
> Why don't you list the other things you feel he used when you make you
> Calvin in fence post claims?
According to Lucas, the explicit formative documents were these:
1. The Dutch Declaration of Independence (1581)
2. The English Bill of Rights (1689)
3. Locke's 2nd Treatise (1689)
4. Richard Henry Lee's Motion from the floor
5. George Mason's Bill of Rights (1776)
6. Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)
7. Algernon Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government (1680)
8. The Puritan Declaration for the Necessity of Taking up Arms (1642)
9. Blackstone's Commentaries (1765)
10. Common Publications throughout the colonies such as Sam Adams "the Rights
of the Colonists"
The preponderance of these originated from mainstream Protestant political
theorists. The Dutch Declaration, which was the premiere model, was
particularly Calvinist in origin. Algernon Sidney was a Puritan & biblical
political theorist. The English Bill of rights forbid non-Protestants from
having guns. The Puritan Declaration of 1642 was particularly Calvinist in
origin. Locke was a "a sincere Christian" (according to the Encyclopedia of
Philosophy) who synthesized the political theory of Milton, Lawson, and the
Vindiciae--all Calvinist theories. Blackstone was a mainstream anglican who
was in favor of an Established Church and a list of "blue laws." Sam Adams was
a Puritan. Mason and Lee were typical Virginia Anglicans.
Now help me here. Where is the formative Deist influence which was the
original claim at the beginning of this thread?
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
> news:381E41BB...@pitnet.net...
> > Rev Peter wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great Awakening
> > > on the
> > > > frontier in the early 19th century.
> > >
> > > Yes, as the christians went out of their way to steal the land from the
> > > aboriginal population and kill off those very aboriginals. The Christian
> > > great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
> > > 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
> >
> > The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see
> http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
> >
> Christians were not overwhelmingly Nazis!
Of course not, but you also can't possibly argue from the historical record
that the Western Allies were not overwhelmingly Christians as well. Thus, you
can't infer a correlation between Christianity and Nazism... there is no
necessary connection, any more than there is a necessary connection between
being a Christian and being an anti-Nazi.
Rick Gardiner
>
> The relevance is that the Christian mind-set and Bible don't allow for rebellion.
> They tell us to be good slaves and to obey our masters. To rebell against the gov
> is going against Christian scripture.
So, in your view, the Puritans of 1641-49 in England were not biblical
Christians, The evangelical Abolitionists such as John Brown and the Beechers
were not biblical Christians, The entire Confederate army had no biblical
Christians in it, Martin Luther King, Jr. was no biblical Christian, and, for
that matter, the prophet Daniel was being "unbiblical" in Babylon when he
rebelled against Nebudchadnezzar.
You do have a very unique view, Mr. Johnson
Rev Peter
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> Rev Peter wrote:
> >
> > > 2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great
Awakening
> > on the
> > > frontier in the early 19th century.
> >
> > Yes, as the christians went out of their way to steal the land from
the
> > aboriginal population and kill off those very aboriginals. The
Christian
> > great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
> > 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
>
> The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see
http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
Wrong, they were both. Most Social Darwinists were Christians! And
Europeans and Americans. Hitler is even in good standing in the Roman
Catholic Church [which is a CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION], and was never
excommunicated, or even censored.
> > > 3. Your treatment of the awakening is quite revealing about your
> > historical
> > > method and the fact that you promote so much pseudo-history
regarding
> > Deism's influence.
> >
> > Considering that Thomas Paine and other Deists were major
contributors
> > to revolutionary thinking, one cannot dismiss the contribution of
Deists
> > to the American Revolution.
>
> If you are familiar enough with Paine you know that he did not go
> public with his Deism until long after the Revolution was over.
Your lack of education is showing. Paine was a Deist even before the
Revolution, therefore, his contributions to the Revolution were the
contributions of a Deist.
> At the time he wrote
> Common Sense, the public was under the impression that he was as much
> a Scotch Presbyterian as Witherspoon.
His father was a Quaker, and his mother an Anglican. Paine was NEVER a
Scot, or a Presbyterian. Again, your lack of education is showing.
> Not until he published Age Of Reason, which his
> best buddy Franklin warned him not to publish, did the world find out
> what his religious convictions were. That was @ 1795.
Which does not change the FACT that he was a Deist. Also, his book went
to press in 1794, not 1795. One does not become a Deist by writing a
book, one becomes a Deist when one recognizes that there is a God, and
that Revealed Religion just doesn't add up.
> Thus, at least in the case of Paine, the fact that he was a deist
> really meant nothing as far as the Revolution was concerned.
By that reasoning, one can argue that Christianity had nothing to do
with the Revolution, although Christians made up the bulk of the
Revolutionary forces.
> > > > > The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal,
> > > > >and
> > > > > those few
> > > > > who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
> >
> > Not really, as thomas Paine pointed out in "the age of Reason", it
> > was
> > the clerical faction which attacked Deism because it was becoming
> > known
> > among the common people.
>
> Would you call President John Adams "the clerical faction"?? He was
one of
> Paine's sharpest critics.
John Adams was a political opportunist. He meddled in religion in order
to cater to the clerical elements in the population. So much for
seperation of church and state.
> > > > Was it so minimal that it ended up in the Declaration of
> > > > Independence but the Christian religion did not??? If I
> > > > remember right, the Declaration is a somewhat important
> > > > document in American history. Have you ever read it????
> > >
> > > Oh, I see, John Witherspoon, a self-proclaimed hater of Deism
> > > simply
> > > put his
> > > signature on that document because the rest of the gang just
> > > winked
> > > behind his back.
> >
> > Strawman!
>
> Don't say "strawman," answer the damned question!
Are you normally this emotional when your agruments fall to pieces? The
answer is this, he seen the document as serving his religious
sensibilities and signed it. The FACT that the document makes no mention
of Jesus, or the Christain God, or the Christian Religion, is EVIDENCE
that it conformed to Deist thinking.
> If the Declaration of Independence was so much of a Deist document,
>how did they get it past John Witherspoon who would have never assented
>to anything Deist?
It makes no mention of Christainity, and Witherspoon, like a Muslim
fundamentalist, ASSUMED that the God and Creator referred to was his
God. The FACT that Christiainity is left out is evidence that the DOI
was NOT a Christian document. Actually, such a document is contrary to
the docrtines of 18th century christianity.
> Do you have any substantive response, or can you only say "strawman"?
I call it as it is.
> > > Please point out anything in the Declaration of Independence, the
> > > essence of
> > > which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
> >
> > Even as a Canadian, I know that the Declaration of Independence
> > makes no
> > mention of the Christian God, nor the Christian religion.
>
> Well then as a Canadian, answer one very simple question. If the God
> mentioned throughout the Declaration of Independence was not the
> Christian God, as you claim, how do you explain the consent of men
> like Roger Sherman, Samuel Adams, and John Witherspoon, to the >
> document??
These men signed for their own motives. Take a Jew, a muslim, and a
christian, even add in a Hindu. Now present them with a document where
God is mentioned -- each person will assume that his God is the one
referred to in the document.
> These men were orthodox Calvinists.
If they were Orthodox Calvinists, than they would have made the document
reflect Calvinistic principles. Instead we have a document where man is
elevated, where he is created with unalienable rights, in short, a list
of liberal ideals. There is no mention of the depravity of humanity, or
sin, or the need for christ, it is even a denial of predestination, for
it implies that MAN can change his world and make it better. The DOI is
a document of the Enlightenment.
> Do you think that they would have made an oath to a non-Christian >
>God??
Like the good freemasons many were, they took an oath according to their
consciences.
> Or are you alleging that they just didn't have the wits to understand
> what they were reading?
Very possible, Christians are so conceited with their false God that
they assume that any mention of the word "God" refers to their three
headed Hydra in the sky.
> How about a substantive response this time?
If you have the mental capacity to read, it should be substantive.
> > If the D.I.
> > was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the
> > present
> > system with a theocracy.
>
> Is that why when the Puritans came into power in England in 1653, the
> first thing they did was disestablish religion and proclaim tolerance
> throughout the Kingdom?? (see Instrument of Gov't, Section 37)
You are upholding the dictatorship of Cromwell as a defense of relgious
tolerance. You conviently left out that in 1648 the Puritans purged the
Presbyterian majority in Parliament by force, creating the "rump
parliament'. This Rump Parliament was a minority which murdered the
king, who was not executed by popular consent, but just so the Puritans
could usurp power. The Commonwealth pretended to be a republic, but was
little more than a dictatorship. The Puritains than proceeded to
massacre the Scots and the Irish, the whole government was the rump! It
was an oligarchy which denied representation to other groups in
Parliament. Cromwell spent his entire life killing off Roman Catholics,
and you call this religious tolerance. It is obvious that you are as
ignorant of Cromwell as you are of American History.
> Secondly, I did not say that the DOI is a Puritan Document per se.
It is not a Puritan Document in any sense of the word.
> What I have said is that Jefferson used Puritan Models and other > >
Calvinistic Models as he wrote this and other political documents.
And they borrowed ideas off of the Romans and Greeks. The concepts of
Democracy and Republic, were NOT invented by Calvinists. Actually,
Christians invented nothing new in this regard. Jefferson was more
influenced in this regard from his CLASSICAL EDUCATION, than from a
christian non-existing influence. Christianity belittles man.
> > Puritans were even more intolerant than Roman
> > Catholics. In New England, the Puritans even inflicted a number of
> > genocides against the Indians, just so they could then steal the
> > land
> > with a good conscience before their fictional human sacrificing god.
>
> The Puritans had no monopoly on Native American genocide. Anglicans,
> Catholics, and Atheists all participated in that pasttime as Europeans
> moved from sea to shining sea.
Incorrect, the Puritians deliberately set out to commit genocide in New
England, Anglicans picked up these practices from them. As for the
Catholics, they never had genocidal agendas, they wanted to exploit the
Indian, not exterminate them JUST to take their land.
> I would even bet that the property you currently occupy was once > >
> occupied by natives, and you don't seem to be a Puritan.
Strawman. First, I did not take the land I am living on from an Indian,
I did not murder and rape the Indians in the name of Jesus; and Second,
my ancestors actually made a legimate deal with the Indians over this
particular corner of Canada.
> Perhaps you should return it to its native family.
A psychotic statement. I suppose you are one of those Americans who
think that the Indian Wars are still going on.
> > > > > If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos,
> > > > > written by
> > > > > Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of
> > > > > Kings and an
> > > > > articulation of Social Contract Theory.
> >
> > One need look no further than the disgraceful
> > treatment of the Quakers and Indians [who the Puritians totally
> > demonized as lice and servants of Satan] by the Puritans in New
> > England
> > to see just how morally bankrupt this sect was. There is no witch
> > burnings in any decent religion.
>
> Tell me friend. Just how many witch-burnings were there in Puritan New
> England?? I'll bet you can't give me a citation for even one.
Another strawman. I never said that the Puritans burned people in New
England; but Puritans DID burn people in England. As for New England,
and according to "THE AMERICAN PAGEANT, a history of the Republic"
Stanfor University 1971 [yes an outdated book, but what I write next is
still found to be true]:
"New England's tense and repressive atmosphere ultimately found a
frightening outlet. In Salem, Massachusetts, a hysterical witchcraft
delusion brought about the legal lynching in 1692 of twenty persons,
nineteen of whom were hanged and one of whom was pressed to death.
Two dogs were also hanged. Larger scale witchcraft persecutions were
common in Europe, and several outbreaks had flared forth in the
colonies. But the reign of horror in Salem reached an all-time peak
in American experience, and seriously weakened the prestige of the
Puritan clergy, some of whom had supported it." [p,35]
> That's
> because you and your revisionist history club play fast and loose with
> colonial history, especially with respect to Deism.
NO, another strawman. The horrors of Puritanism has nothing to do with
Deism. The revisionist is YOU attempting to deny the actual christian
record for a make-believe world of nice christians who lived the
christian ideal.
> > > > > If one reads the Dutch
> > > > > Declaration of
> > > > > Independence, written by Calvinists in 1581, one finds
> > everything that Jefferson said in June of 1776 in the exact same
> > format.
> >
> > Everything?
>
> What do you find in Jefferson that you don't find in the Dutch DOI?
And what do you not find in the Dutch DOI, that you don't find in Roman
and Greek thinking? I will tell you, nothing.
> > > > Does that mean that the Dutch Declaration is a Deist
> > > > document too???
> >
> > The Dutch were tolerant of religious differences, which proves that
> > they
> > were not a Calvinist state.
>
> Oh really?? Ever heard of a group of Dutch Protestants called
> Remonstrants??
> Do you know how the Dutch Calvinist establishment tolerated them?
Only because the Dutch State did not subscribe to Calvin's obsession
with conformity.
> Can you say "persecution"? "exile"? Perhaps you better do an internet
> search on them
> before you go spouting any more historical inaccuracies. (try
http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE043719.html)
Unless it is a university website, than it is untrustworthy. Even I can
put up an internet site and rewrite history so that Jesus was a Muslim
and that Christianity was the product of the devil.
> > > What it means is that you're posting a bunch of baloney. Deism
> > > wasn't
> > > even a seed in Lord Shaftesbury's grandfather's groin in 1581,
> > > but
> > > the substance of the DOI is there.
> >
> > Obviously you know nothing about Deism. Deism is the idea that there
> > is
> > a Creator, and that the Creation is his/her/its handiwork. IN short,
> > Deism was the first religion to exist. One had to accept the idea of
> > God, before some fraud took it into his head to climb a mountain and
> > pretend to have had a REVELATION.
>
> The first religion, as best as anthropologists have been able to
> inform us, was probably Animism.
One must first conceive of the spirit, before turning to spiritualism.
> > > I guess Luther wasn't inspired by Christianity either when he told
> > > the
> > > civil authorities that he was going to rebel.
> >
> > Luther did not revolt against the civil authorities,
>
> Oh really? And just who did he refuse to obey at the Diet of Worms?
Now you are really being dishonest. Charles V did not have effective
control of the Holy Roman Empire, and the German Princes were extremely
powerful. If not for Elector Frederick of Saxony, Luther would have been
killed off. So considering that the effective civil authority rested
with Frederick, and not Charles V, it is self-evident, that Luther did
not resist civil authority.
> Who was it
> who told him to recant his theology?
Papal Legate Cardinal Cajetanus in Oct. 1518 in Augsburg.
> Have you ever heard of Emperor
> Charles V?
:-D. Charles V had NO EFFECTIVE CONTROL IN LUTHER'S DISTRICT. It did not
matter what Charles wanted in Saxony, Frederick was the Civil authority.
> In case you are not clear about this, he was a CIVIL authority, and
> his command is that which Luther rejected.
Which cost LUTHER nothing, for Charles was not a civil authority in
Saxony. Once again, your historical ignorance is showing.
> > > I guess the Puritan regicides weren't inspired by Christianity
> > > when
> > > they cut off Charles I's head in 1649, saying "Rebellion to
> > > tyrants
> > is obedience to God."
> >
> > By killing the king, they violated the teachings of the bible.
>
> Is that right? and whose teachings was Daniel violating when he
> rebelled against King Nebudchadnezzar?
You are not only ignorant of history, and christianity, but even of the
bible. Daniel did not revolt against Nebucchadnezzar [d. 562BC] the
three men who revolted were named: Shadrach, Medshach, and Abed-nego.
Daniel supposedly lived in the time of Darius I [522-486BC], who came 40
years later. Keep in mind that Daniel, falsely prophecied that 4 kings
would follow Darius I, yet in reality, 8 kings followed him. The Book of
Daniel was edited in the time of the Maccabees and their rebellion, it
was an attempt to justify rebellion. It has no basis in reality.
> Whose teachings was Moses violating when he
> initiated rebellion to Pharaoh, eventually leading to the death of the
> Prince?
There was no bible then. People seeking after power, like Moses, make a
pretense of religion to do so, but once in power they resort to murder
to keep it. We see this with Moses and his family behaving like a capo
with a crime syndicate -- question Moses, and something nasty happens.
> > As for
> > the apologetic that "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God" was
> > merely propaganda to justify their actions. Keep in mind that these
> > puritans than went on to murder thousands of Irish, and were
> > obsessed
> > with social engeerning.
>
> Sounds much like the ancient Hebrews who systematically attempted to
> destroy all the inhabitants of Canaan: Philistines, Amalekites,
> Hittites, etc. Perhaps they were biblical after all.
Which is evidence that the Hebrews, and their bronze age human
sacrificing deity were human perversions of the highest orders. These
actions discredit YHWH as a REAL God. Oh, the Hebrews never took on the
Hittites. They were as weak as their false god.
Judges 1: 19, "19 Now the Lord was with Judah, and they [Judah and the
Lord] took possession of the hill country; but they [Judah and the Lord]
could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron
chariots."
> > > I guess Jonathan Mayhew and the Black Regiment weren't inspired by
> > > Christianity as they preached incessantly in favor of Revolution
> > > in
> > > Boston.
> >
> > Rom 13: 1 and I Peter 2: 13-14, along with Jesus supposedly saying
> > that
> > one needed to render to Caesar the things which were Caesar's
> > [clearly
> > indicating that Caesar had things given him from above]; is evidence
> > that they may have wrapped their rebellion in christian themes, but
> > nevertheless, what they did was unbiblical.
>
> I guess Peter's statement about the civil authorities in Acts 5 is
> also
> unbiblical: "we must obey God rather than men."
And the way to Obey God is to Obey the civil authorities Rom 13: 1 and I
Peter 2. You are distorting the bible.
> I guess Daniel's resistance to the royal edict was unbiblical as well?
Daniel is not real, he is not a prophet. The Jews organize their bibles
according to the Torah, the Major Prophets, the Minor Prophets, and the
Writings. Daniel is part of the latter, it is merely a book of stories.
For example, 3 good men/ 1 good man; disobey the vain king's edict; so
the king throws them/him into a furnace/lions den; where an angel shows
up; and the king is so impressed that he recognizes the god of the 3
men/1 man as the true god. It is a the same moral parable dressed in
different details.
> Apparently the 17th century Puritans had a more clear understanding of
> the scriptures than your "authoritative" view.
If you considering murdering nonconformists as having a clear
understanding. Yes.
> > > I guess that the Quakers and the Abolitionist evangelicals (John
> > > Brown, Charles Finney, etc.) weren't inspired by Christianity when
>
> > they sought to undo slavery.
> >
> > The Quakers were not Puritians,
>
> I never said they were. I implied that they were Christians. Do you
> deny that they were?
According to the Puritains, nonPuritans were heretics. There is no such
thing as a christian, there are only sectarians and their respective
denominations, each believing that God loves them most of all.
> > and they only preached about freeing the
> > slaves, because since the leading industrialists and bankers of the
> > age
> > were Quakers -- it was economically cheaper to preach about freeing
> > the
> > slaves, than doing something about the inhuman treatment of wage
> > labourers in their factories. Freeing the slaves of southerners, had
> > no
> > negative effect on their balance sheets.
>
> And what is your take on Theodore Weld?
A man, a moderate in the movement.
> John Brown?
A murderer, and a fanatic. The only person he killed in his attempt to
free the blacks was a black.
> Charles Finney?
Don't know him. He is not even in the encyclopedia I own.
> > > I guess Martin Luther King Jr., was not inspired by Christianity
> > > when
> > > he preached his sermons on equality.
> >
> > And I guess that the people who resisted him, and finally murdered
> > him
> > were not inspired by christianity either. Surprise, he was murdered
> > by a
> > christian.
>
> Ah, I see, and your deists are morally superior!
Deism is superior to christianity, and Judaism, and Islam; that is true.
[snipped childish stupidity]
A strawman, a manifestation of your moral inferiority.
> > > Nope. They were all deists.
> >
> > Strawman.
>
> What a profound rebuttal! Can you say anything substantive?
A strawman does not even deserve a reply. I will not defend a position I
did not take -- obviously, you lack debating skills, along with good
manners.
> > > You really are entertaining, Bob
> >
> > At least he is not a revisionist like you.
>
> He is a mythologist.
No, mythology is where one believes that a criminal killed for sedition
is a god. Mythologists believe in the bible, the Christian Iliad, and
other such nonsense. By Christian reasoning, Zeus must be real, he is
mentioned in the Iliad and temples were built in his honor.
Here is an example of clear mythology in the bible: [I Kings 5-8]
Solomon's Temple:
Workforce: 180,000 men.
Size of Temple: 60x20x30 cubits. cubit = 1.5 feet. Conversion in feet:
75x30x45. {the size of a small church} Size of Porch 50x30 cubits, or
75x45 feet.
Length of time to build: 13 years.
In other words, it took 180,000 men, 13 years, to build someting the
size of a medium sized church. Only an idiot would believe such a fable.
peace
Rev Peter
--
The Bad News Page
http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rev Peter
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> Robert L. Johnson wrote:
> >
> > The relevance is that the Christian mind-set and Bible don't allow
for rebellion.
> > They tell us to be good slaves and to obey our masters. To rebell
against the gov
> > is going against Christian scripture.
>
> So, in your view, the Puritans of 1641-49 in England were not biblical
> Christians, The evangelical Abolitionists such as John Brown and the
Beechers
> were not biblical Christians, The entire Confederate army had no
biblical
> Christians in it, Martin Luther King, Jr. was no biblical Christian,
and, for
> that matter, the prophet Daniel was being "unbiblical" in Babylon when
he
> rebelled against Nebudchadnezzar.
Daniel did not rebel against Nebuchadnezzar, read your bible. All the
people above were NOT christians. For they will be punished according to
the christian bible. Rom 13: 1-3, "Let EVERY person be in SUBJECTION to
the governing authorities. For there is NO authority EXCEPT from God,
and those which EXIST are established by God. 2 Therefore, he who
resists authority HAS OPPOSED the ORDINANCE of God; and they who have
opposed WILL receive CONDEMNATION UPON THEMSELVES."
In short, no biblical christian ever resists an authority. Why, because
no matter how bad that authority is, it was ESTABLISHED BY THE CHRISTAIN
GOD. Which means that the Puritans in England will be condemned, as the
Confederate Army, and the rebels against King George III, and Martin
Luther, and Martin Luther King, etc, etc.
> You do have a very unique view, Mr. Johnson
He knows the Christain bible better than you do. Actually, according to
Romans 13: 1-3, one can accurately disqualify you as a Christian. You
are an artifical christian, you REJECT Rom. 13: 1-4 SIMPLY BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT SUIT YOU.
Rick Gardiner
>
> In article <381FCB6F...@pitnet.net>,
> Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> > Robert L. Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > The relevance is that the Christian mind-set and Bible don't allow
> for rebellion.
> > > They tell us to be good slaves and to obey our masters. To rebell
> against the gov
> > > is going against Christian scripture.
> >
> > So, in your view, the Puritans of 1641-49 in England were not biblical
> > Christians, The evangelical Abolitionists such as John Brown and the
> Beechers
> > were not biblical Christians, The entire Confederate army had no
> biblical
> > Christians in it, Martin Luther King, Jr. was no biblical Christian,
> and, for
> > that matter, the prophet Daniel was being "unbiblical" in Babylon when
> he
> > rebelled against Nebudchadnezzar.
>
> Daniel did not rebel against Nebuchadnezzar, read your bible.
>
Reverend sir, you are no reverend if you think that the Bible says that Daniel
did not resist an authority.
DANIEL, Chapter 6--
7. The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have
all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that
anyone who prays to any god or man during the next thirty days, except to you,
O king, shall be thrown into the lions' den.
8. Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be
altered--in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot
be repealed."
9. So King Darius put the decree in writing.
10. Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home
to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a
day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he
had done before.
11. Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for
help.
12. So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: "Did you
not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any
god or man except to you, O king, would be thrown into the lions' den?" The
king answered, "The decree stands--in accordance with the laws of the Medes
and Persians, which cannot be repealed."
13. Then they said to the king, "Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah,
pays no attention to you, O king, or to the decree you put in writing. He
still prays three times a day."
Now should I also quote how Moses disobey, resisted, rejected and rebelled
against Pharaoh??
According to you Moses actions were "unbiblical"!!!???
Should I quote every instance of a prophet standing in the gates of a King
against the king's will?
> Why, because
> no matter how bad that authority is, it was ESTABLISHED BY THE CHRISTAIN
> GOD. Which means that the Puritans in England will be condemned, as the
> Confederate Army, and the rebels against King George III, and Martin
> Luther, and Martin Luther King, etc, etc.
As will Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Moses, Peter, Daniel, Isaiah, etc. For they all
resisted authorities.
> > You do have a very unique view, Mr. Johnson
>
> He knows the Christain bible better than you do. Actually, according to
> Romans 13: 1-3, one can accurately disqualify you as a Christian. You
> are an artifical christian, you REJECT Rom. 13: 1-4 SIMPLY BECAUSE IT
> DOES NOT SUIT YOU.
Paul was clearly familiar with Moses rejection of Pharaoh when he wrote Romans
13:1-4. Thus, the injunction does not prevent Godly rebellion to tyrannical
authorities, cf. Acts 5.
Rev. Gardiner
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Curtis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> If the D.I.
>> >> >> was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the present
>> >> >> system with a theocracy.
>> >> >
>> >> >Is that why when the Puritans came into power in England in 1653,
>> >>
>> >> They came to power because they won a civil war. then they installed a
>> >> dictatorship.
>> >
>> >That may be your spin on it, but the historical documents indicate that they
>> >declared the Kingdom a commonwealth and a constitutional republic.
>>
>> That is not the historical spin on it. It was called the Protectorate.
>> Historians give George Washington credit for NOT becoming a Cromwell
>> when he could easily have done so.
>
>Just because Washington retired his sword and went back to farm Mt. Vernon
>does not mean that Cromwell was a dictator. I'm not sure how anyone could come
>to that conclusion.
Gee, Mr. Gardiner, where did I say anything about Washington retiring
his sword? Show me.
>But leave it to you to warp everything you can to disparage puritans.
My relatives were Puritans. They were all human beings and flawed.
>> > I can cite
>> >you a primary source if disagree. Can you cite any primary sources for your
>> >warped interpretation? I didn't think so.
>>
>> Primary sources must go with the actions of the period. Primary
>> sources do not stand alone but fit in with other contemporary
>> documents.
>
>In other words, you have no primary sources to support your claim. All you had
>to do was say so.
I think I did.
>> >> > the first
>> >> >thing they did was disestablish religion and proclaim tolerance throughout the
>> >> >Kingdom?? (see Instrument of Gov't, Section 37)
>> >>
>> >> That's why there was such partying when Charles II was placed on the
>> >> thrown.
>> >
>> >Exactly! Under Charles II, not under the Puritan Protectorate, was the church
>> >Re-established.
>>
>> As it still is in England. Yet the true religion was that of
>> Protestantism as Cromwell saw it.
>
>If you knew anything about the Protectorate,
What assumptions you make. Gardiner you aren't worth my time after
all. Carry on with the Rev. Peter troll.
[snip]
Robert J. Kolker
Rick Gardiner wrote:
>
>
> Should I quote every instance of a prophet standing in the gates of a King
> against the king's will?
I can think of two rather powerful instances. One is the Prophet Nathan
pointing his finger at King David saying "Thou art the man!"
The other is the encounter between Elijah and King Ahab. King Ahab
scolds Elijah calling the Prophet a troubler of Israel. Elijah responds that
it is not Israel that he (Elijah) is troubling but King Ahab and his no-good
wife.
Even Abraham who is consider a Prophet says to G-D Himself, Will
not the Judge of the Universe do Justly? Abraham is trying to save
Sodom and Gomorra from G-D's wrath.
The Hebrew scriptures do not teach our people to grovel before unjust
kings and potentates.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Rev Peter wrote:
>
>
>
> Deism is superior to christianity, and Judaism, and Islam; that is true.
>
Actually Deism is the modern instantiation of the original high religion
based on the seven Noachide (or Noachic) laws. Even adherents to
rabbinic Judaism (based on the Talmud) recognize the religion of
the Noachic commandments as being of equal standing to the Torah.
As it says in the beginning of the Mishna, all the righteous of the Earth
shall have a portion in the World to Come. That is referring to the
religion of Noah and his sons after the flood. It is also the religion of
Abraham (actually Avram prior to his name change). Abraham was
no benighted idol worshipper before he became the first Jew|Moslem
(choose one according to your particular inclinations).
As far as I can tell Deism is the only god centered religion in the world
that can accommodate the modern rational (scientific) view of the
cosmos without turning into a pretzel. I myself am not a Deist ( I
am Jewish) but I recognize the validity of Deism. If I had different
parents, I probably would have been a Deist (or a Buddhist or
a Taoist).
Bob Kolker
PaulDanaher
> PaulDanaher wrote:
> >
> > Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
> > news:381E41BB...@pitnet.net...
> > > >
> > > > > 2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great
Awakening
> > > > on the
> > > > > frontier in the early 19th century.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, as the christians went out of their way to steal the land from
the
> > > > aboriginal population and kill off those very aboriginals. The
Christian
> > > > great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
> > > > 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
> > >
> > > The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see
> > http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
> > >
> > Christians were not overwhelmingly Nazis!
>
> Of course not, but you also can't possibly argue from the historical
record
> that the Western Allies were not overwhelmingly Christians as well. Thus,
you
> can't infer a correlation between Christianity and Nazism... there is no
> necessary connection, any more than there is a necessary connection
between
> being a Christian and being an anti-Nazi.
>
> RG
> http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
I forgot to ask if this was a family argument, or if anyone could join in
...
"Rev Peter" is saying that the Great Awakenings were "on the level of" the
Nazi rallies. His argument as I understand it is that Christianity had very
little to do with the driving force of these meetings, which was greed and
xenophobia (endophobia?) wrapped in a Christian mantle. He's not talking
about a *correlation* between Christianity and Naziism, simply denying that
the Great Awakenings were primarily Christian.
Nationalsozialismus had no coherent intellectual foundation, it plundered
whatever it found that fitted its needs or helped attract support from a
given group. Nazis weren't "Social Darwinists" any more than they were
"Christians". Studied confusion and vagueness were fundamental, as anybody
who's read their songbooks knows.
As for the rest, I wish you'd stopped while you were ahead. As regularly
happens, the historical orthodoxy had got unbalanced and it was time for
someone to point out that Christianity in various forms supplied major
influences in the DOI, Revolutionary War etc. Unfortunately, you've gone
overboard the other way in reacting to this and are trying to marginalise
other lines of thought. The resulting debate has shown rapidly diminishing
returns.
Gardiner
>
> The Hebrew scriptures do not teach our people to grovel before unjust
> kings and potentates.
>
> Bob Kolker
You are very correct.
RG
PaulDanaher
news:381EFFF3...@universitylake.org...
> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >
> [cut]
> >
>
> And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of
conscience
> in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither
open
> nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
>
> The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most
important
> person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg
and
> Newton).
>
> His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just
"seeing
> Luther in fenceposts"
Martin Luther as the first champion of the idea of "liberty of conscience"??
I have to say, Mr Gardiner, that you've just disqualified yourself as a
serious participant in this or any discussion.
Gardiner
>
> In article <381E41BB...@pitnet.net>,
> Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
> > Rev Peter wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great
> Awakening
> > > on the
> > > > frontier in the early 19th century.
> > >
> > > Yes, as the christians went out of their way to steal the land from
> the
> > > aboriginal population and kill off those very aboriginals. The
> Christian
> > > great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
> > > 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
> >
> > The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see
> http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
>
> Wrong, they were both. Most Social Darwinists were Christians! And
> Europeans and Americans. Hitler is even in good standing in the Roman
> Catholic Church [which is a CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION], and was never
> excommunicated, or even censored.
What does "in good standing" really mean? Bill Clinton is in good standing in
the Baptist Church. Guess that means he's a typical Christian.
Saying that the Nazis were predominately Christians is meaningless because the
Allies were predominately meaningless too. Therefore, there is no necessary
connection between Christianity and either side of the conflict.
What you are engaging in is pure and simple, PROPAGANDA... and that was a
definitely a Nazi approach.
> > > > 3. Your treatment of the awakening is quite revealing about your
> > > historical
> > > > method and the fact that you promote so much pseudo-history
> regarding
> > > Deism's influence.
> > >
> > > Considering that Thomas Paine and other Deists were major
> contributors
> > > to revolutionary thinking, one cannot dismiss the contribution of
> Deists
> > > to the American Revolution.
> >
> > If you are familiar enough with Paine you know that he did not go
> > public with his Deism until long after the Revolution was over.
>
> Your lack of education is showing. Paine was a Deist even before the
> Revolution, therefore, his contributions to the Revolution were the
> contributions of a Deist.
You're playing word games. The fact is that since he went out of his way to
hide his Deism in COMMON SENSE, Deism as an explicit political and
intellectual factor, was not a factor.
> > At the time he wrote
> > Common Sense, the public was under the impression that he was as much
> > a Scotch Presbyterian as Witherspoon.
>
> His father was a Quaker, and his mother an Anglican. Paine was NEVER a
> Scot, or a Presbyterian. Again, your lack of education is showing.
Apparently you didn't read what I said. The public was under the impression
that he was a Scotsman, and Scotsmen were commonly associated with Knox and
Presbyterianism. He wasn't suspect of being a Deist from what he said in
Common Sense. Quite the contrary, his use of the Bible and the sermon genre
gave the public the impression that he was orthodox. He did that on purpose.
Your lack of depth is apparent.
> > Not until he published Age Of Reason, which his
> > best buddy Franklin warned him not to publish, did the world find out
> > what his religious convictions were. That was @ 1795.
>
> Which does not change the FACT that he was a Deist. Also, his book went
> to press in 1794, not 1795. One does not become a Deist by writing a
> book, one becomes a Deist when one recognizes that there is a God, and
> that Revealed Religion just doesn't add up.
One's deism doesn't become a factor in political circles until one makes it a
factor in political circles. That didn't happen until Age of Reason, which was
the end of Paine politically.
> > Thus, at least in the case of Paine, the fact that he was a deist
> > really meant nothing as far as the Revolution was concerned.
>
> By that reasoning, one can argue that Christianity had nothing to do
> with the Revolution, although Christians made up the bulk of the
> Revolutionary forces.
Many wore their Orthodox Christianity on their sleeves. They didn't disguise
it like Paine did.
> > > > > > The place of deism in the American colonies was very minimal,
> > > > > >and
> > > > > > those few
> > > > > > who embraced it were castigated by the mainstream thinkers.
> > >
> > > Not really, as thomas Paine pointed out in "the age of Reason", it
> > > was
> > > the clerical faction which attacked Deism because it was becoming
> > > known
> > > among the common people.
> >
> > Would you call President John Adams "the clerical faction"?? He was
> one of
> > Paine's sharpest critics.
>
> John Adams was a political opportunist. He meddled in religion in order
> to cater to the clerical elements in the population. So much for
> seperation of church and state.
"Meddled in religion to cater to the clerical sentiments"!!!!
Wow, what a farce. Perhaps you need to read the Adams-Jefferson
correspondence, or perhaps an authoritative biography of Adams. Try Page
Smith's two volume set.
Your statement is so goofy that no serious Adams scholar would ever hint at it.
So you allege that Witherspoon was an unthinking and undiscerning Princeton
professor who was not careful enough to scrutinize the real meaning of the
words. Jefferson "hood-winked" him. You need to pick up a biography of
Witherspoon too, apparently. He was no naive idiot. Try Varnum Collins
authoritative Bio.
Of course, you are saying the same of Roger Sherman who also would have
refused to sign a Deist legal document. Pick up his bio while your at the library.
> > Do you have any substantive response, or can you only say "strawman"?
>
> I call it as it is.
Your allegations that the Christians in the second continental congress were
unaware that the document was a deist document is really a farce, and I think
you know it.
> > > > Please point out anything in the Declaration of Independence, the
> > > > essence of
> > > > which is not in the Puritan literature of the previous centuries.
> > >
> > > Even as a Canadian, I know that the Declaration of Independence
> > > makes no
> > > mention of the Christian God, nor the Christian religion.
> >
> > Well then as a Canadian, answer one very simple question. If the God
> > mentioned throughout the Declaration of Independence was not the
> > Christian God, as you claim, how do you explain the consent of men
> > like Roger Sherman, Samuel Adams, and John Witherspoon, to the >
> > document??
>
> These men signed for their own motives. Take a Jew, a muslim, and a
> christian, even add in a Hindu. Now present them with a document where
> God is mentioned -- each person will assume that his God is the one
> referred to in the document.
Are you kidding?? Do you really think that everyone is as naive as you are??
> > These men were orthodox Calvinists.
>
> If they were Orthodox Calvinists, than they would have made the document
> reflect Calvinistic principles. Instead we have a document where man is
> elevated, where he is created with unalienable rights, in short, a list
> of liberal ideals.
Read Harold Berman on Rights theory. What is the origin of human rights in the
Western legal tradition. Answer: Portions of the Pentateuch such as Leviticus
25 etc.
> There is no mention of the depravity of humanity,
King George III was not elevated?? He is painted as depraved.
> sin, or the need for christ, it is even a denial of predestination, for
> it implies that MAN can change his world and make it better. The DOI is
> a document of the Enlightenment.
It was a document written during the Enlightenment era, but the Great
Awakening and Jonathan Edwards were also part of the Enlightenment era too; so what?
> > Or are you alleging that they just didn't have the wits to understand
> > what they were reading?
>
> Very possible, Christians are so conceited with their false God that
> they assume that any mention of the word "God" refers to their three
> headed Hydra in the sky.
Have you read Witherspoon's lectures on Deism. He is very very very careful to
distinguish between various conceptions of God. Your lack of historical depth,
and your neophyte and superficial historical understanding has brought you to
many misunderstandings about colonial america.
> > How about a substantive response this time?
>
> If you have the mental capacity to read, it should be substantive.
I have read every word you have said very carefully, and I have found nothing
but superficial shooting from the hip without any substantively supported
propositions with the direct evidence from the available primary literature.
> > > If the D.I.
> > > was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the
> > > present
> > > system with a theocracy.
> >
> > Is that why when the Puritans came into power in England in 1653, the
> > first thing they did was disestablish religion and proclaim tolerance
> > throughout the Kingdom?? (see Instrument of Gov't, Section 37)
>
> You are upholding the dictatorship of Cromwell as a defense of relgious
> tolerance. You conviently left out that in 1648 the Puritans purged the
> Presbyterian majority in Parliament by force, creating the "rump
> parliament'. This Rump Parliament was a minority which murdered the
> king, who was not executed by popular consent, but just so the Puritans
> could usurp power.
Sounds much like what happened in 1775-1781 in America, doesn't it! As a
matter of fact, the American revolutionaries modeled their revolution upon the
English Civil War (see Peter Karsten, Patriot-heroes in England and America
[University of Wisconsin Press, 1978]; see also Kevin Phillips, THE COUSIN's
WARS). Sam and John Adams, for example both considers themselves Roundheads.
Jefferson adopted the motto of one of the "dictators" of the "pretended
Republic" as his own personal motto: REBELLION TO TYRANTS IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD.
George the III had good reason to believe as he did "The American Revolution
is a Presbyterian War, just like that in 1641."
> The Commonwealth pretended to be a republic, but was
> little more than a dictatorship. The Puritains than proceeded to
> massacre the Scots and the Irish, the whole government was the rump! It
> was an oligarchy which denied representation to other groups in
> Parliament. Cromwell spent his entire life killing off Roman Catholics,
> and you call this religious tolerance. It is obvious that you are as
> ignorant of Cromwell as you are of American History.
You, my friend, are the one who is ignorant as to how revered Cromwell was by
the Patriots and founders who today's deists claim as their own.
> > Secondly, I did not say that the DOI is a Puritan Document per se.
>
> It is not a Puritan Document in any sense of the word.
It was modeled after a number of Calvinist political documents of the previous
centuries. If you really cared to look, you would see it clearly: The
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, The Dutch Declaration, The Documents of Rushworth,
The Works of Sidney, Locke, and the Documents of the Glorious Revolution, Sam
Adams' Pamphlets, Colonial Sermons, etc.
> > What I have said is that Jefferson used Puritan Models and other > >
> Calvinistic Models as he wrote this and other political documents.
>
> And they borrowed ideas off of the Romans and Greeks. The concepts of
> Democracy and Republic, were NOT invented by Calvinists.
The Dutch DOI drew directly from the Huguenot Vindiciae and from Beza's Right
of Magistrates. Your lack of historical acumen is again apparent.
> Actually,
> Christians invented nothing new in this regard. Jefferson was more
> influenced in this regard from his CLASSICAL EDUCATION, than from a
> christian non-existing influence. Christianity belittles man.
Jefferson was educated as a young man by two clergymen. As a college student
he was educated at William and Mary, where the academic milieu was guided by
the following principles:
18th century Statutes of the College of William and Mary--
"The First is, that the Youth of Virginia should be well educated to Learning
and good Morals. The Second is, that the Churches of America, especially
Virginia, should be supplied with good Ministers after the Doctrine and
Government of the Church of England; and that the College should be a constant
Seminary for this Purpose. The Third is, That the Indians of America should be
instructed in the Christian Religion, and that some of the Indian Youth that
are well-behaved and well-inclined, being first well prepared in the Divinity
School, may be sent out to preach the Gospel to their Countrymen in their own
Tongue, after they have duly been put in Orders of Deacons and Priests....
As to the Method of teaching, and of the Government of the School, let the
Usher be obedient to the Master in every Thing, as to his Superior.
On Saturdays and the Eves of Holidays, let a sacred Lesson be prescribed out
of Castalio's Dialogues, or Buchanan's Paraphrase of the Psalms, or any other
good Book which the President and Master shall approve of, according to the
Capacity of the Boys, of which an Account is to be taken on Monday, and the
next Day after the Holidays.
The master shall likewise take Care that all the Scholars learn the Church of
England Catechism in the vulgar Tongue; and that they who are further advanced
learn it likewise in Latin.
Before they are promoted to the Philosophy School, they who aim at the
Privileges and Revenue of a Foundation Scholar, must first undergo an
Examination before the President and Masters, and Ministers skilful in the
learned Languages; whether they have made due Progress in their Latin and
Greek. And let the same Examination be undergone concerning their Progress in
the Study of Philosophy, before they are promoted to the Divinity School. And
let no Blockhead or lazy Fellow in his Studies be elected....
For avoiding the Danger of Heresy, Schism, and Disloyalty, let the President
and Masters, before they enter upon these Offices, give their Assent to the
Articles of the Christian Faith, in the same Manner, and in the same Words, as
the Ministers in England, by Act of Parliament are obliged to sign the
Articles of the Church of England. And in the same Manner too they shall take
the Oaths of Allegiance to the King and Queen of England. And further they
shall take an Oath that they will faithfully discharge their Office, according
to the College Statutes, before the President and Masters, upon the Holy
Evangelists. All this under Penalty of being deprived of their Office and Salary."
> > > Puritans were even more intolerant than Roman
> > > Catholics. In New England, the Puritans even inflicted a number of
> > > genocides against the Indians, just so they could then steal the
> > > land
> > > with a good conscience before their fictional human sacrificing god.
> >
> > The Puritans had no monopoly on Native American genocide. Anglicans,
> > Catholics, and Atheists all participated in that pasttime as Europeans
> > moved from sea to shining sea.
>
> Incorrect, the Puritians deliberately set out to commit genocide in New
> England, Anglicans picked up these practices from them.
I guess Andrew Jackson was a puritan too, huh? Do you realize how absurd you
are making yourself look?
> As for the
> Catholics, they never had genocidal agendas, they wanted to exploit the
> Indian, not exterminate them JUST to take their land.
A little while ago you were saying Hitler and many of the nazi's were
catholics. No genocide there, huh?
> > I would even bet that the property you currently occupy was once > >
> > occupied by natives, and you don't seem to be a Puritan.
>
> Strawman. First, I did not take the land I am living on from an Indian,
Ah, the old "it may be stolen property, but I bought it from some guy in a
trenchcoat" defense.
> I did not murder and rape the Indians in the name of Jesus; and Second,
> my ancestors actually made a legimate deal with the Indians over this
> particular corner of Canada.
Right. Legitimate Deal. All Europeans claim to have made "legitimate deals"
with the natives, from the Dutch annexation of the Island of "manhattan" for
beads, to the treaties of Jefferson, all the way to the twentieth century
"agreements" made by chiefs to be relegated to reservations. There is no
justifying the displacement of the Natives and our continual refusal to
rectify these wrongs. The defense "it wasn't me," doesn't work. If I steal
your property from you, then will it to my children, they are not therefore
justified in not returning it to you just because they weren't the ones who
committed the deed.
Your lack of morality in this regard continues to speak of your religious convictions.
> > Perhaps you should return it to its native family.
>
> A psychotic statement. I suppose you are one of those Americans who
> think that the Indian Wars are still going on.
I am one of those americans who doesn't believe that I have a right to stolen
property just because I bought it off of a seedy looking guy in a trench coat.
Apparently you think that is right and that the rightful owners of a stolen
watch are "psychotic" if they think they should be able to recover their property.
> > > > > > If one takes the time to read the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos,
> > > > > > written by
> > > > > > Calvinists in 1579, one finds a rejection of Divine Right of
> > > > > > Kings and an
> > > > > > articulation of Social Contract Theory.
> > >
> > > One need look no further than the disgraceful
> > > treatment of the Quakers and Indians [who the Puritians totally
> > > demonized as lice and servants of Satan] by the Puritans in New
> > > England
> > > to see just how morally bankrupt this sect was. There is no witch
> > > burnings in any decent religion.
> >
> > Tell me friend. Just how many witch-burnings were there in Puritan New
> > England?? I'll bet you can't give me a citation for even one.
>
> Another strawman. I never said that the Puritans burned people in New
> England;
The thread began with some deist alleging that that the New England Puritans
burned witches. Go back and look at the thread. I was directly responding to a
irresponsible claim of a defender of deism.
> > That's
> > because you and your revisionist history club play fast and loose with
> > colonial history, especially with respect to Deism.
>
> NO, another strawman. The horrors of Puritanism has nothing to do with
> Deism. The revisionist is YOU attempting to deny the actual christian
> record for a make-believe world of nice christians who lived the
> christian ideal.
I've never claimed the Puritans were nice. What I have claimed is that they
had a formative influence in the early history of the nation, while deists
were a very small minority castigated by the orthodox majority.
> > > > > > If one reads the Dutch
> > > > > > Declaration of
> > > > > > Independence, written by Calvinists in 1581, one finds
> > > everything that Jefferson said in June of 1776 in the exact same
> > > format.
> > >
> > > Everything?
> >
> > What do you find in Jefferson that you don't find in the Dutch DOI?
>
> And what do you not find in the Dutch DOI, that you don't find in Roman
> and Greek thinking? I will tell you, nothing.
And you are dead wrong. The Social Contract theory of the Dutch DOI is
Calvinist, and it derives from The Huguenot Vindiciae. Go back and check your history.
> > > > > Does that mean that the Dutch Declaration is a Deist
> > > > > document too???
> > >
> > > The Dutch were tolerant of religious differences, which proves that
> > > they
> > > were not a Calvinist state.
> >
> > Oh really?? Ever heard of a group of Dutch Protestants called
> > Remonstrants??
> > Do you know how the Dutch Calvinist establishment tolerated them?
> > Can you say "persecution"? "exile"? Perhaps you better do an internet
> > search on them
> > before you go spouting any more historical inaccuracies. (try
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE043719.html)
>
> Unless it is a university website, than it is untrustworthy.
Go to any university library you want and take out a book on the Arminians and
the Remonstrants in the Netherlands. They were persecuted by the Calvinist
government there. As a "learned" historian, you should already know that.
> > > > I guess Luther wasn't inspired by Christianity either when he told
> > > > the
> > > > civil authorities that he was going to rebel.
> > >
> > > Luther did not revolt against the civil authorities,
> >
> > Oh really? And just who did he refuse to obey at the Diet of Worms?
>
> Now you are really being dishonest. Charles V did not have effective
> control of the Holy Roman Empire, and the German Princes were extremely
> powerful. If not for Elector Frederick of Saxony, Luther would have been
> killed off. So considering that the effective civil authority rested
> with Frederick, and not Charles V, it is self-evident, that Luther did
> not resist civil authority.
Charles V was a civil magistrate, plain and simple. Your position is that it
is never permitted for a Christian to disobey or resist the commands of a
civil Magistrate. Charles V gave Luther the command to recant, and Luther
refused.
In your view, he was being "unbiblical" and Unchristian. That is the point.
The red herring about whether Charles V was in effect subordinate to the
provincial magistrates is just a way to confuse the issue. Nice try.
> > Who was it
> > who told him to recant his theology?
>
> Papal Legate Cardinal Cajetanus in Oct. 1518 in Augsburg.
The civil magistrate Charles V did the same at the Diet of Worms in 1521.
> > Have you ever heard of Emperor
> > Charles V?
>
> :-D. Charles V had NO EFFECTIVE CONTROL IN LUTHER'S DISTRICT. It did not
> matter what Charles wanted in Saxony, Frederick was the Civil authority.
You are playing games. Charles V was a civil, not an ecclesiastical,
magistrate. According to your view it is never permitted for a Christian to
resist a civil magistrate. Who cares about the structure of the political
hierarchy? Are you saying that Romans 13 only applies to the top magistrates?
In that case, the American Colonists were not violating Romans 13 when they
revolted, because they never actually confronted George III directly.
> > In case you are not clear about this, he was a CIVIL authority, and
> > his command is that which Luther rejected.
>
> Which cost LUTHER nothing, for Charles was not a civil authority in
> Saxony. Once again, your historical ignorance is showing.
So resistance to magistrates is permitted under Romans 13 as long as it
doesn't cost you anything?? That is bizarre exegesis, my Reverend friend.
> > > > I guess the Puritan regicides weren't inspired by Christianity
> > > > when
> > > > they cut off Charles I's head in 1649, saying "Rebellion to
> > > > tyrants
> > > is obedience to God."
> > >
> > > By killing the king, they violated the teachings of the bible.
> >
> > Is that right? and whose teachings was Daniel violating when he
> > rebelled against King Nebudchadnezzar?
>
> You are not only ignorant of history, and christianity, but even of the
> bible. Daniel did not revolt against Nebucchadnezzar [d. 562BC] the
> three men who revolted were named: Shadrach, Medshach, and Abed-nego.
You are definitely ignorant of the Bible. In Daniel 1:18-19 you find that
Daniel was "presented" to Nebudchadnezzar. In Chapter 2 of Daniel, the King is
named "Nebudchadnezzar" and he had dreams which Daniel interpretted in the
presence of Nebudchadnezzar (2:27-28).
This is the same king Nebudchadnezzar which Daniel refused to obey in Daniel
1:8. The bible indicates that Daniel resisted the decree of Nebudchadnezzar...
something which you strangely say is "unbiblical."
And you have the audacity to say that I don't know what the Bible says!
> > > > I guess Jonathan Mayhew and the Black Regiment weren't inspired by
> > > > Christianity as they preached incessantly in favor of Revolution
> > > > in
> > > > Boston.
> > >
> > > Rom 13: 1 and I Peter 2: 13-14, along with Jesus supposedly saying
> > > that
> > > one needed to render to Caesar the things which were Caesar's
> > > [clearly
> > > indicating that Caesar had things given him from above]; is evidence
> > > that they may have wrapped their rebellion in christian themes, but
> > > nevertheless, what they did was unbiblical.
> >
> > I guess Peter's statement about the civil authorities in Acts 5 is
> > also
> > unbiblical: "we must obey God rather than men."
>
> And the way to Obey God is to Obey the civil authorities Rom 13: 1 and I
> Peter 2. You are distorting the bible.
All civil authorities except emperor Charles V... he doesn't count, right?
> > Charles Finney?
>
> Don't know him. He is not even in the encyclopedia I own.
You have a crappy encyclopedia. Finney was the center of the Second Great
Awakening. You need to be weaned off of encyclopedias, any way. Real
historians deal with primary and secondary sources; tertiary sources like
encyclopedias are not legitimate sources.
> > > > Nope. They were all deists.
> > >
> > > Strawman.
> >
> > What a profound rebuttal! Can you say anything substantive?
>
> A strawman does not even deserve a reply. I will not defend a position I
> did not take -- obviously, you lack debating skills, along with good
> manners.
Your avoidance is noted.
Gardiner
> >
> > And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of
> conscience
> > in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither
> open
> > nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
> >
> > The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most
> important
> > person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg
> and
> > Newton).
> >
> > His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just
> "seeing
> > Luther in fenceposts"
>
> I have to say, Mr Gardiner, that you've just disqualified yourself as a
> serious participant in this or any discussion.
And you have just qualified yourself for the historical buffoon of the day,
for you are clearly unfamiliar with Luther's Works.
Tell me, sir, what is the thesis of Luther's book On SECULAR AUTHORITY??
Apparently you have never read it. An online version is available.
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Secauth.HTM
If you come to the conclusion that the thesis is anything other than "liberty
of conscience in matters of faith," then you need to go back and read again.
Education is a wonderful thing... give it a try.
Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Gardiner wrote:
> >> >
> >> > And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of conscience
> >> > in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither open
> >> > nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
> >> >
> >> > The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most important
> >> > person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg and
> >> > Newton).
> >>
> >> and fast on this newsgroup, so I hesitate to add to it, BUT....
> >> I really think that "liberty of conscience" is completely inapplicable to
> >> Martin Luther's views.
> >
> >Well, you're simply uninformed about what Luther wrote. Why don't you
> >familiarize yourself. He wrote an entire book on "liberty of conscience." The
> >entire text is online at
> >
> >http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Secauth.HTM
> >
>
> I'm not unfamiliar with what he wrote.
Good. Then you know that Luther was a premiere champion of Liberty of
Conscience in his writings the same way Jefferson was a champion of equality
in his writings. In practice, both of these men acted in ways which did not
seem to correspond to their written theories. But for someone to allege that
Luther was not a very important contributor to religious liberty with his
doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is really ignorant.
RG
Mike Curtis
>PaulDanaher wrote:
>> >
>> > And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of
>> conscience
>> > in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither
>> open
>> > nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
>> >
>> > The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most
>> important
>> > person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg
>> and
>> > Newton).
>> >
>> > His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just
>> "seeing
>> > Luther in fenceposts"
>>
>> Martin Luther as the first champion of the idea of "liberty of conscience"??
>> I have to say, Mr Gardiner, that you've just disqualified yourself as a
>> serious participant in this or any discussion.
>
>And you have just qualified yourself for the historical buffoon of the day,
>for you are clearly unfamiliar with Luther's Works.
>
>Tell me, sir, what is the thesis of Luther's book On SECULAR AUTHORITY??
>Apparently you have never read it. An online version is available.
>
from http://www.voicenet.com/~music/history/luther.html
Martin Luther's Seven Point Plan
What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of
Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and
blasphemy and cursing, we cannot tolerate them if we do not wish to
share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy...
First, their synagogues... should be set on fire, and whatever does
not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one
may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it...
Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed.
For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their
synagogues. For this reason they ought to by put under one roof or in
a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are
not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives.
Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer books and Talmuds in
which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.
Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to
teach any more.
Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely
forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural
districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor
the like. Let them stay at home...
Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury. All their cash and
valuables of silver and gold ought to be taken from them. For this
reason, as said before, everything that they possess they stole and
robbed from us through their usury, for they have no other means of
support...
Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the
flail, the ax, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindly, and let
them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses as is enjoined upon
Adam's children.
"To sum up, dear princes and lords who have Jews under themselves; if
my advice is not acceptable, you may find a better one, that all of us
be relieved of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews and not
become partakers before God of all the lies, slander, spitting,
cursing of the raving Jews...."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Excerpts from Luther's Pamphlet
"Maybe mild-hearted and gentle Christians will believe I am too
rigorous and drastic against the poor, afflicted Jews, believing that
I ridicule them and treat them with much sarcasm. By my word, I am far
too weak to be able to ridicule such a satanic breed. I would fain do
so, but they are far greater adepts at mockery that I and possess a
God who is master in this art; it is the Evil One himself"
"Those Jews professing to be surgeons of doctors deprive the
Christians who make use of their medicaments, of health and
prosperity, for such Jewish doctors believe they find especial favour
with their God if they torment and furtively kill Christians."
We should not suffer it after they are among us and we know about such
lying, blaspheming and cursing among them...
If Moses were alive today he would be the first to put fire to the Jew
schools and houses.
And you, my dear sirs and friends, who are pastors and preachers; I
hereby wish to have dutifully reminded of you office, that you also
warn your parishioners against their eternal ruin, as you well know
how to do; namely, that they be on their guard against the Jews and
avoid them.
Such a despairing, evil, poisonous thing it is with these Jews who
these 1400 years have been and still are our plague, pestilence and
all misfortune.
Especially you who are preachers; where there are Jews, diligently
insist that your masters and regents remember the duties of their
office as they owe it to God, and compel the Jews to work, forbid them
to practice usury, and stay their blaspheming and cursing. For ...why
should the Devil's children among the Jew be free to do such things
against us?
Therefore be on your guard against the Jews and know that where they
have their schools there is nothing but the Devil's nest in which
self-praise, vanity, lies, blasphemy, disgracing God and man, are
practiced in the bitterest and most poisonous way as the Devils do
themselves. Wherever you see or hear a Jew teaching, do not think
otherwise than that you are hearing a poisonous Basiliskus who with
his face poisons and kills people.
"To this day the Jews cling to such doctrines and do as their fathers
did; pervert the Word of God, are avaricious, practice usury, steal,
commit murder, wherever they can do so, and on and on teach their
children to do such"
No heathen has done such things and none would do so except the Devil
himself and those whom he possesses, like he possesses the Jews.
Should the Devil not laugh and dance, when in this manner he can have
his paradise among us Christians, that through the Jews, his saints,
he devours what is ours and to thank us fills our mugs (mouths) and
noses, blasphemes and curses God and man!
They could not have enjoyed such good days in Jerusalem under David
and Solomon in their own possessions as they now have in our property,
which they daily steal and rob. Still, they complain that we are
holding them captive!
"We do not curse them, but wish them all manner of bodily and
spiritual good, permit them to lodge with us. We don't steal and
mutilate their children; do not poison their water; do not thirst
after their blood."
The only Bible Jews had any right too, Luther said, "is that concealed
beneath the sow's tail; the letters that drop from it you are free to
eat and drink."
The Devil has eased himself and emptied his belly again - that is a
real halidom for Jews and would-be Jews, to kiss, batten on, swill and
adore; and then the good pupils spue and eject from above and below...
The Devil, with his angelic snout, devours what exudes from the oral
and anal apertures of the Jews; this is indeed his favorite dish, on
which he battens like a sow behind the hedge.
In history, therefore, they are often accused of poisoning wells,
stealing children and mutilating them; as in Trent, Weissense, etc. Of
course, they deny this. Be it so or not, however, I know full well
that the full, ready will is not lacking with them if they could only
transform it into deeds, in secret or openly. Know this for a
certainty and act accordingly!
Therefore know, my dear Christian, that next to the Devil you have no
more bitter, more poisonous, more vehement an enemy than a real Jew
who earnestly desires to be a Jew.
Should someone think I am saying too much- I am not saying too much,
but much too little!
No heathen has done such things and none would do so except the Devil
himself and those whom he possesses, like he possesses the Jews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Quotes of Martin Luther
...I would maintain, and no person on earth could alter my opinion,
that the Jews, as they are today, are veritably a mixture of all the
depraved and malevolent knaves of the whole world over, who have then
been dispersed in all countries...to afflict the different nations
with their usury, to spy upon others and to betray, to poison wells,
to deceive and to kidnap children- in short to practice all kinds of
dishonesty and injury. " from "Von Schem Ilauphoras und vom Geschlecht
Christi" 1543
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, on the way, shortly before Eisleben, I became dizzy. That was my
fault. Had you been here, however, you would have said that it was the
fault of the Jews of their god. For shortly before Eisleben we had to
travel through a village in which many Jews are living, and perhaps
they have attacked me so painfully. At this time over fifty Jews
reside here in the city of Eisleben. It is true that when I passed by
the village such a cold wind blew from behind into the carriage and on
my head through the beret, [that it seemed] as if it intended to turn
my brain to ice. ...
..."I have to start expelling the Jews. Count Albrecht is hostile to
them and has already outlawed them. If God grants it I shall aid Count
Albrecht from the pulpit, and outlaw them too.
I am drinking beer from Naumburg which tastes to me almost like the
beer from Mansfeld which you praised to me. It agrees with me well and
gives me about three bowel movements in three hours in the morning."
Gardiner
>
> In article <381FBB44...@deism.com>,
> "Robert L. Johnson" <b...@deism.com> wrote:
> > The relevance is that the Christian mind-set and Bible don't allow for
> > rebellion.
> > They tell us to be good slaves and to obey our masters. To rebell
> > against the gov
> > the religious
> > right's false claim that America was founded as a Christian nation.
>
> That is absolutely correct. Rom 13: 1-3 clear states that even resisting
> authority is a sin. "there is no authority EXCEPT from God" and "he who
> resists authority has opposed the ordiance of God; and they who HAVE
> opposed, WILL RECEIVE CONDEMNATION UPON THEMSELVES." Simply put, to
> resist authority, or rebel, is a christian SIN. No bible following
> christian would rebel; according to the bible, if they rebel, they will
> RECEIVE CONDEMNATION!
Rev. Peter,
Your biblical canon seems to only contain 4 or 5 verses. What say you of
Peter's command in Acts 5 regarding the civil magistrates command: "we must
obey God rather than man."
I guess Peter was simply not a Christian in that sentiment.
> Christians are inherently dishonest, and attempt to highjack the
> accomplishments of the Enlightenment as there own, YET they attempt to
> attribute to nonchristains the evil history of christianity.
The French Englightenment was rejected by America's founding fathers. Voltaire
and friends were generally demonized in the writings of the founders.
The Scottish and British enlightenment was initiated by Puritans and
Presbyterians: Francis Bacon, John Milton, Francis Hutcheson, John
Witherspoon, et al.
In France, the initiators of the Enlightenment such as Descartes, Pascal, et
al, were devout Roman Catholics.
German Enlighteners: Leibniz, Puffendorf, et al, were also loyal to the
orthodox church.
The accomplishments of the Enlightenment were great, but, with the exception
of the radical enlightenment of the French Revolutionaries, they grew out of Christianity.
> American could not have been founded as a christian nation, for it was
> the result of Revolution -- and Revolution is antichristain.
The Puritan Revolution of 1641 had nothing to do with Christianity?? that's bizarre.
The Dutch Revolution of 1581 had nothing to do with Christianity?? that's bizarre
The Glorious revolution of 1689 had nothing to do with Christianity?? that's bizarre.
Was Jesus not a revolutionary??
> America was
> founded as a secular state, and it is the Deists contributed to much of
> its success.
A handful of deists, yes. A boatload of traditional Christians.
Mike Curtis
>PaulDanaher wrote:
>> >
>> > And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of
>> conscience
>> > in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither
>> open
>> > nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
>> >
>> > The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most
>> important
>> > person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg
>> and
>> > Newton).
>> >
>> > His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just
>> "seeing
>> > Luther in fenceposts"
>>
>> Martin Luther as the first champion of the idea of "liberty of conscience"??
>> I have to say, Mr Gardiner, that you've just disqualified yourself as a
>> serious participant in this or any discussion.
>
>And you have just qualified yourself for the historical buffoon of the day,
>for you are clearly unfamiliar with Luther's Works.
>
see http://members.icanect.net/~zardoz/luther.htm
from http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/tl798.htm
Martin Luther: Martin Luther is the father of Lutheranism. During the
first period of his ministry, 1513-1523, Luther often condemned the
persecution of the Jews and recommended a more tolerant policy toward
them, based on the spirit of true brotherhood. In 1523, he wrote a
pamphlet, "That Christ Was Born A Jew," in which he argued that the
Jews, who were from the same stock as the founder of Christianity, had
been right in refusing to accept the "papal paganism" presented to
them as Christianity. He added, "If I had been a Jew and had seen such
fools and blockheads teach the Christian faith, I should rather have
turned into a pig than become a Christian."
However, when they did not accept his version of Christianity and
convert, Luther turned increasingly hostile to the Jewish people. By
the 1530s in his Table Talk Series, he referred to them as "the
stiffed-necked Jews, ironhearted and stubborn as the devil."
Finally, it happened. He printed two pamphlets, in 1542, "On the Jews
and Their Lies," and in 1543, "On The Shem Hamephoras" (The Ineffable
Name). These two pamphlets contain some of the most abhorrent and vile
language ever written against the Jewish people.
Five hundred years later, Hitler found many of his ideas and
justifications for his treatment of the Jewish people and the
Holocaust in these writings. After all, if the father of the Lutheran
Church, who was a German, stated these things, who was to argue with
him? For Luther, it was certainly a case of "sowing the wind and
reaping the whirlwind."
Gardiner
>
> You, on the other hand, seem to think that this newsgroup is for
> prosteltizing about Deism.
You clearly have not read a word that I have said. I think Deism was not very
important during the early american period, and I have no commitment or desire
to proselytize this religion at all. If anything, I have been attempting to
rebut Mr. Johnson's perpetual attempts to proselytize people with this
religion.
Perhaps it is him that you have in mind.
> Granted this is a little known religion,
> possibly some subbranch of Christianity,
Granted.
> it is not a subject for this
> newsgroup. Keep it in alt.religion if you feel the need to convert
> people.
No desire to convert anyone at all. I am a historian, a history teacher, and
an author of early american history. My desire is to find out the facts of
history and pass them along to others when I do find them.
> The founders are very dead. Their beliefs are not necessarily
> pertinent to why they wrote the DoI, or even how.
That is about the most assanine thing I think I have ever read!!
> They were religious in
> their own times. Their time had different standards for everything.
Agreed.
> Would you attend church for four hours. I know that I would find it a
> problem staying awake. Yet many services that were preserved were very
> (3+) hours long. Is this Deism? Probably not, but it will show the
> difference in times.
I don't think you have any clue about what you're saying.
> I expect that you will ignore this,
Nope. I didn't.
> or perhaps I will be villified for
> saying what I have. So be it, but I will always beleive that you keep
> opening this discussion line so as to show your moral superiority in
> choice of religion, or that you wish to convert many people to Deism.
I never open this line of discussion. I simply respond to Robert Johnson's
continual remarks trying to convert people to deism. Please go back and check
the threads. I have never promoted deism. You got the wrong guy.
> Enjoy your day, and rejoice in it, for the Lord has given it to you.
Blessings to you too
Rick Gardiner
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Mike Curtis
http://aj.encyclopedia.com/articles/03289.html
Oliver Cromwell
1599-1658, lord protector of England. A Puritan, he entered Parliament
in 1628, standing firmly with the opposition to CHARLES I. During the
first civil war (see ENGLISH CIVIL WAR), he rose rapidly to leadership
because of his military ability and genius for organization. His own
regiment, the Ironsides, distinguished itself at Marston Moor (1644).
In 1645 he became second in command to Sir Thomas Fairfax in the New
Model Army, which defeated the king at Naseby (1645). After Charles's
flight to Carisbrooke (1647), Cromwell lost hope of dealing moderately
with him. In the second civil war, he repelled the Scottish royalist
invasion at Preston (1648). His was the leading voice demanding
execution at the king's trial in 1649. After the republican
Commonwealth was proclaimed, Cromwell led a cruelly punitive
expedition into Ireland, where he initiated a policy of dispossessing
the Irish. He defeated the Scottish royalists at Dunbar (1650) and
CHARLES II at Worcester (1651). In 1653 Cromwell dissolved the Rump
Parliament and replaced it with the feeble Nominated (Barebone's)
Parliament, which he himself appointed. That same year the
Protectorate was established and Cromwell was named lord protector. In
1657 he declined the crown. Cromwell's foreign policy was governed by
the need to expand English trade and prevent the restoration of the
Stuarts. He approved the Navigation Act of 1651, which led to the
first (1652-54) of the DUTCH WARS; his war with Spain (1655-58) was
over trade rights. Opinions of Cromwell have always varied. Although
he favored religious toleration, he tolerated only Jews and
non-Anglican Protestants. His military genius and force of character
are recognized, but the necessities of government forced him into
cruelty and intolerance. His son Richard Cromwell, 1626-1712,
succeeded him. The army and Parliament struggled for power until the
Protectorate collapsed and the Commonwealth was reestablished in 1659.
He lived abroad (1660-80) and later in England under an assumed name.
A man of virtue and dignity, he was forced into a situation beyond his
talents.
Let me repeat something "Opinions of Cromwell have always varied.
Although he favored religious toleration, he tolerated only Jews and
non-Anglican Protestants. "
The key to what I told one of the people posting here was that many
historians admire George Washington for NOT becoming a Cromwell.
Wahington was urged by his officers to set up a military dictatorship
to get the country organized. Luckily Washington declined.
Mike Curtis
Raul Goulden
> Luther was not a very important
> contributor to religious liberty with his
> doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is really ignorant.
> RG
Amen!
RG
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|PaulDanaher wrote:
>:|> >
>:|> > And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of
>:|> conscience
>:|> > in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither
>:|> open
>:|> > nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
>:|> >
>:|> > The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most
>:|> important
>:|> > person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg
>:|> and
>:|> > Newton).
>:|> >
>:|> > His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just
>:|> "seeing
>:|> > Luther in fenceposts"
>:|>
>:|> Martin Luther as the first champion of the idea of "liberty of conscience"??
>:|> I have to say, Mr Gardiner, that you've just disqualified yourself as a
>:|> serious participant in this or any discussion.
>:|
>:|And you have just qualified yourself for the historical buffoon of the day,
>:|for you are clearly unfamiliar with Luther's Works.
>:|
>:|Tell me, sir, what is the thesis of Luther's book On SECULAR AUTHORITY??
>:|Apparently you have never read it. An online version is available.
>:|
>:|If you come to the conclusion that the thesis is anything other than "liberty
>:|of conscience in matters of faith," then you need to go back and read again.
>:|
>:|Education is a wonderful thing... give it a try.
>:|
One more time, someone has dared to challenge Gardiner, and Gardiner
resorts to his usual tactic of personal attack, name calling, questioning
the person's intelligence, education, etc
A person that I would hazard a guess Gardiner, personally, knows next to
nothing about.
This calls for the following:
Well, as mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
Being snarly at people who disagree with you (even if they were snarly
first) isn't a very good reflection of Christian love, is it? The Tao
Teh Ching says, "The sage is just to the just, and also just to the
unjust, because the Tao is just." With struggle, perhaps Christianity
can rise to the same level as Taoism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As maff91 likes to finish his posts with:
Gardiner ineffectually crosses swords with Jim Alison.
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
PaulDanaher
The thesis is that German Catholic princes should stop forcing people to
follow the Catholic faith and let them follow Luther.
You're wilfully ignoring to the strong historical tendency for any Christian
church or sect to persecute the holy hell out of its competitors. It seems
quite clear that the separation of church and state was a recognition of the
desirability of a general and lasting truce.
> If you come to the conclusion that the thesis is anything other than
"liberty
> of conscience in matters of faith," then you need to go back and read
again.
>
> Education is a wonderful thing... give it a try.
>
> RG
> http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Education without an open mind is just a way of screening information
through prejudices.
Rick Gardiner
> >>
> >> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Mike Curtis wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> If the D.I.
> >> >> >> was a puritan document, than it would have sought to replace the present
> >> >> >> system with a theocracy.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Is that why when the Puritans came into power in England in 1653,
> >> >>
> >> >> They came to power because they won a civil war. then they installed a
> >> >> dictatorship.
> >> >
> >> >That may be your spin on it, but the historical documents indicate that they
> >> >declared the Kingdom a commonwealth and a constitutional republic.
> >>
> >> That is not the historical spin on it. It was called the Protectorate.
> >> Historians give George Washington credit for NOT becoming a Cromwell
> >> when he could easily have done so.
> >
> >Just because Washington retired his sword and went back to farm Mt. Vernon
> >does not mean that Cromwell was a dictator. I'm not sure how anyone could come
> >to that conclusion.
>
> his sword? Show me.
First you said that the Puritan commonwealth was a dictatorship. Then I asked
you to prove it. You said that historians credit George Washington for not
doing what he probably could have: i.e., become "Lord Protector" of the United
States.
Washington wanted no part of that, he wanted to go back to Virginia and farm.
I don't see how that proves or in any way evidences that Cromwell was a
dictator. You have yet to give any evidence that Cromwell was a dictator, and
by simply saying that Washington didn't become "lord protector," is not enough
evidence to prove that Cromwell was a dictator.
> >But leave it to you to warp everything you can to disparage puritans.
>
> My relatives were Puritans. They were all human beings and flawed.
Amen to that.
> >> > I can cite
> >> >you a primary source if disagree. Can you cite any primary sources for your
> >> >warped interpretation? I didn't think so.
> >>
> >> Primary sources must go with the actions of the period. Primary
> >> sources do not stand alone but fit in with other contemporary
> >> documents.
> >
> >In other words, you have no primary sources to support your claim. All you had
> >to do was say so.
>
> I think I did.
No you didn't say that you have no primary sources to support your claims. But
it is apparent now.
> >> >> > the first
> >> >> >thing they did was disestablish religion and proclaim tolerance throughout the
> >> >> >Kingdom?? (see Instrument of Gov't, Section 37)
> >> >>
> >> >> That's why there was such partying when Charles II was placed on the
> >> >> thrown.
> >> >
> >> >Exactly! Under Charles II, not under the Puritan Protectorate, was the church
> >> >Re-established.
> >>
> >> As it still is in England. Yet the true religion was that of
> >> Protestantism as Cromwell saw it.
> >
> >If you knew anything about the Protectorate,
>
> What assumptions you make. Gardiner you aren't worth my time after
> all. Carry on with the Rev. Peter troll.
I'm shocked to find out that Rev. Peter and you aren't best buddies.
Rick Gardiner
That's a little deceptive. Anglicans were also tolerable. Non-Anglican
Protestants included just about ever other religious sect in England.
Toleration of Jews was very progressive for the 1640's. The Muslim, Buddhist,
and Hindu population was null in the Commonwealth, so what the encyclopedia
article should say is that Cromwell was tolerant of all religious sects in
England except Roman Catholicism.
Cromwell stated a clear reason for not tolerating Roman Catholicism. The Pope
had issued a decree saying that Catholics have the duty to overthrow
non-Catholic monarchs. Thus, in Cromwell's view, the Catholics were a danger
to the security and peace of the commonwealth. It wasn't a theological issue
per se.
> The key to what I told one of the people posting here was that many
> historians admire George Washington for NOT becoming a Cromwell.
> Wahington was urged by his officers to set up a military dictatorship
> to get the country organized. Luckily Washington declined.
The article you posted above mentions nothing about Cromwell being a dictator,
like you claimed earlier. The Commonwealth was a constitutional republic with
a broad degree of religious toleration: a foreshadow of the U.S. It was an
idea that was too far ahead of its time, and by 1660, the conservatives were
screaming to go back to a Monarchy with an established church.
Rick Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>
> >PaulDanaher wrote:
> >> >
> >> > And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of
> >> conscience
> >> > in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither
> >> open
> >> > nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
> >> >
> >> > The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most
> >> important
> >> > person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg
> >> and
> >> > Newton).
> >> >
> >> > His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just
> >> "seeing
> >> > Luther in fenceposts"
> >>
> >> Martin Luther as the first champion of the idea of "liberty of conscience"??
> >> I have to say, Mr Gardiner, that you've just disqualified yourself as a
> >> serious participant in this or any discussion.
> >
> >And you have just qualified yourself for the historical buffoon of the day,
> >for you are clearly unfamiliar with Luther's Works.
> >
> >Tell me, sir, what is the thesis of Luther's book On SECULAR AUTHORITY??
> >Apparently you have never read it. An online version is available.
> >
>
> from http://www.voicenet.com/~music/history/luther.html
Check out the ultimate origin of the information from the website you are
recommending above: it was taken from a Neo-Nazi website!
Rick Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>
> >:|PaulDanaher wrote:
> >:|> >
> >:|> > And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of
> >:|> conscience
> >:|> > in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither
> >:|> open
> >:|> > nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
> >:|> >
> >:|> > The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most
> >:|> important
> >:|> > person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg
> >:|> and
> >:|> > Newton).
> >:|> >
> >:|> > His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just
> >:|> "seeing
> >:|> > Luther in fenceposts"
> >:|>
> >:|> Martin Luther as the first champion of the idea of "liberty of conscience"??
> >:|> I have to say, Mr Gardiner, that you've just disqualified yourself as a
> >:|> serious participant in this or any discussion.
> >:|
> >:|And you have just qualified yourself for the historical buffoon of the day,
> >:|for you are clearly unfamiliar with Luther's Works.
> >:|
> >:|Tell me, sir, what is the thesis of Luther's book On SECULAR AUTHORITY??
> >:|Apparently you have never read it. An online version is available.
> >:|If you come to the conclusion that the thesis is anything other than "liberty
> >:|of conscience in matters of faith," then you need to go back and read again.
> >:|
> >:|Education is a wonderful thing... give it a try.
>
> One more time, someone has dared to challenge Gardiner, and Gardiner
> resorts to his usual tactic of personal attack, name calling, questioning
> the person's intelligence, education, etc
Wonderful observation, Isaac Newton.
Especially as it coming from a person like yourself who has called me "head up
my ass, smart ass, ill-willed, unscholarly, yada yada yada"
> This calls for the following:
>
> Well, as mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Being snarly at people who disagree with you (even if they were snarly
> first) isn't a very good reflection of Christian love, is it?
Let's call this exactly what it is: a justification for non-Christians to
abuse Christians.
I never claimed to be a good reflection of human love, either. I am a snarly
poor reflection of Christian love attempting to set some of the historical
record straight among abusive revisionists like yourself with an agenda.
Let the historical record speak for itself; there is a good portion of it
available at http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>
> >PaulDanaher wrote:
> >> >
> >> > And who was the person who first championed the idea of liberty of
> >> conscience
> >> > in the modern world?? Have you heard of the Diet of Worms, "it is neither
> >> open
> >> > nor safe for one to act against conscience in matters of faith"?
> >> >
> >> > The man who said that was recently considered to be the third most
> >> important
> >> > person of the millenium by a cross section of historians (after Gutenberg
> >> and
> >> > Newton).
> >> >
> >> > His name was Martin. Perhaps that cross section of scholars is just
> >> "seeing
> >> > Luther in fenceposts"
> >>
> >> Martin Luther as the first champion of the idea of "liberty of conscience"??
> >> I have to say, Mr Gardiner, that you've just disqualified yourself as a
> >> serious participant in this or any discussion.
> >
> >And you have just qualified yourself for the historical buffoon of the day,
> >for you are clearly unfamiliar with Luther's Works.
> >
>
>
> from http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/tl798.htm
>
> Martin Luther: Martin Luther is the father of Lutheranism. During the
> first period of his ministry, 1513-1523, Luther often condemned the
> persecution of the Jews and recommended a more tolerant policy toward
> them, based on the spirit of true brotherhood. In 1523, he wrote a
> pamphlet, "That Christ Was Born A Jew," in which he argued that the
> Jews, who were from the same stock as the founder of Christianity, had
> been right in refusing to accept the "papal paganism" presented to
> them as Christianity. He added, "If I had been a Jew and had seen such
> fools and blockheads teach the Christian faith, I should rather have
> turned into a pig than become a Christian."
Luther was one to speak with very sharp words. Whatever he said of the Jews,
he doubly emphasized with regard to Roman Catholics (of which he was once
one), he also urged love towards the Jews--
"If I were a Jew, I would suffer the rack ten times before I would go over to
the pope. The
papists have so demeaned themselves that a good Christian would rather be a
Jew than one of them, and a Jew would rather be a sow than a Christian. What
good can we do the Jews when we constrain them, malign them, and hate them as
dogs? When we deny them work and force them to usury, how can that help? We
should use toward the Jews not the pope's but Christ's law of love. If some
are stiff necked, what does that matter? We are not all good Christians."
(Luther's Works, Vol. 11, p. 314)
Luther's authoritative biographer, Roland Bainton writes: "Luther was sanguine
that his own reform, by eliminating the abuses of the papacy, would accomplish
the conversion of the Jews. But the converts were few and unstable. When he
endeavored to proselytize some rabbis, they undertook in return to make a Jew
of him. The rumor that a Jew had been suborned by the papists to murder him
was not received with complete incredulity. in Luther's latter days, when he
was often sorely frayed, news came that in Moravia, Christians were being
induced to Judaize. Then he came out with a vulgar blast in which he
recommended that all the Jews be deported to Palestine. Failing that, they
should be forbidden to practice usury, should be compelled to earn their
living on the land, their synagogues should be burned, and their books
including the Bible should be taken away from them."
Rick Gardiner
>
> > Luther's lack of tolerance of the Peasants, the Anabaptists, and the Jews was
> > not an issue of conscience, it was an issue of civil security. Luther felt
> > that the radical reformers (e.g., Munzer) were anarchists, and Luther never
> > condoned anarchy even though he condoned rebellion to tyrants who would coerce
> > religious doctrine.
>
> One man's anarchy is another man's Christianity. In my own judgement
> (reinforced, no doubt, by my Missouri Synod Lutheran upbringing :-) the
> Anabaptists were truer Christians than was Martin Luther. Therefore to me
> it isn't at all a civil issue, and indeed this was one of the salient
> RELIGIOUS differences between many (not all) Anabaptists and Luther: civil
> society and religious society CANNOT be separated. When a village accepted
> the teachings of a wandering Anabaptist preacher in 16th Century Central
> Europe, the entire social and economic fabric of the village was
> transformed in accordance with beliefs: Wealth was redistributed, commons
> reinstituted, ecclesiastical property seized, religious leaders elected by
> the population, etc.
You are correct about the complexity of this question. Luther believed
that the two kingdoms (church and state) could be and should be
separated. The American founders believed the same thing. However, it is
hard to actually implement this principle. For example, when a Christian
Scientist wants to refuse medical care for his children on sincere
religious grounds, suddenly the state feels compelled to coerce a
different belief upon the individual.
Even more common is the fact that the state takes taxes for all sorts of
causes which violate various religious principles, and if I refuse to
pay on religious grounds, then the civil authorities will punish me
bodily.
In other words, you are correct in saying that Luther's ideal
church/state separation was not in practice in his world. But it is also
true that the same ideal which we cherish as americans is not really in
effect in our world. Just like you said above, I'm not sure it ever can
be.
> > Luther's stand at Worms was the origin of a radical new conception of
> > resistance to a magistrate who would attempt to coerce one's conscience in
> > religious matters. Without this stand there never would have been a Dutch
> > Revolution of 1581, a Puritan Revolution of 1641, a Glorious Revolution of
> > 1688, or an American Revolution of 1775--
>
> I disagree. The first Protestant state in Europe was Hungary,
The first Protestant revolution was the Dutch.
> not the
> principalities of northern Germany. Moreover I think that the conflation
> of the English and the German Reformations is unwarranted by the known
> historical facts.
Say more.
> Finally, I believe that you are mistakenly using
> theological issues as a driving force for political developments of this
> period, when in fact the decisive point was reached in both the English
> and German cases when SECULAR leaders saw advantage in supporting
> particular religious factions for their own purposes.
The conflict between Parliament and the Monarch that began in 1628 when
Charles shut down Parliament was a fundamentally religious conflict. The
protest drawn up by the Parliament in 1629 had the following chief
concern--
"Whosever shall bring an innovation of religion or by favour or seem to
extend or introduce Popery or Arminianism, or other opinions from the
true and orthodox Church, shall be reputed a capital enemy to this
Kingdom and Commonwealth."
When the Puritans cut off Charles I's head in 1649 the final banter back
and forth surrounded the doctrine of Divine Right of Kings. Charles took
the Romanist position, and judge Bradshaw countered with the doctrine of
the Huguenot Vindiciae.
It is not fair or historically responsible to call Bradshaw, Cromwell,
Hampden, Sydney, etc., insincere Puritans with only political motives.
Any study of a thorough biography of any of these chaps will show that
their Biblical worldview was central and real in their lives.
When we get to the Glorious Revolution there is no question whatsoever
that James II's Catholicism and his revival of Bloody Mary's approach to
running the kingdom was the central concern of the Whigs who deposed
him. The popish plot and the execution of Algernon Sydney were religious
issues to the core. If it weren't for the formation of the Whigs (a
scottish presbyterian term, btw) as a result of the threat of restoring
Catholicism to the throne along with James, Duke of York, then there
would have been no Glorious Revolution, and subsequently no Locke, and
subsequently...
And if you think that Parliament's choice of a Dutch Calvinist as their
next King (William of Orange) had nothing to do with his religious
convictions, you don't understand the Glorious Revolution.
This was the heritage of the American Patriots, and it was a heritage
they invoked frequently. When you read Mayhews Discourse on Submission,
the whole document is about the Execution of Charles I. The concern
about the Quebec Act is that it allows prelacy and popery to gain a
foothold in the colonies, a concern hearkening back to both 1628 and
1680, to Coke and Sidney. That's why John Adams was not just shooting
from the hip when he said:
"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American
war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The
Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their
religious
sentiments of their duties and obligations. While the king, and all in
authority under him, were believed to govern in justice and mercy,
according to the laws and constitution derived to them from the God of
nature and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they thought
themselves bound to pray for the king and queen and all the royal
family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of God
for their good; but when they saw those powers renouncing all the
principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the
securities of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it
their duty to pray for the continental congress and all the thirteen
State congresses, &c."
Mike Curtis
>PaulDanaher wrote:
>>
>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
>> news:381E41BB...@pitnet.net...
>> > Rev Peter wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > 2. the "tent-meeting" was more a product of the Second Great Awakening
>> > > on the
>> > > > frontier in the early 19th century.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, as the christians went out of their way to steal the land from the
>> > > aboriginal population and kill off those very aboriginals. The Christian
>> > > great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
>> > > 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
>> >
>> > The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see
>> http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
>> >
>> You can't possibly argue from the historical record that the German
>> Christians were not overwhelmingly Nazis!
>
>Of course not, but you also can't possibly argue from the historical record
>that the Western Allies were not overwhelmingly Christians as well. Thus, you
>can't infer a correlation between Christianity and Nazism...
No one was doing that. You said that they were Social Darwinists, not
Christians. And you are using David Irving to boot!
Please see http://www.holocaust-history.org/pamphlets/irving/
> there is no
>necessary connection, any more than there is a necessary connection between
>being a Christian and being an anti-Nazi.
That quite a bit different from what you said above. Yet the Germans
had Luther to fall back on for some of their anti-Semitism. As you
well know, Mr. Gardiner, the holocaust and its history is a bit out of
your league. Remember?
Mike Curtis
From Ambrose Bierce:
CHRISTIAN, n.
One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
CONVERSATION, n.
Rick Gardiner
>
> You really haven't understood. The concept of liberty of conscience that the
> Framers were working with was based on centuries of experience of conflicts
> and persecution which Luther *and his followers* helped encourage (with
> enthusiastic support from their opponents). The crucial difference was that
> the Framers realised - from their vantage point - that this liberty had to
> protect people they disagreed with. There's nothing to show that Luther felt
> this at all.
Luther wrote:
"The use of force can never prevent heresy. Preventing it requires a
different sort of skill; this is not a battle that can be fought with
the sword. This is where God's Word must fight. And if that does not
win, then secular power can certainly not succeed either, even if it
were to fill the world with blood. Heresy is a spiritual thing; it
cannot be struck down with steel, burnt with fire or drowned in water.
God's Word alone can [conquer] here; as St. Paul says in 2 Corinthians
10[4f]: Our weapons are not carnal ones, but are mighty in God, to
destroy all the counsels and eminences that rise up against the
knowledge of God, and they take captive all the senses in the service of
Christ."
Madison and Jefferson both wrote:
"that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of
discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence."
Luther's sentiment and Madison's and Jefferson's are patently the same.
My high school students can even recognize this.
Luther had his weaknesses: his view of Jews and anabaptists; Jefferson
and Madison had their weakenesses: their view of blacks and natives
(whom they called savages).
Thus, although its obvious that two centuries separated these men, their
fundamental understanding of liberty of conscience took the same form.
True, the personal doctrines of Luther were not the personal doctrines
of Jefferson, but everything that Jefferson said above, Luther would
have agreed with, and everything Luther said above, Jefferson would have
agreed with (short of perhaps the strong biblical role, though Jefferson
was very committed to the bible in a different form).
> > So much for the contributions of MLK, Jr. His infamous womanizing
> > betrays his moral authority and his commitment to justice and the
> > dignity of all humans.
>
> The idea that a human being has to be perfect to do anything worthwhile is
> unbelievably childish. Any real historian knows perfectly well that great
> leaders come with warts ad worse.
Exactly my point. Even Luther.
> > So much for Jesus of Nazareth, who, though he said a lot of things about
> > love and mercy, had the audacity to call a humble non-Jew a "dog" (Matt
> > 15:26)
>
> Let's look at the context, shall we (Matt 15, NIV):
> 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son
> of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from
> demon-possession."
> 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him,
> "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
> 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
> 25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
> 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to
> their dogs."
> 27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from
> their masters' table."
> 28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is
> granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
>
> You have no respect for your sources at all, do you?
I'm quite familiar with the context. But I am also familiar with the
criticism of the left wing who say that this verse indicates that even
Jesus participated at some level in the racist attitudes which the Jews
adopted as the "chosen" people of God (you may recall that they actually
felt commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew that breathes, see I
Samuel 15:2)
I think that the critiques of Jesus are nonsense, as are the critiques
of Martin Luther King, Jr., as are the critiques of Jefferson, as are
the critiques of MARTIN LUTHER.
These men had warts, but that is no reason to disparage their
contributions.
> > So much for Lincoln, Ghandi, Princess Di, and a host of other worthies
> > whose actions did not always conform to their altruistic philosophies.
>
> I have no problems with real human beings. Apparently you do.
I was not the one who cut into Luther for his view of anabaptists.
> > > The trouble with you is that you aren't a real historian - you're just
> > > another religious fanatic.
> >
> > Care to support that irresponsible insult with anything substantive? I
> > didn't think so. Guess it's just a rhetorical devise to attempt to sway
> > opinion toward your assessment. In actuality, it only subtracts from
> > your own reputation as a reasoned individual.
>
> I don't need anything better to support that with than your own pathetic
> statements above.
In other words, you started spouting at the mouth about my religious
convictions without any clue. Now you can't support it and you don't
know what to say. Put up or shut up about religious fanaticism. Its
called slander. If I start alleging that you are a child molestor, I
need to have some grounds or I can be held liable for damage to your
rep.
> > The one area which has been the target of choice for the revisionists
> > has been the role of Protestantism, Calvinism, and Puritanism. Insofar
> > as these groups typify the WASP establishment which they so seek to
> > demonize, these revisionists bend over backwards to disparage everything
> > that these people have done from Luther to John Witherspoon.
> >
> > The fact remains that these people, with all their flaws and foibles,
> > their bad deeds (which you think trump their profound contributions)
> > provided the social milieu which birthed the United States of America.
> > That is the gist of what I have been attempting to convey. Nothing more,
> > nothing less.
>
> And this is exactly what you have repeatedly overstated. Somewhat less would
> have served history and you a great deal better.
Make an argument grounded in evidence that I have overstated something.
Until then, I'll let the evidence I present speak for itself--
PaulDanaher
Oh good. History is now determined by someone standing in front of a group
of high school students, showing them two passages which they have virtually
no context for and inviting them to say that they're the same sentiment.
> Luther had his weaknesses: his view of Jews and anabaptists; Jefferson
> and Madison had their weakenesses: their view of blacks and natives
> (whom they called savages).
> Thus, although its obvious that two centuries separated these men, their
> fundamental understanding of liberty of conscience took the same form.
> True, the personal doctrines of Luther were not the personal doctrines
> of Jefferson, but everything that Jefferson said above, Luther would
> have agreed with, and everything Luther said above, Jefferson would have
> agreed with (short of perhaps the strong biblical role, though Jefferson
> was very committed to the bible in a different form).
A wild and sweeping claim. Rhetoric is no substitute for scholarship.
> > > So much for the contributions of MLK, Jr. His infamous womanizing
> > > betrays his moral authority and his commitment to justice and the
> > > dignity of all humans.
> >
> > The idea that a human being has to be perfect to do anything worthwhile
is
> > unbelievably childish. Any real historian knows perfectly well that
great
> > leaders come with warts ad worse.
>
> Exactly my point. Even Luther.
I couldn't care less about Luther's private life. Now, if MLK had preached
passive resistance while at the same time advocating taking out the Jews in
the inner cities, that would be a different question.
I don't recall anything of the kind. You are totally without shame in your
abuse of the bible. Here's the passage in context (NIV):
1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over
his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD.
2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for
what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [1] everything that
belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and
infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim--two hundred thousand
foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah.
5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine.
6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do
not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the
Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from
the Amalekites.
Let's just look again at these three statements:
Rick Gardiner (some of whose best friends are obviously Jews):
"you may recall that they [the Jews] actually felt commissioned by God to
kill every non-Jew that breathes, see I Samuel 15:2"
I Samuel 15: 2
"This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what
they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt."
And, for good measure, Saul in I Samuel 15:6
"Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them;
for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of
Egypt."
> I think that the critiques of Jesus are nonsense, as are the critiques
> of Martin Luther King, Jr., as are the critiques of Jefferson, as are
> the critiques of MARTIN LUTHER.
"Critique" is nice. You've produced a mini-quote which is a major textual
distortion, wrapped it up as a "criticism of the left wing", added a wanton
antiSemitic lie of your own ("[the Jews] actually felt commissioned by God
to kill every non-Jew that breathes"), added a reference to MLK's private
life, dragged in unspecified critiques of Jefferson, and then pretended that
any of this nonsense is on a level with historically buttressed references
to Luther which show clearly that he wanted freedom of conscience to apply
to him and his followers - but not to his opponents.
> These men had warts, but that is no reason to disparage their
> contributions.
>
> > > So much for Lincoln, Ghandi, Princess Di, and a host of other worthies
> > > whose actions did not always conform to their altruistic philosophies.
> >
> > I have no problems with real human beings. Apparently you do.
>
> I was not the one who cut into Luther for his view of anabaptists.
Nor was I. But if Ghandi had persecuted a dissenting group, I'd change my
view of his sincerity.
> > > > The trouble with you is that you aren't a real historian - you're
just
> > > > another religious fanatic.
> > >
> > > Care to support that irresponsible insult with anything substantive? I
> > > didn't think so. Guess it's just a rhetorical devise to attempt to
sway
> > > opinion toward your assessment. In actuality, it only subtracts from
> > > your own reputation as a reasoned individual.
> >
> > I don't need anything better to support that with than your own pathetic
> > statements above.
>
> In other words, you started spouting at the mouth about my religious
> convictions without any clue. Now you can't support it and you don't
> know what to say. Put up or shut up about religious fanaticism. Its
> called slander. If I start alleging that you are a child molestor, I
> need to have some grounds or I can be held liable for damage to your
> rep.
I haven't said anything about your religious convictions.
> > > The one area which has been the target of choice for the revisionists
> > > has been the role of Protestantism, Calvinism, and Puritanism. Insofar
> > > as these groups typify the WASP establishment which they so seek to
> > > demonize, these revisionists bend over backwards to disparage
everything
> > > that these people have done from Luther to John Witherspoon.
> > >
> > > The fact remains that these people, with all their flaws and foibles,
> > > their bad deeds (which you think trump their profound contributions)
> > > provided the social milieu which birthed the United States of America.
> > > That is the gist of what I have been attempting to convey. Nothing
more,
> > > nothing less.
> >
> > And this is exactly what you have repeatedly overstated. Somewhat less
would
> > have served history and you a great deal better.
>
> Make an argument grounded in evidence that I have overstated something.
> Until then, I'll let the evidence I present speak for itself.
>
> http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
The overstatement is your insistence on bringing everything back to a
Christian source. The evidence is your own writing. Just take the one
statement above - "these people ... provided *the* social milieu which
birthed the United States of America" [emphasis added]. If you'd only say
"a crucial factor in the social milieu", it would be fine. But you have to
say "the social milieu" - and this is where you lose your case by
overstating it.
This is what I mean by your religious fanaticism - your refusal to allow
that there were other key lines of thought, other influences. English common
law has to be Christian (it isn't), the core ideas of the DOI have to come
from Christian sources - they can't just be influenced by them. And so on.
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> Martin Luther as the first champion of the idea of "liberty of conscience"??
>> >> I have to say, Mr Gardiner, that you've just disqualified yourself as a
>> >> serious participant in this or any discussion.
>> >
>> >And you have just qualified yourself for the historical buffoon of the day,
>> >for you are clearly unfamiliar with Luther's Works.
>> >
>> >Tell me, sir, what is the thesis of Luther's book On SECULAR AUTHORITY??
>> >Apparently you have never read it. An online version is available.
>> >
>>
>> from http://www.voicenet.com/~music/history/luther.html
>
>Check out the ultimate origin of the information from the website you are
>recommending above: it was taken from a Neo-Nazi website!
So what? LOL! This doesn't mean that Luther did not write those words.
You ought to know by now that poisoning the well is a debate fallacy.
If a Nazi says the sky is blue and it is blue then I'm not going to
call him a liar.
[snipped for brevity]
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
>> One more time, someone has dared to challenge Gardiner, and Gardiner
>> resorts to his usual tactic of personal attack, name calling, questioning
>> the person's intelligence, education, etc
>
>Wonderful observation, Isaac Newton.
>
>Especially as it coming from a person like yourself who has called me "head up
>my ass, smart ass, ill-willed, unscholarly, yada yada yada"
I think you need to look as this URL closer.
and See
http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html
>> This calls for the following:
>>
>> Well, as mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> Being snarly at people who disagree with you (even if they were snarly
>> first) isn't a very good reflection of Christian love, is it?
>
>Let's call this exactly what it is: a justification for non-Christians to
>abuse Christians.
Bwahahahahahahahaha! Everyone is abusing everyone and have been doing
so since the beginning of written history and most likely before that
if human beings are involved. So boo-hoo.
>I never claimed to be a good reflection of human love, either.
No, you aren't that at all.
> I am a snarly
>poor reflection of Christian love attempting to set some of the historical
>record straight among abusive revisionists like yourself with an agenda.
And then there is your agenda which I've pointed out in this thread.
>Let the historical record speak for itself; there is a good portion of it
>available at http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
What a fun time to be had by all. Documents without the surrounding
history and perspective mean nothing in the end. You, much like the
holocaust deniers (I'm not accusing you of being in their camp but
only refer to technique), like to take primary sources and use out of
context to score points. The option left is to do all kinds of
historical work to explain the context of the primary source and show
what it really means. That is if it means anything at all.
Gardiner
> >
> > "The use of force can never prevent heresy. Preventing it requires a
> > different sort of skill; this is not a battle that can be fought with
> > the sword. This is where God's Word must fight. And if that does not
> > win, then secular power can certainly not succeed either, even if it
> > were to fill the world with blood. Heresy is a spiritual thing; it
> > cannot be struck down with steel, burnt with fire or drowned in water.
> > God's Word alone can [conquer] here; as St. Paul says in 2 Corinthians
> > 10[4f]: Our weapons are not carnal ones, but are mighty in God, to
> > destroy all the counsels and eminences that rise up against the
> > knowledge of God, and they take captive all the senses in the service of
> > Christ."
> >
> > Madison and Jefferson both wrote:
> >
> > "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of
> > discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
> > force or violence."
> >
> > Luther's sentiment and Madison's and Jefferson's are patently the same.
> > My high school students can even recognize this.
>
> Oh good. History is now determined by someone standing in front of a group
> of high school students, showing them two passages which they have virtually
> no context for and inviting them to say that they're the same sentiment.
Here's the context:
Luther wrote ON SECULAR AUTHORITY, in which he indicated that God REQUIRES
that true faith has to be sincere, willful, voluntary, and uncoerced; that a
person's conscience has to be convinced. Luther said that when the government
forces someone to believe a religious doctrine against their conscience, then
the government is actually making the people violate God's command.
Luther's views were directly read and repeated by the Puritans such as John
Milton, Oliver Cromwell, and a number of other professors and clergymen who
provided university leadership during the commonwealth period... the time when
John Locke was forming his ideas. Locke latched on to Milton's views on
freedom of conscience and the importance of faith being a "voluntary"
commitment to God, rather than a coerced commitment, and Locke published
LETTERS CONCERNING TOLERATION in which he focused on this important Protestant idea.
Jefferson and Madison both explicitly wrote how important they believed
Locke's views on Toleration were, Madison taking it one step further because
he didn't like the word "tolerate," since it implied that religion may be a
bad thing.
Then Jefferson and Madison wrote such statements as "religion or the duty
which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed
only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."
The idea not only reflects Luther's sentiments, in context the genealogy of
this idea is demonstrably traceable to Luther. My high school students are
capable of seeing Jefferson cite Locke, Locke cite Milton, and Milton cite Luther.
> > Exactly my point. Even Luther.
>
> I couldn't care less about Luther's private life. Now, if MLK had preached
> passive resistance while at the same time advocating taking out the Jews in
> the inner cities, that would be a different question.
MLK preached dignity and justice for all, while violating his wife's dignity
and covenantal rights as his spouse. But that is very insignificant in light
of his greater contributions.
> > I'm quite familiar with the context. But I am also familiar with the
> > criticism of the left wing who say that this verse indicates that even
> > Jesus participated at some level in the racist attitudes which the Jews
> > adopted as the "chosen" people of God (you may recall that they actually
> > felt commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew that breathes, see I
> > Samuel 15:2)
>
> I don't recall anything of the kind. You are totally without shame in your
> abuse of the bible. Here's the passage in context (NIV):
> 1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over
> his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD.
> 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for
> what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
> 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [1] everything that
> belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and
> infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
> 4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim--two hundred thousand
> foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah.
> 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine.
> 6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do
> not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the
> Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from
> the Amalekites.
Here we go again. Do yourself a favor... don't challenge me on the Biblical
stuff. You are being overly presumptuous about my background first.
You are implying that I have wrongly "abused" the bible because I stated that
the Jews felt commissioned to kill every non-Jew that breathes. I was 100% right.
You apparently think that because Saul left the Amalekites to live, that I
have cited something out of context.
Read on, pal. The remainder of I Samuel 15 is all about how upset God was at
Saul for not killing all the Amalekites...women, children, sheep. Saul kept
them alive for his own purposes. Therefore, in the later part of the chapter
Samuel himself comes and confronts Saul in God's name and Samuel himself kills
the King of the Amalekites to show Saul that God commissioned the entire
annihilation of the Amalekites.
Saul then was rejected by God as King, and in I Samuel 16, God chooses a
replacement (David) for Saul because Saul wouldn't commit genocide! Saul goes down
in history as the disobedient one, the Benedict Arnold of the Jews.
I Samuel 15 is not the only place in which the Jews were told to kill all of
the non-Jews. The commission occurs throughout the Pentateuch.
You are out of your league on this one.
> Let's just look again at these three statements:
> Rick Gardiner (some of whose best friends are obviously Jews):
> "you may recall that they [the Jews] actually felt commissioned by God to
> kill every non-Jew that breathes, see I Samuel 15:2"
> I Samuel 15: 2
> "This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for what
> they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt."
> And, for good measure, Saul in I Samuel 15:6
> "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them;
> for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of
> Egypt."
So in your view, Saul is the hero of the story??!! You better go talk to a Rabbi.
> > I think that the critiques of Jesus are nonsense, as are the critiques
> > of Martin Luther King, Jr., as are the critiques of Jefferson, as are
> > the critiques of MARTIN LUTHER.
>
> "Critique" is nice. You've produced a mini-quote which is a major textual
> distortion, wrapped it up as a "criticism of the left wing", added a wanton
> antiSemitic lie of your own ("[the Jews] actually felt commissioned by God
> to kill every non-Jew that breathes"),
A lie of my own, huh?? I didn't realize that I was the author of Deuteronomy
20:16-18, Deuteronomy 7:2, Deuteronomy 25:19, Numbers 31:14-17, Joshua 11:11,
and I Samuel 15:2 (and don't forget I Samuel 15:19 and 15:24 as well as
15:32... you seemed to have overlooked those with your above comments)
> added a reference to MLK's private
> life, dragged in unspecified critiques of Jefferson, and then pretended that
> any of this nonsense is on a level with historically buttressed references
> to Luther which show clearly that he wanted freedom of conscience to apply
> to him and his followers - but not to his opponents.
Don't just shoot from the hip: provide some textual evidence where Luther said
freedom of conscience didn't apply to the anabaptists and the peasants! He
supported the civil authorities in their efforts against the peasants not
because of their doctrines, but because they went around physically damaging
property... it was a civil matter, not an ecclesiastical one.
Go ahead, show me where he says "Anabaptists should be coerced to believe my
tenets of faith."
You can't because he didn't. If you could you would. Bill Clinton sent the
troops into Kosovo; does that mean Clinton doesn't believe that people in the
middle east have the right to freedom of religion?? No. It is a civil matter.
The fact that the factions happened to be religious groups is not the reason
why Clinton sent the troops.
This is really a quite simple concept to grasp.
> > > > So much for Lincoln, Ghandi, Princess Di, and a host of other worthies
> > > > whose actions did not always conform to their altruistic philosophies.
> > >
> > > I have no problems with real human beings. Apparently you do.
> >
> > I was not the one who cut into Luther for his view of anabaptists.
>
> Nor was I. But if Ghandi had persecuted a dissenting group, I'd change my
> view of his sincerity.
And what say you of Jefferson's sincerity about human rights?
> > > > > The trouble with you is that you aren't a real historian - you're
> just
> > > > > another religious fanatic.
> > > >
> > > > Care to support that irresponsible insult with anything substantive? I
> > > > didn't think so. Guess it's just a rhetorical devise to attempt to
> sway
> > > > opinion toward your assessment. In actuality, it only subtracts from
> > > > your own reputation as a reasoned individual.
> > >
> > > I don't need anything better to support that with than your own pathetic
> > > statements above.
> >
> > In other words, you started spouting at the mouth about my religious
> > convictions without any clue. Now you can't support it and you don't
> > know what to say. Put up or shut up about religious fanaticism. Its
> > called slander. If I start alleging that you are a child molestor, I
> > need to have some grounds or I can be held liable for damage to your
> > rep.
>
> I haven't said anything about your religious convictions.
You wrote: "you're just another religious fanatic." The fact is that you have
absolutely no clue as to what my religious frame of mind is. You are an
irresponsible slanderer.
I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was birthed.
What would you call a "social milieu"?
If you don't think the colonial educational establishment was permeated with
Christianity, you better go back and read a little history of Harvard, Wm &
Mary, Yale, Princeton, etc., and then take a look at the Catechisms and the
Primers that the school children read. Find out what the central textbook of
every school age child was (hint: rhymes with Rible).
If you don't think the legal establishment was not permeated with
Christianity, first figure out where the lawyers were trained (see colleges
listed above) and what books they used as their central texts: Coke (Puritan),
Hale (Whig), and Blackstone (Anglican). Check out a piece or two from
Blackstone... the most heavily cited legal writer in the colonies (e.g., http://www.universitylake.org/history/blackstone.html)
If you don't think the domestic institutions were permeated with Christianity
take a look at wedding vows, daily routines, children's expectations, prayers,
the town Catechist's role, cases of domestic conflict, idioms, the expected
etiquette, the mores and manners of the time.
If you don't think that the ecclesiastic institutions were permeated with
Christianity, then I don't know what to tell you. Congregationalism dominated
New England, Presbyterianism and Dutch Reformed in the Middle Colonies,
Quakerism in Pennsylvania, a representation of Catholicism in Maryland,
Anglicanism and Baptist or Presbyterian Dissenters in Virginia and the
Carolinas, a good number of Huguenots in Charleston, and A hybrid of Awakened
evangelicals in Georgia.
If you don't think the nomenclature of the time reflects a Christian
world-view, you better go back and read a few sets of vital records. The most
popular names in the colonies were all biblical names, from Samuel, to John,
to Benjamin, to Jonathan, to Thomas, to Noah, to Aaron, to Benedict, to
Ebeneezer, to Abigail, to Sarah, to Elizabeth, to Mary, yada yada yada.
Additionally, look at town names, etc., and see if you don't find a Salem, a
Philadelphia, a Boston, a Providence, a New Haven, a Williamsburg and other
Biblical or ecclesiastically motivated names. Look at the language and the
idioms, note the saluations on letters, note the calendar and the festivals,
whether it be thanksgiving or the outlawing of Christmas.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Christianity permeated the cultural
milieu of early america.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary. I didn't think so.
Were there other influences? You better believe it! But, was there a dominant
culture? Yes there was. Thats where your secular fanaticism has clouded your
reasoning. You impose your late 20th century indifference to religion upon
these people whose world was very different than ours. It's just bad history
on your part.
Mike Curtis
>Here we go again. Do yourself a favor... don't challenge me on the Biblical
>stuff. You are being overly presumptuous about my background first.
Don't tell another what to challenge you on.
>And what say you of Jefferson's sincerity about human rights?
I think he is about as sincere as Luther was on religious toleration.
>> I haven't said anything about your religious convictions.
>
>You wrote: "you're just another religious fanatic."
Well, you are. It walks talks and smells like a duck there is a good
chance it is one. Ever read your own web site and the reviewers of
your book. What a tidy lot of folks. But hey, it isn't fair to make
assumptions based on the company one keeps.
> The fact is that you have
>absolutely no clue as to what my religious frame of mind is. You are an
>irresponsible slanderer.
Bwahahahahaha! Pot-Kettle-black. It ceases to amaze me how fast you
dive into ad hominem attacks with those who disagree with you. Pretty
soon I may have to assume you are a parody of yourself.
>> The overstatement is your insistence on bringing everything back to a
>> Christian source. The evidence is your own writing. Just take the one
>> statement above - "these people ... provided *the* social milieu which
>> birthed the United States of America" [emphasis added]. If you'd only say
>> "a crucial factor in the social milieu", it would be fine. But you have to
>> say "the social milieu" - and this is where you lose your case by
>> overstating it.
>
>I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
>ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was birthed.
>What would you call a "social milieu"?
But it is virtually impossible to tie you down to a birth date.
>If you don't think the colonial educational establishment was permeated with
>Christianity,
What colonial educational establishment?
> you better go back and read a little history of Harvard, Wm &
>Mary, Yale, Princeton, etc.,
To what point?
> and then take a look at the Catechisms and the
>Primers that the school children read.
Did they all read the same ones? What did the children in Maryland
read? Virginia? South Carolina? Georgia?
> Find out what the central textbook of
>every school age child was (hint: rhymes with Rible).
Gee, all these christian faiths interpreted the Rible the same way?
>If you don't think the legal establishment was not permeated with
>Christianity,
What legal establishment?
> first figure out where the lawyers were trained (see colleges
>listed above) and what books they used as their central texts: Coke (Puritan),
>Hale (Whig), and Blackstone (Anglican). Check out a piece or two from
>Blackstone... the most heavily cited legal writer in the colonies (e.g., http://www.universitylake.org/history/blackstone.html)
I think you, Alison and I have been through this tap dance before.
>If you don't think the domestic institutions were permeated with Christianity
>take a look at wedding vows, daily routines, children's expectations, prayers,
>the town Catechist's role, cases of domestic conflict, idioms, the expected
>etiquette, the mores and manners of the time.
So?
[snipped same old convoluted diatribe dealt with in the past.]
Rick Gardiner
> >stuff. You are being overly presumptuous about my background first.
>
Don't tell me what not to tell another.
> >And what say you of Jefferson's sincerity about human rights?
>
> I think he is about as sincere as Luther was on religious toleration.
On that you and I totally agree. Jefferson's sincerity was at the same
level as Luthers.
Apparently you disagree regarding the level of sincerity.
> >> I haven't said anything about your religious convictions.
> >
> >You wrote: "you're just another religious fanatic."
>
> Well, you are. It walks talks and smells like a duck there is a good
> chance it is one. Ever read your own web site and the reviewers of
> your book.
Thanks for giving it another plug... in case you are suggesting that
others read it to see what a fanatic I am, see
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
> > The fact is that you have
> >absolutely no clue as to what my religious frame of mind is. You are an
> >irresponsible slanderer.
>
> Bwahahahahaha! Pot-Kettle-black. It ceases to amaze me how fast you
> dive into ad hominem attacks with those who disagree with you. Pretty
> soon I may have to assume you are a parody of yourself.
Here's the difference between my ad hominems and yours (which are just
as frequent, if not moreso)-- I routinely provide an abundance of
documented evidence to go with my commentary. Your commentary, on the
other hand, like seen throughout this last response of yours, is nothing
but empty undocumented "ha ha ha... so what... pot kettle black."
Doesn't take much effort, education, or intelligence to post what you
post, and it is apparent to everyone who reads your stuff.
> >> The overstatement is your insistence on bringing everything back to a
> >> Christian source. The evidence is your own writing. Just take the one
> >> statement above - "these people ... provided *the* social milieu which
> >> birthed the United States of America" [emphasis added]. If you'd only say
> >> "a crucial factor in the social milieu", it would be fine. But you have to
> >> say "the social milieu" - and this is where you lose your case by
> >> overstating it.
> >
> >I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
> >ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was birthed.
> >What would you call a "social milieu"?
>
> But it is virtually impossible to tie you down to a birth date.
Conceived in the 17th century, the birthdate was July 4, 1776. And are
you willing to be as forthcoming by providing your suggestion for a
date, without all the double talk and hedging around??
> >If you don't think the colonial educational establishment was permeated with
> >Christianity,
>
> What colonial educational establishment?
The Grammar Schools Tutors, Catechists, and Universities
> > you better go back and read a little history of Harvard, Wm &
> >Mary, Yale, Princeton, etc.,
>
> To what point?
Go read. You'll find that these institutions were Christian seminaries.
> > and then take a look at the Catechisms and the
> >Primers that the school children read.
>
> Did they all read the same ones? What did the children in Maryland
> read? Virginia? South Carolina? Georgia?
If I told you the answer you would ignore it because it would prove my
point even further. I'm not going to be your research assistant. If you
really are trying to prove me wrong, go find the catechisms used in
Maryland, Georgia, etc., and post them here in this forum. I've read the
documents, and I assure you that it will backfire.
But I know you better. You won't make the effort to do the research. You
simply think by just asking the question you prove your case. If you're
trying to be a respectable historian, you have to prove your case with
some evidence.
> > Find out what the central textbook of
> >every school age child was (hint: rhymes with Rible).
>
> Gee, all these christian faiths interpreted the Rible the same way?
Definitely not. Is that supposed to prove that Christianity and the
Bible did not permeate the culture? It doesn't.
> >If you don't think the legal establishment was not permeated with
> >Christianity,
>
> What legal establishment?
The colonial law schools and courts.
> > first figure out where the lawyers were trained (see colleges
> >listed above) and what books they used as their central texts: Coke (Puritan),
> >Hale (Whig), and Blackstone (Anglican). Check out a piece or two from
> >Blackstone... the most heavily cited legal writer in the colonies (e.g., http://www.universitylake.org/history/blackstone.html)
>
> I think you, Alison and I have been through this tap dance before.
Is that supposed to be evidence to prove that what I have said is wrong.
Or is what you mean to say that Alison has proven that Blackstone is not
Federal Law in 1999...duh. That's the essence of the "tap dance" alison
has done. Have you or alison ever given any evidence that Blackstone was
not the most formidable legal source during the founding period. Have
you ever given any evidence that Blackstone's Commentaries did not
promote Christianity? (see
http://www.universitylake.org/history/blackstone.html)
> >If you don't think the domestic institutions were permeated with Christianity
> >take a look at wedding vows, daily routines, children's expectations, prayers,
> >the town Catechist's role, cases of domestic conflict, idioms, the expected
> >etiquette, the mores and manners of the time.
>
> So?
oooo... that's a profound rebuttal.
PaulDanaher
> PaulDanaher wrote:
<snipped>
I have to earn a living for the next 48 hours, so I must ask for so much
grace for the extensive and detailed reply your extensive response requires.
PaulDanaher
But he didn't apply this to people who disagreed with him.
> Luther's views were directly read and repeated by the Puritans such as
John
> Milton, Oliver Cromwell, and a number of other professors and clergymen
who
> provided university leadership during the commonwealth period... the time
when
> John Locke was forming his ideas. Locke latched on to Milton's views on
> freedom of conscience and the importance of faith being a "voluntary"
> commitment to God, rather than a coerced commitment, and Locke published
> LETTERS CONCERNING TOLERATION in which he focused on this important
Protestant idea.
You're now claiming that anybody who read and was influenced by anything
written by a Christian is thereby part of that Christian's following?
You're also playing the Creationists' debating game: whenever you blunder on
one issue, you transfer as quickly as possible to another. Having lost over
Luther, you're rushing off to Locke, hoping to god that there's nobody out
there with the depth of specialisation needed to shoot you down on this.
You're a superficial tapdancer, Gardiner.
> Jefferson and Madison both explicitly wrote how important they believed
> Locke's views on Toleration were, Madison taking it one step further
because
> he didn't like the word "tolerate," since it implied that religion may be
a
> bad thing.
>
> Then Jefferson and Madison wrote such statements as "religion or the duty
> which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be
directed
> only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."
>
> The idea not only reflects Luther's sentiments, in context the genealogy
of
> this idea is demonstrably traceable to Luther. My high school students are
> capable of seeing Jefferson cite Locke, Locke cite Milton, and Milton cite
Luther.
I'm sure they are - when you've shown them. (How old are your students,
BTW?) You're not pretending that they're reading through these authors and
finding all this out for themselves, are you? I thought not.
> > > Exactly my point. Even Luther.
> >
> > I couldn't care less about Luther's private life. Now, if MLK had
preached
> > passive resistance while at the same time advocating taking out the Jews
in
> > the inner cities, that would be a different question.
>
> MLK preached dignity and justice for all, while violating his wife's
dignity
> and covenantal rights as his spouse. But that is very insignificant in
light
> of his greater contributions.
How unusually balanced of you. What would happen if we put your sex life
under a microscope?
Read on.
> Read on, pal. The remainder of I Samuel 15 is all about how upset God was
at
> Saul for not killing all the Amalekites...women, children, sheep. Saul
kept
> them alive for his own purposes. Therefore, in the later part of the
chapter
> Samuel himself comes and confronts Saul in God's name and Samuel himself
kills
> the King of the Amalekites to show Saul that God commissioned the entire
> annihilation of the Amalekites.
Unbelievable. In your haste to prove yourself a master of exegesis and
deliver a killing anti-Semitic blow, you miss the most obvious thing about
the text - not that "Saul left the Amalekites to live", but that he told the
*Kenites* to go away because they had shown kindness to the Israelites. Not
quite 100% right. Or perhaps 100% not right.
> Saul then was rejected by God as King, and in I Samuel 16, God chooses a
> replacement (David) for Saul because Saul wouldn't commit genocide! Saul
goes down
> in history as the disobedient one, the Benedict Arnold of the Jews.
>
> I Samuel 15 is not the only place in which the Jews were told to kill all
of
> the non-Jews. The commission occurs throughout the Pentateuch.
>
> You are out of your league on this one.
"Read on, pal" - "Don't challenge me", - "You're out of your league". Well,
Mister Gardiner, I thought we were discussing history. Instead, you're
offering a shootout at the OT corral. I think you've been teaching (junior?)
high school too long.
Shall we look a little closer at the Amalekites?
"Amalek was the son of Eliphaz and his concubine Timna, and was a grandson
of Esau. He is said to be the ancestor of the Amalekites, the fierce tribe
who attacked the Israelites from the rear on their way to the Promised Land
at the time of the the Exodus from Egypt. The Amalekites became known as the
bitter enemies of the Israelites (Exodus 17:8-16) and came to symbolise the
archetypal enemy of the Jewish people in each generation. The passage
referring to Amalek is read in synagogue on the Shabbat before Purim, and on
Purim the reading of Haman's name is accompanied by loud booing to fulfil
the commandment to blot out the name of Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:19), as Haman
was a descendant of Amalek."
And the Kenites:
"A desert grouping frequenting the wilderness to the west of the Dead Sea
near Moab and formed from the tribes of Midian, their identity is usually
traced to Cain and is sometimes linked with Chovev (Jethro), who lived in
the area.The etymology of their name suggests that they may have been
itinerant metal-workers; Tuval Cain is described as 'a maker of all copper
and iron implements' .The Kenites also pioneered the arts of city-building,
tent- dwelling, herding, agriculture and music (Genesis 4:20-22). They were
included among the early peoples of Canaan together with the Kenizites and
the Kadmonites (Genesis 4:20-22). Their relationship with the Israelites was
generally good until Assyria eventually dominated the entire region: see
Balaam's prophecy at Numbers 24:21. "
> > Let's just look again at these three statements:
> > Rick Gardiner (some of whose best friends are obviously Jews):
> > "you may recall that they [the Jews] actually felt commissioned by God
to
> > kill every non-Jew that breathes, see I Samuel 15:2"
> > I Samuel 15: 2
> > "This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for
what
> > they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt."
> > And, for good measure, Saul in I Samuel 15:6
> > "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with
them;
> > for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of
> > Egypt."
>
> So in your view, Saul is the hero of the story??!! You better go talk to a
Rabbi.
Once again, you miss the meaning of your own point. And I do talk to rabbis.
I even listen to them.
> > > I think that the critiques of Jesus are nonsense, as are the critiques
> > > of Martin Luther King, Jr., as are the critiques of Jefferson, as are
> > > the critiques of MARTIN LUTHER.
> >
> > "Critique" is nice. You've produced a mini-quote which is a major
textual
> > distortion, wrapped it up as a "criticism of the left wing", added a
wanton
> > antiSemitic lie of your own ("[the Jews] actually felt commissioned by
God
> > to kill every non-Jew that breathes"),
>
> A lie of my own, huh?? I didn't realize that I was the author of
Deuteronomy
> 20:16-18, Deuteronomy 7:2, Deuteronomy 25:19, Numbers 31:14-17, Joshua
11:11,
> and I Samuel 15:2 (and don't forget I Samuel 15:19 and 15:24 as well as
> 15:32... you seemed to have overlooked those with your above comments)
The Israelites were much given to fighting, although it's interesting to see
parallel texts from their opponents in the area. (See below.) But let's
start with what you've got here -
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as
an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
17 Completely destroy [1] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.
18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they
do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 7:2 (expanded slightly)
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to
possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites,
Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations
larger and stronger than you--
2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have
defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [1] Make no treaty with
them, and show them no mercy.
Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (again expanded slightly)
17 Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out
of Egypt.
18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut
off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God.
19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in
the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out
the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget
Numbers 31:7-18 (expanded as usual)
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every
man.
8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba--the five kings of
Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.
9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the
Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.
10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as
all their camps.
11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals,
12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the
priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by
the Jordan across from Jericho. [1]
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to
meet them outside the camp.
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of
thousands and commanders of hundreds--who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of
turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that
a plague struck the LORD's people.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Joshuah 11 (let's have the whole chapter here!)
1 When Jabin king of Hazor heard of this, he sent word to Jobab king of
Madon, to the kings of Shimron and Acshaph,
2 and to the northern kings who were in the mountains, in the Arabah south
of Kinnereth, in the western foothills and in Naphoth Dor [1] on the west;
3 to the Canaanites in the east and west; to the Amorites, Hittites,
Perizzites and Jebusites in the hill country; and to the Hivites below
Hermon in the region of Mizpah.
4 They came out with all their troops and a large number of horses and
chariots--a huge army, as numerous as the sand on the seashore.
5 All these kings joined forces and made camp together at the Waters of
Merom, to fight against Israel.
6 The LORD said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid of them, because by this time
tomorrow I will hand all of them over to Israel, slain. You are to hamstring
their horses and burn their chariots."
7 So Joshua and his whole army came against them suddenly at the Waters of
Merom and attacked them,
8 and the LORD gave them into the hand of Israel. They defeated them and
pursued them all the way to Greater Sidon, to Misrephoth Maim, and to the
Valley of Mizpah on the east, until no survivors were left.
9 Joshua did to them as the LORD had directed: He hamstrung their horses and
burned their chariots.
10 At that time Joshua turned back and captured Hazor and put its king to
the sword. (Hazor had been the head of all these kingdoms.)
11 Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed [2] them,
not sparing anything that breathed, and he burned up Hazor itself.
12 Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the
sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had
commanded.
13 Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds--except
Hazor, which Joshua burned.
14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock
of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they
completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed.
15 As the LORD commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and
Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses.
16 So Joshua took this entire land: the hill country, all the Negev, the
whole region of Goshen, the western foothills, the Arabah and the mountains
of Israel with their foothills,
17 from Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir, to Baal Gad in the Valley of
Lebanon below Mount Hermon. He captured all their kings and struck them
down, putting them to death.
18 Joshua waged war against all these kings for a long time.
19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of
peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle.
20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against
Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without
mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
21 At that time Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the hill
country: from Hebron, Debir and Anab, from all the hill country of Judah,
and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua totally destroyed them and
their towns.
22 No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and
Ashdod did any survive.
23 So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and
he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions.
Then the land had rest from war.
1 Samuel 15 (I guess we'd better have the lot here, as well)
1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over
his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD.
2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: `I will punish the Amalekites for
what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [1] everything that
belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and
infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim--two hundred thousand
foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah.
5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine.
6 Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do
not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the
Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from
the Amalekites.
7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the
east of Egypt.
8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally
destroyed with the sword.
9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle,
the fat calves [2] and lambs--everything that was good. These they were
unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak
they totally destroyed.
10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel:
11 "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from
me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he
cried out to the LORD all that night.
12 Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was
told, "Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own
honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal."
13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, "The LORD bless you! I have carried
out the LORD's instructions."
14 But Samuel said, "What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is
this lowing of cattle that I hear?"
15 Saul answered, "The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they
spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God,
but we totally destroyed the rest."
16 "Stop!" Samuel said to Saul. "Let me tell you what the LORD said to me
last night." "Tell me," Saul replied.
17 Samuel said, "Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not
become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over
Israel.
18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, `Go and completely destroy those
wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them
out.'
19 Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do
evil in the eyes of the LORD?"
20 "But I did obey the LORD," Saul said. "I went on the mission the LORD
assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag
their king.
21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was
devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal."
22 But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and
sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better
than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil
of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected
you as king."
24 Then Saul said to Samuel, "I have sinned. I violated the LORD's command
and your instructions. I was afraid of the people and so I gave in to them.
25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may
worship the LORD."
26 But Samuel said to him, "I will not go back with you. You have rejected
the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel!"
27 As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and
it tore.
28 Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you
today and has given it to one of your neighbors--to one better than you.
29 He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is
not a man, that he should change his mind."
30 Saul replied, "I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my
people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD
your God."
31 So Samuel went back with Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD.
32 Then Samuel said, "Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites." Agag came to
him confidently, [3] thinking, "Surely the bitterness of death is past."
33 But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so will your
mother be childless among women." And Samuel put Agag to death before the
LORD at Gilgal.
34 Then Samuel left for Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of
Saul.
35 Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel
mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over
Israel.
First, there's this comment in NIV: [1] The Hebrew term refers to the
irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally
destroying them. Then, there's the point that the Israelites didn't destroy
them all, whether by the Lord's command or not. In the last quote, we see
the Amalekites again, so they can't have got them all first time around, it
seems. It seems some of the Canaanites got away too (Judges 1:27-33)
There are a couple more points to be made here. First, this is how wars seem
to have been fought in those days and in that area. Riedel, Tracy and
Moskowitz, "The Book of the Bible" comments:
Ancient documents from Mesopotamia to Egypt abound in joyous references to
annihilating neighbours - frequently the very same peoples the Bible
mentions. For example in the Amarna letters, the Amorites were said to be
troublesome foes of the house of Egypt's Pharoah and deserves annihilation.
... Officials writing these letters [to Pharaoh] promised to bind all the
Amorites: "a chain of bronze exceedingly heavy shall shackle their feet. ...
and [we shall] not leave one among them."
In any case, we don't have a mandate anywhere here "to kill any non-Jew that
breathes", and I find the present tense here distinctly worrying.
> > added a reference to MLK's private
> > life, dragged in unspecified critiques of Jefferson, and then pretended
that
> > any of this nonsense is on a level with historically buttressed
references
> > to Luther which show clearly that he wanted freedom of conscience to
apply
> > to him and his followers - but not to his opponents.
>
> Don't just shoot from the hip: provide some textual evidence where Luther
said
> freedom of conscience didn't apply to the anabaptists and the peasants! He
> supported the civil authorities in their efforts against the peasants not
> because of their doctrines, but because they went around physically
damaging
> property... it was a civil matter, not an ecclesiastical one.
>
> Go ahead, show me where he says "Anabaptists should be coerced to believe
my
> tenets of faith."
Well, Mister Gardiner, some of us aren't paid for teaching complaisant
children and co-writing superficial books. I've spent a little time on your
OT materials, and they don't substantiate your claim that the Jews believe
they were commanded by God to kill every non-Jew that breathes. I'm not
going to spend the next two days checking through Luther's correspondence -
perhaps someone else in this thread will.
> You can't because he didn't. If you could you would. Bill Clinton sent the
> troops into Kosovo; does that mean Clinton doesn't believe that people in
the
> middle east have the right to freedom of religion?? No. It is a civil
matter.
> The fact that the factions happened to be religious groups is not the
reason
> why Clinton sent the troops.
More Creationist tactics - now we're in Kosovo (which isn't in the Middle
East, by the way) with NATO.
> This is really a quite simple concept to grasp.
But not, it seems, to articulate.
> > > > > So much for Lincoln, Ghandi, Princess Di, and a host of other
worthies
> > > > > whose actions did not always conform to their altruistic
philosophies.
> > > >
> > > > I have no problems with real human beings. Apparently you do.
> > >
> > > I was not the one who cut into Luther for his view of anabaptists.
> >
> > Nor was I. But if Ghandi had persecuted a dissenting group, I'd change
my
> > view of his sincerity.
>
> And what say you of Jefferson's sincerity about human rights?
>
We've had Ghandi, Princes Diana and Lincoln, and you're jumping over to
Jefferson, now. I'm not wasting my time on this, because if I do you'll come
up with another red herring. You're flailing and babbling because you're
wrong on Luther, and all the squid ink and the Biblical verses and the
childish insults can't save you.
Precisely - you're insisting that these people provided the whole context.
The truth is more complex, and you won't admit this.
I do believe it. Can it be that the point is getting through to you too?
> But, was there a
dominant
> culture? Yes there was. Thats where your secular fanaticism has clouded
your
> reasoning. You impose your late 20th century indifference to religion upon
> these people whose world was very different than ours. It's just bad
history
> on your part.
And now you're imposing your misinterpretation of my position - you have no
basis whatever for accusing me of "secular fanaticism" or "late 20th century
indifference to religion". You spread yourself too thin, Mister Gardiner,
and you attribute disagreement or an attempt to restore some balance to
ideological differences. You just don't have what it takes.
> RG
> http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>> >And what say you of Jefferson's sincerity about human rights?
>>
>> I think he is about as sincere as Luther was on religious toleration.
>
>On that you and I totally agree. Jefferson's sincerity was at the same
>level as Luthers.
So much for Luther's religious toleration. I do think, on a personal
level that can't be understood with a modern perspective, that
Jefferson wasn't all that thrilled with the institution of slavery.
Many plantation owners made such assertions. I believe they meant
those assertions. Other realities of their times were also a factor.
One of those was nicely expressed by another favorite of yours,
Lincoln. He tells a joke about two ministers talking about slavery.
One of them throws open the bible to a particular passage and pointed
it out. The other took a 10 dollar gold piece and place it over the
passage and said, "Do you see it now?"
>> >> I haven't said anything about your religious convictions.
>> >
>> >You wrote: "you're just another religious fanatic."
>>
>> Well, you are. It walks talks and smells like a duck there is a good
>> chance it is one. Ever read your own web site and the reviewers of
>> your book.
>
>Thanks for giving it another plug... in case you are suggesting that
>others read it to see what a fanatic I am, see
>http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
I'm impressed with your self abuse because I haven't called you a
fanatic. Paul did. But it is an interesting method you use to put
things said by those who disagree with you into the mouths of others
who disagree with you. Kinda makes it look like all are against you,
doesn't it. <smile>
[snipped unnecessary personal attack LOL]
>> >> The overstatement is your insistence on bringing everything back to a
>> >> Christian source. The evidence is your own writing. Just take the one
>> >> statement above - "these people ... provided *the* social milieu which
>> >> birthed the United States of America" [emphasis added]. If you'd only say
>> >> "a crucial factor in the social milieu", it would be fine. But you have to
>> >> say "the social milieu" - and this is where you lose your case by
>> >> overstating it.
>> >
>> >I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
>> >ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was birthed.
>> >What would you call a "social milieu"?
>>
>> But it is virtually impossible to tie you down to a birth date.
>
>Conceived in the 17th century,
Conceived? What was conceived?
> the birthdate was July 4, 1776.
So we are dismissing the 16th-Century, okay, and now we have this
total colonial idea of a single nation united to fight the mother
country? Are you serious?
> And are
>you willing to be as forthcoming by providing your suggestion for a
>date, without all the double talk and hedging around??
The date of the birth of this nation and the government we have now
was 1787.
>> >If you don't think the colonial educational establishment was permeated with
>> >Christianity,
>>
>> What colonial educational establishment?
>
>The Grammar Schools Tutors, Catechists, and Universities
Sorry, but there was no colonial establishment of these things. There
was no central power that would constitute an establishment of
education.
[snipped a wordy refusal to answer a question because he knows there
isn't one to prove his point.]
>> > Find out what the central textbook of
>> >every school age child was (hint: rhymes with Rible).
>>
>> Gee, all these christian faiths interpreted the Rible the same way?
>
>Definitely not. Is that supposed to prove that Christianity and the
>Bible did not permeate the culture? It doesn't.
No, it really didn't in the manner you want it to. That's the problem.
I'm not willing to make this giant leap in one direction as you are.
Yes, the western culture was mostly Christian. As for protestants
there were many various churches all disagreeing with each other on
about as many issues. There were still atheists. There were Jews.
There were non-Protestants. There was all kinds of protests on a whole
variety of issues both religious and secular. The point I'm trying to
get across is that there wasn't a particular thought that permeated
the culture across the culture other than general sweeping ideas.
>> >If you don't think the legal establishment was not permeated with
>> >Christianity,
>>
>> What legal establishment?
>
>The colonial law schools and courts.
Which were different in every colony.
>> > first figure out where the lawyers were trained (see colleges
>> >listed above) and what books they used as their central texts: Coke (Puritan),
>> >Hale (Whig), and Blackstone (Anglican). Check out a piece or two from
>> >Blackstone... the most heavily cited legal writer in the colonies (e.g., http://www.universitylake.org/history/blackstone.html)
>>
>> I think you, Alison and I have been through this tap dance before.
>
>Is that supposed to be evidence to prove that what I have said is wrong.
Yes.
Kevin Stewart
The Constitution was ratified by the 9th state -- New Hampshire -- on June
21, 1788. Under Article VII, this act put the Constitution into effect.
BTW, don't you think asking "What _______ establishment?" is like asking for
definitions of words. The education/religious/government establishment was
whatever the educational/religious/governmental
system was then in place.
Also, could you perhaps take this off alt.religion.deism as any discussion
of deism has been abandoned.
Whatever they thought then doesn't seem to affect Deist today, except those
with a History bug or interest in "trivia"
Rev. Kevin
Mike Curtis wrote in message ...
snipped
Mike Curtis
>A correction, Mike.
>
>The Constitution was ratified by the 9th state -- New Hampshire -- on June
>21, 1788. Under Article VII, this act put the Constitution into effect.
Okay, that's fine.
>BTW, don't you think asking "What _______ establishment?" is like asking for
>definitions of words. The education/religious/government establishment was
>whatever the educational/religious/governmental
>system was then in place.
My point is that there was no such entity over all the colonies. they
were different from colony to colony. Closer to the truth is that they
were different from county to county if not from town to town.
>Also, could you perhaps take this off alt.religion.deism as any discussion
>of deism has been abandoned.
Okay. After this I'll remove the header.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|A correction, Mike.
>:|
>:|The Constitution was ratified by the 9th state -- New Hampshire -- on June
>:|21, 1788. Under Article VII, this act put the Constitution into effect.
>:|
If you want to split hairs that fine, then the new government didn't go
into effect until Congress met for the first time in March/April 1789.
That was the first government body created by the Constitution to actually
begin its work under that Constitution.
However, September 1787 was when that Constitution was turned over to the
states, and since the states had to accept it as is or reject it as is, in
other words they couldn't modify it, the government it created existed, on
paper, then.
The old government, under the Articles of Confederation, pretty much ceased
when it turned over the Constitution to the states for ratification or
rejection.
It didn't do much after that point in time, frequently didn't have enough
members present to do anything even had they wanted to.
Rick Gardiner
>
> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote in message
> news:3821C69E...@universitylake.org...
> > PaulDanaher wrote:
> > >
> > > Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
> > > > Luther wrote:
> > > >
> > Here's the context:
> >
> > Luther wrote ON SECULAR AUTHORITY, in which he indicated that God REQUIRES
> > that true faith has to be sincere, willful, voluntary, and uncoerced; that
> a
> > person's conscience has to be convinced. Luther said that when the
> government
> > forces someone to believe a religious doctrine against their conscience,
> then
> > the government is actually making the people violate God's command.
>
> But he didn't apply this to people who disagreed with him.
Prove it. Just because he supported various subjugation of groups based upon a
perceived civil harm to society, does not mean that he didn't believe those
people had a right to liberty of conscience in matters of faith. He did, and
until you can show otherwise, your simple fiat to the contrary is just that...
your own invention.
> > Luther's views were directly read and repeated by the Puritans such as
> John
> > Milton, Oliver Cromwell, and a number of other professors and clergymen
> who
> > provided university leadership during the commonwealth period... the time
> when
> > John Locke was forming his ideas. Locke latched on to Milton's views on
> > freedom of conscience and the importance of faith being a "voluntary"
> > commitment to God, rather than a coerced commitment, and Locke published
> > LETTERS CONCERNING TOLERATION in which he focused on this important
> Protestant idea.
>
> You're now claiming that anybody who read and was influenced by anything
> written by a Christian is thereby part of that Christian's following?
Nope. But tracing the genesis of an idea is something historians routinely do.
Edwards was influenced by Locke, Morse by Franklin, Jefferson by Locke, Beza
by Calvin, King by Ghandi, Marx by Hegel, Kant by Hume, the founders by
Montesquieu, Locke by Milton, etc.
These facts are common coin among historical academicians.
I have stated that Jefferson was predominantly influenced by Locke regarding
"Toleration" and "Religiious Liberty," I can show that to you in the primary
sources where Jefferson admits it.
I have stated that Locke was influenced by Milton & the Puritans in the same
manner, and I can
show you with the original texts.
I have stated that Milton was a Puritan who drew from the well of 16th century
theologians: Luther, Calvin, the Vindiciae, etc. That is a fact which is indisputable.
> You're also playing the Creationists' debating game: whenever you blunder on
> one issue, you transfer as quickly as possible to another. Having lost over
> Luther, you're rushing off to Locke, hoping to god that there's nobody out
> there with the depth of specialisation needed to shoot you down on this.
> You're a superficial tapdancer, Gardiner.
Go ahead, make my day. Show me that Jefferson didn't draw on Locke. Show me
that Locke thoughts on Toleration weren't formed by his training under the
Puritans at Westminster during the interregnum. See Winthrop Hudson, “John
Locke: Heir of Puritan Political Theorists,” in Calvinism and the Political
Order. Edited by George L. Hunt. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.
> > My high school students are
> > capable of seeing Jefferson cite Locke, Locke cite Milton, and Milton cite
> Luther.
>
> I'm sure they are - when you've shown them.
The history teacher's job is to point out the facts. If I have fabricated to
my students the fact that Jefferson said he borrowed from Locke, go ahead and
show me. Point out that the manuscrupts of Jefferson's letters in the UVA
library are frauds. I promise you that if you demonstrably show me that they
are frauds I will go into my classes next week and announce that the
information I have given connecting Jefferson to Locke was wrong. I will recant.
But until you can convince me with the texts and with reason, it is neither
safe nor open for me to teach against the facts of history. On this I take my
stand. I can do no other. God help me.
In response to my accurate claime that "the Jews actually felt commissioned by
God to kill every non-Jew that breathes" you have continued to attempt to
refute me in this manner:
> Unbelievable. In your haste to prove yourself a master of exegesis and
> deliver a killing anti-Semitic blow, you miss the most obvious thing about
> the text - not that "Saul left the Amalekites to live", but that he told the
> *Kenites* to go away because they had shown kindness to the Israelites. Not
> quite 100% right. Or perhaps 100% not right.
But you miss the most obvious message of I Samuel 15... All of Saul's actions
are considered an abomination by God.
> The Israelites were much given to fighting, although it's interesting to see
> parallel texts from their opponents in the area. (See below.) But let's
> start with what you've got here -
>
> Deuteronomy 20:16-18
> 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as
> an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
> 17 Completely destroy [1] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
> Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.
> 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they
> do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
>
> Deuteronomy 7:2 (expanded slightly)
> 1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to
> possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girgashites,
> Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations
> larger and stronger than you--
> 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have
> defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [1] Make no treaty with
> them, and show them no mercy.
[snip more of the same]
> First, there's this comment in NIV: [1] The Hebrew term refers to the
> irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally
> destroying them.
Those abusive anti-semitic NIV translators!!!
> Then, there's the point that the Israelites didn't destroy
> them all, whether by the Lord's command or not. In the last quote, we see
> the Amalekites again, so they can't have got them all first time around, it
> seems. It seems some of the Canaanites got away too (Judges 1:27-33)
Everything you said here is true. But if you think that it refutes my
"abusive" claim that the Jews "actually felt commissioned by God to kill every
non-Jew that breathes"
> There are a couple more points to be made here. First, this is how wars seem
> to have been fought in those days and in that area.
It sure was!! So how is my statement that "they actually felt commissioned by
God to kill every non-Jew that breathes" an invention of my mind and an
abusive interpretation of the text??
> Riedel, Tracy and
> Moskowitz, "The Book of the Bible" comments:
> Ancient documents from Mesopotamia to Egypt abound in joyous references to
> annihilating neighbours - frequently the very same peoples the Bible
> mentions. For example in the Amarna letters, the Amorites were said to be
> troublesome foes of the house of Egypt's Pharoah and deserves annihilation.
You are correct sir! Are you ready to apologize for calling me an anti-semite
for just telling you the facts of Ancient History?
> In any case, we don't have a mandate anywhere here "to kill any non-Jew that
> breathes", and I find the present tense here distinctly worrying.
PRESENT TENSE!!!! Go back and read my damned posts, you liar and slanderer! I
said, again and again,
"they actually **FELT** commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew that breathes."
Let me give you a little English grammar lesson pal.
present tense=FEEL
future tense=WILL FEEL
past tense=FELT
For more on grammar see, HARBRACE & HARCOURT's handbook on WRITING.
Now, quiz one: If I say, The Jews FELT commissioned by God, what tense am I using?
So, let's look again at the conflict--
I said, "the Jews actually felt commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew that
breathes" to which you called me "abusive," "anti-semitic," "religious
fanatic," and a host of other slanderous things
Then we read this from the Hebrew Pentateuch--
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as
an inheritance, DO NOT LEAVE ALIVE ANYTHING THAT BREATHES.
17 Completely destroy [1] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.
18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they
do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
And now you're attempting to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid
admitting your slanderous behavior.
All you really had to do was admit that, in your ignorance of the Bible, you
made a mistake, and I really would have been very understanding. Most people
are quite unfamiliar with the fact that God sanctioned genocide in Deuteronomy 20.
Just be honest. It's called integrity, it will really feel good if you try it.
Don't be so worried about saving face. You don't have to be right all the time.
> > Go ahead, show me where he says "Anabaptists should be coerced to believe
> my
> > tenets of faith."
>
> Well, Mister Gardiner, some of us aren't paid for teaching complaisant
> children and co-writing superficial books. I've spent a little time on your
> OT materials, and they don't substantiate your claim that the Jews believe
> they were commanded by God to kill every non-Jew that breathes.
Let the reader Judge--
Deuteronomy 20:16-18
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as
an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
17 Completely destroy [1] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.
18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they
do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
I guess you have a point there. The text doesn't mention anything about
Eskimos or Japanese people.
> I'm not
> going to spend the next two days checking through Luther's correspondence -
> perhaps someone else in this thread will.
It will be just as embarassing to you, or whoever does it, as your research
about God commanding genocide in the OT.
> You're flailing and babbling because you're
> wrong on Luther, and all the squid ink and the Biblical verses and the
> childish insults can't save you.
I have provided Luther's textual evidence where he forcefully made a case for
"liberty of conscience." You have said that Luther did not grant that to the
Peasants, anabaptists, Jews, etc. You base this on the fact that Luther
sanctioned the Civil Government's putting down of the anabaptist rebellion.
That is a non-sequitir (you may have to look up what that means)
To prove your claim logically you need to show where Luther admitted that
liberty of conscience in matters of faith should not be granted to anyone who
disagreed with him. That was your claim in a previous post.
Go ahead. Make my day. Prove this with something substantive.
You have taken a diversion on God commanding Genocide in the OT and you have
been demonstrably in error; now you proclaim, by fiat and without any
evidence, that I am "wrong about Luther."
Do yourself a favor, quit while youre ahead.
> > I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
> > ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was
> birthed.
> > What would you call a "social milieu"?
>
> Precisely - you're insisting that these people provided the whole context.
> The truth is more complex, and you won't admit this.
Did you read what I said? I said that Christianity provided the DOMINANT
social milieu: go back and look at the thread. You are implying that I have no
knowledge about the influence of Classical, native american, and Deistic
influences. Believe me, I know about the peripheral influences on the culture.
You are building a strawman which isn't there. If you want to prove that
Christianity did not provide the dominant socio-cultural milieu, then provide
your evidence, and I will be glad to engage you; if all you want to say is
that Christianity was not the SOLO factor in the American Colonies, then I
have no contention or response.
> > Were there other influences? You better believe it!
>
> I do believe it. Can it be that the point is getting through to you too?
When have I EVER said that there were no other influences??
> > But, was there a
> dominant
> > culture? Yes there was. Thats where your secular fanaticism has clouded
> your
> > reasoning. You impose your late 20th century indifference to religion upon
> > these people whose world was very different than ours. It's just bad
> history
> > on your part.
>
> And now you're imposing your misinterpretation of my position - you have no
> basis whatever for accusing me of "secular fanaticism" or "late 20th century
> indifference to religion". You spread yourself too thin, Mister Gardiner,
> and you attribute disagreement or an attempt to restore some balance to
> ideological differences. You just don't have what it takes
But I do use evidence, data, and sources. That is what separates you and me;
all you do is pontificate without any evidence.
Mike Curtis
>PaulDanaher wrote:
>>
>> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote in message
>> news:3821C69E...@universitylake.org...
>> > PaulDanaher wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
>> > > > Luther wrote:
>> > > >
>> You're now claiming that anybody who read and was influenced by anything
>> written by a Christian is thereby part of that Christian's following?
>
>Nope. But tracing the genesis of an idea is something historians routinely do.
>Edwards was influenced by Locke, Morse by Franklin, Jefferson by Locke, Beza
>by Calvin, King by Ghandi, Marx by Hegel, Kant by Hume, the founders by
>Montesquieu, Locke by Milton, etc.
Simplistic, Gardiner.
Initially I'll begin with Willard Sterne Randall's biography on page
273-275:
. . . , Jefferson dipped back beyond all the years of reading and
rewriting dusty legalisms to the clarity of thinking and prose of his
college years. As the format for his declaration, he decided to use
the powerful, succinct logic of his Scottish schoolmaster, Mr.. Small,
. . . . Small was the student of William Duncan of Aberdeen, whose
two-volume _The Elements of Logic_ had been published in London with
an introduction by Samuel Johnson. The book was the best known work of
logic in English at the time of the education of members of the Second
Continental Congress. Jefferson owned a copy of Duncan's work, which
appeared in the second volume of Thomas Dodley's _The Preceptor in
1748. Professor of moral, natural, and experimental philosophy at
Marischal College, Aberdeen, from 1752 to 1760, Duncan was honored by
his graduates in 1755 . . . . William Small was one of these students.
Later, in instructing Jefferson in rhetoric and logic at William and
Mary, Small very likely taught from Duncan's book of logic, "the proof
of a proposition," by "a series of syllogism, collecting that
proposition from known to evident truths," as well as "self-evident
propositions." Duncan's *Logic* was widely used when arguments were
supposed to achieve the authority of science. Jefferson's structure of
the Declaration follows Duncan's dictum, "If therefore evident and
allowed truths are disposed in a syllogistic order, so as to offer a
regular conclusion, that conclusion is necessarily true and valid."
. . . . Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was one of the early
attempts at political science. He managed masterfully to construct an
elegant political argument according to the rules of science.
[ . . .] His choice of words "pursuit of happiness" over John Locke's
"property" marked a sharp break with the Whig doctrine of English
middle-class property rights.
. . ., Jefferson asserted the rule of right reason that philosophers
since Thomas Aquinas had taken volumes to argue, then plunged n to
posit the doctrine, at the heart of the English revolutions of the
seventeenth century, that as John Knox had put it, "resistance to
tyrants is obedience to Gods."
[Interesting that they cut out Jefferson's condemnation of the slave
trade.]
>These facts are common coin among historical academicians.
Facts? Not in the way you present them.
>I have stated that Jefferson was predominantly influenced by Locke regarding
>"Toleration" and "Religiious Liberty," I can show that to you in the primary
>sources where Jefferson admits it.
He was also well read in several other philosophical authors other
than Locke as we have discussed before. But you go ahead and pretend
none of those discussions took place.
>> You're also playing the Creationists' debating game: whenever you blunder on
>> one issue, you transfer as quickly as possible to another. Having lost over
>> Luther, you're rushing off to Locke, hoping to god that there's nobody out
>> there with the depth of specialisation needed to shoot you down on this.
>> You're a superficial tapdancer, Gardiner.
>
>Go ahead, make my day. Show me that Jefferson didn't draw on Locke.
Some of it was Locke. Some of it was Sydney and Hutcheson. Some was
Bolingbroke who was a particular favorite of Jefferson.
>> There are a couple more points to be made here. First, this is how wars seem
>> to have been fought in those days and in that area.
>
>It sure was!! So how is my statement that "they actually felt commissioned by
>God to kill every non-Jew that breathes" an invention of my mind and an
>abusive interpretation of the text??
I'm watching this discussion with interest.
>> In any case, we don't have a mandate anywhere here "to kill any non-Jew that
>> breathes", and I find the present tense here distinctly worrying.
>
>PRESENT TENSE!!!! Go back and read my damned posts, you liar and slanderer! I
>said, again and again,
>"they actually **FELT** commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew that breathes."
LOL! This is great!!
>> > I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
>> > ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was
>> birthed.
>> > What would you call a "social milieu"?
>>
>> Precisely - you're insisting that these people provided the whole context.
>> The truth is more complex, and you won't admit this.
>
>Did you read what I said? I said that Christianity provided the DOMINANT
>social milieu:
Which is meaningless if one looks at the progress of legal and social
history in this country.
Rick Gardiner
>
> >> >> I haven't said anything about your religious convictions.
> >> >
> >> >You wrote: "you're just another religious fanatic."
> >>
> >> Well, you are. It walks talks and smells like a duck there is a good
> >> chance it is one. Ever read your own web site and the reviewers of
> >> your book.
> >
> >Thanks for giving it another plug... in case you are suggesting that
> >others read it to see what a fanatic I am, see
> >http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
>
> I'm impressed with your self abuse because I haven't called you a
> fanatic.
Mike, you're doing it again: denying what is right in front of your face.
Above I said to Paul, "You wrote: 'you're just another religious fanatic'"
And then you, Mike Curtis, not Paul, not alison, but you, Mike Curtis wrote:
"Well, you are."
Now what did you mean by that? You are.... what? a cat? a dog? a great man?
You know that the ordinary common sensical reader knows good and well the
import of the statement "Well, you are" just after the words "you said I was a
religious fanatic." You said that I was a religious fanatic. It is silly that
you are now denying it.
This is all really peripheral to the substance of the discussion, but it does
illustrate how you routinely deny the words that are right in front of your
face. You not only do it in these forums, but you do it with the historical
documents that are placed in front of you as well.
The beauty of forums and historical documents is that the words are recorded
for all the world to see. You can't get away with lying and denying very long
before the person of sound judgment calls you on it.
Perhaps you simply need to read what you write, and what you read, more
carefully. It would save you from so much public humiliation.
> But it is an interesting method you use to put
> things said by those who disagree with you into the mouths of others
> who disagree with you. Kinda makes it look like all are against you,
> doesn't it. <smile>
When you deny saying "well, you are" when the words are just two or three
lines above you in the post, it kinda makes it look like you're a 97 year old
man with alzheimer's, doesn't it? <smile>
> >> >> The overstatement is your insistence on bringing everything back to a
> >> >> Christian source. The evidence is your own writing. Just take the one
> >> >> statement above - "these people ... provided *the* social milieu which
> >> >> birthed the United States of America" [emphasis added]. If you'd only say
> >> >> "a crucial factor in the social milieu", it would be fine. But you have to
> >> >> say "the social milieu" - and this is where you lose your case by
> >> >> overstating it.
> >> >
> >> >I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
> >> >ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was birthed.
> >> >What would you call a "social milieu"?
> >>
> >> But it is virtually impossible to tie you down to a birth date.
> >
> >Conceived in the 17th century,
>
> Conceived? What was conceived?
The idea of a federal union based on the principles of Protestant Social
Contract theory: the consent of the governed, checks & balances, three
branches of government, a representative (presbyterian) legislature, etc.
> > the birthdate was July 4, 1776.
>
> So we are dismissing the 16th-Century,
I said the conception took place in the 17th century, the 16th century is not
dismissed, it is instead the period of "foreplay" :)
> okay, and now we have this
> total colonial idea of a single nation united to fight the mother
> country? Are you serious?
The idea of "Uniting" Colonies was definitely present as early as 1643 (see http://www.universitylake.org/history/1643.html)
The idea of rebelling against royal authorities certainly appeared in various
parts of America as early as 1676 (see
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1651-1700/bacon_rebel/bacon.htm), and definitely
by the time of the Revolution of 1688 (e.g., Leisler's Rebellion).
> > And are
> >you willing to be as forthcoming by providing your suggestion for a
> >date, without all the double talk and hedging around??
>
> The date of the birth of this nation and the government we have now
> was 1787.
Too bad somebody didn't tell Lincoln that in 1863... three score and six????
years later. Someone ought to tell the local municipalities that Sept. 17 is
the right day for the fireworks, too.
> >> >If you don't think the colonial educational establishment was permeated with
> >> >Christianity,
> >>
> >> What colonial educational establishment?
> >
> >The Grammar Schools Tutors, Catechists, and Universities
>
> Sorry, but there was no colonial establishment of these things. There
> was no central power that would constitute an establishment of
> education.
(see Kevin Stewart's response and I say ditto)
> There were still atheists.
I am really interested in this. I have never been able to come across any
colonial American atheists. Could you perhaps help me? Not even Thomas Morton
of Merrymount or any of those accused of witchery at Salem qualify as
"atheists." I'd like to find some documented evidence of atheism so that I can
include that document on my website... just to be balanced :)
I just can't find any. Please help.
> >> >If you don't think the legal establishment was not permeated with
> >> >Christianity,
> >>
> >> What legal establishment?
> >
> >The colonial law schools and courts.
>
> Which were different in every colony.
All of the British colonies adopted the British common law in their judicial
processes. As you have indicated with some secondary citations, some went over
and above the common law and added Biblical law; but I know of no colony in
which the British common law was rejected. Again, if you can cite a document
which supports your claim, I'd really be interested.
> >> I think you, Alison and I have been through this tap dance before.
> >
> >Is that supposed to be evidence to prove that what I have said is wrong.
>
> Yes.
Can you say "non-sequitir."
David Letterman is on TV tonight, therefore, Mike Curtis is a moron.
Guess that proves it.
Rick Gardiner
>
> BTW, don't you think asking "What _______ establishment?" is like asking for
> definitions of words. The education/religious/government establishment was
> whatever the educational/religious/governmental
> system was then in place.
Excellent point.
> Also, could you perhaps take this off alt.religion.deism as any discussion
> of deism has been abandoned.
Perhaps that's because the title of this thread is "Deism's part in American
Revolution" which was first typed by Robert Johnson, but since deism's part is
so insignificant, there really isn't much to say about deism in this regard.
Thus, we have been discussing that which really had a part in the American Revolution.
Rick Gardiner
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> Simplistic, Gardiner.
>
> Initially I'll begin with Willard Sterne Randall's biography on page
> 273-275:
I'm now expecting some refutation of my claim that Jefferson looked to Locke
for his views of Toleration and Religious Liberty--
> . . . , Jefferson dipped back beyond all the years of reading and
> rewriting dusty legalisms to the clarity of thinking and prose of his
> college years. As the format for his declaration, he decided to use
> the powerful, succinct logic of his Scottish schoolmaster, Mr.. Small,
> . . . . Small was the student of William Duncan of Aberdeen, whose
> two-volume _The Elements of Logic_ had been published in London with
> an introduction by Samuel Johnson. The book was the best known work of
> logic in English at the time of the education of members of the Second
> Continental Congress. Jefferson owned a copy of Duncan's work, which
> appeared in the second volume of Thomas Dodley's _The Preceptor in
> 1748
Nope, not there. As a matter of fact, this particular take on Jefferson's
sources is out of date. The more recent literature states:
"In seeking to account for the argumentative structure of the Declaration,
Wilbur Howell argued that it resulted from Jefferson's effort to emulate the
model for scientific proof set for in William Duncan's ELEMENTS OF LOGICK, a
leading logical treatise of its day... In support of his argument, Howell
notes that Jefferson owned a copy of Duncan's Logick and may have studied it
while he was a student...
Although often cited by historians and other students of the Declaration,
Howell's argument does not hold up under close scrutiny. For one thing, we are
not certain that Duncan's Logick was part of the curriculum at William and
Mary while Jefferson was in attendance. Even if it were, it strains credulity
to believe that Jefferson, a mature man of thirty-three years facing the most
important writing job of his life, would have adhered slavishly to a
rhetorical formula he had studied years before as a schoolboy. More important,
upon close examination it becomes clear that the Declaration does not in fact
fit the method for scientific reasoning recommended in Duncan's
Logick...[followed by a lengthy analysis of Duncan's approach and Jefferson's]
If we are to account for the argumentative structure of the Declaration,
then, we shall have to look someplace other than Duncan's ELEMENTS OF LOGICK"
Stephen Lucas, "The Rhetorical Ancestry of the Declaration of Independence" in
RHETORIC AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, (1998) p. 160-161.
> Professor of moral, natural, and experimental philosophy at
> Marischal College, Aberdeen, from 1752 to 1760, Duncan was honored by
> his graduates in 1755 . . . . William Small was one of these students.
> Later, in instructing Jefferson in rhetoric and logic at William and
> Mary, Small very likely taught from Duncan's book of logic, "the proof
> of a proposition," by "a series of syllogism, collecting that
> proposition from known to evident truths," as well as "self-evident
> propositions." Duncan's *Logic* was widely used when arguments were
> supposed to achieve the authority of science. Jefferson's structure of
> the Declaration follows Duncan's dictum, "If therefore evident and
> allowed truths are disposed in a syllogistic order, so as to offer a
> regular conclusion, that conclusion is necessarily true and valid."
Nothing there yet about Jefferson not drawing his views on toleration from Locke.
> . . . . Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was one of the early
> attempts at political science. He managed masterfully to construct an
> elegant political argument according to the rules of science.
Nothing there yet about Jefferson not drawing his views on toleration from Locke.
> [ . . .] His choice of words "pursuit of happiness" over John Locke's
> "property" marked a sharp break with the Whig doctrine of English
> middle-class property rights.
Nothing there yet about Jefferson not drawing his views on toleration from
Locke. Actually, it is conclusively agreed that he took the term "pursuit of
happiness" from George Mason (see http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/independence/virdor.htm)
> . . ., Jefferson asserted the rule of right reason that philosophers
> since Thomas Aquinas had taken volumes to argue, then plunged n to
> posit the doctrine, at the heart of the English revolutions of the
> seventeenth century, that as John Knox had put it, "resistance to
> tyrants is obedience to Gods."
Nothing there yet about Jefferson not drawing his views on toleration from
Locke. Additionally, your author wrongly identifies the origination of
Jefferson's motto: "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God," which,
according to Jefferson himself, he drew from the Puritan regicides of 1649
(see Jefferson to Edward Everett, 2/24/1823), not John Knox.
> >These facts are common coin among historical academicians.
>
> Facts? Not in the way you present them.
Which connection are you disputing? Jefferson and Locke? Hegel and Marx?
Gandhi and King?
> >I have stated that Jefferson was predominantly influenced by Locke regarding
> >"Toleration" and "Religiious Liberty," I can show that to you in the primary
> >sources where Jefferson admits it.
>
> He was also well read in several other philosophical authors other
> than Locke as we have discussed before. But you go ahead and pretend
> none of those discussions took place.
I never said that Jefferson did not read a lot of books. There's no question
that he did. What I said is, and please read carefully because you have a
problem with that: "Jefferson was PREDOMINANTLY influenced by Locke regarding
Toleration and Religious Liberty.
Why did I say this? Because Jefferson himself did. For example, when asked
what are the best books on religion, the first that Jefferson recommended was
Locke's (see e.g., his letter to Robert Skipwith, 8/3/1771)
> >Go ahead, make my day. Show me that Jefferson didn't draw on Locke.
>
> Some of it was Locke. Some of it was Sydney and Hutcheson.
Sydney and Hutcheson, yes!! And you think those guys are going to get you
farther away from a Calvinist origin!!!
> Some was
> Bolingbroke who was a particular favorite of Jefferson.
Granted. Some.
> >> There are a couple more points to be made here. First, this is how wars seem
> >> to have been fought in those days and in that area.
> >
> >It sure was!! So how is my statement that "they actually felt commissioned by
> >God to kill every non-Jew that breathes" an invention of my mind and an
> >abusive interpretation of the text??
>
> I'm watching this discussion with interest.
Me, too.
> >> In any case, we don't have a mandate anywhere here "to kill any non-Jew that
> >> breathes", and I find the present tense here distinctly worrying.
> >
> >PRESENT TENSE!!!! Go back and read my damned posts, you liar and slanderer! I
> >said, again and again,
> >"they actually **FELT** commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew that breathes."
>
> LOL! This is great!!
I note that you don't dare to dive in and say that Deuteronomy does not
portray a God who commands genocide. Even you are too smart for taking that tack.
> >> > I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
> >> > ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was
> >> birthed.
> >> > What would you call a "social milieu"?
> >>
> >> Precisely - you're insisting that these people provided the whole context.
> >> The truth is more complex, and you won't admit this.
> >
> >Did you read what I said? I said that Christianity provided the DOMINANT
> >social milieu:
>
> Which is meaningless if one looks at the progress of legal and social
> history in this country.
There's the alison echo: if it doesnt affect the supreme court today, it's not
worth talking about.
RG
http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
I see you've been doing a bit more reading, Mike. Good stuff. Keep it up,
perhaps you might eventually be disabused of your alisonianism.
PaulDanaher
Yes.
> I have stated that Jefferson was predominantly influenced by Locke
regarding
> "Toleration" and "Religiious Liberty," I can show that to you in the
primary
> sources where Jefferson admits it.
>
> I have stated that Locke was influenced by Milton & the Puritans in the
same
> manner, and I can
> show you with the original texts.
No need.
> I have stated that Milton was a Puritan who drew from the well of 16th
century
> theologians: Luther, Calvin, the Vindiciae, etc. That is a fact which is
indisputable.
Who's arguing with facts?
> > You're also playing the Creationists' debating game: whenever you
blunder on
> > one issue, you transfer as quickly as possible to another. Having lost
over
> > Luther, you're rushing off to Locke, hoping to god that there's nobody
out
> > there with the depth of specialisation needed to shoot you down on this.
> > You're a superficial tapdancer, Gardiner.
>
> Go ahead, make my day. Show me that Jefferson didn't draw on Locke. Show
me
> that Locke thoughts on Toleration weren't formed by his training under the
> Puritans at Westminster during the interregnum. See Winthrop Hudson, "John
> Locke: Heir of Puritan Political Theorists," in Calvinism and the
Political
> Order. Edited by George L. Hunt. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.
You won't listen to this, or understand it, but it has to be said. Nobody's
denying these *potntial* influences. We *are* denying that these were the
dominant influences for these people. As this thread shows, I can read and
quote the Bible, and I've read about the OT from the Jewish point of view.
I've worked as a cantor (Reformed synagogue, of course), and I was a
resident chorister for High Church (CofE), Roman Catholic (Latin rite)
churches. But I'm an atheist.
> > > My high school students are
> > > capable of seeing Jefferson cite Locke, Locke cite Milton, and Milton
cite
> > Luther.
> >
> > I'm sure they are - when you've shown them.
>
> The history teacher's job is to point out the facts. If I have fabricated
to
> my students the fact that Jefferson said he borrowed from Locke, go ahead
and
> show me. Point out that the manuscrupts of Jefferson's letters in the UVA
> library are frauds. I promise you that if you demonstrably show me that
they
> are frauds I will go into my classes next week and announce that the
> information I have given connecting Jefferson to Locke was wrong. I will
recant.
This isn't the point - see above, if necessary.
> But until you can convince me with the texts and with reason, it is
neither
> safe nor open for me to teach against the facts of history. On this I take
my
> stand. I can do no other. God help me.
God help us all ...
> In response to my accurate claime that "the Jews actually felt
commissioned by
> God to kill every non-Jew that breathes" you have continued to attempt to
> refute me in this manner:
You have the most firmly closed mind I've met. The thought of you teaching
students is truly horrible.
> > Unbelievable. In your haste to prove yourself a master of exegesis and
> > deliver a killing anti-Semitic blow, you miss the most obvious thing
about
> > the text - not that "Saul left the Amalekites to live", but that he told
the
> > *Kenites* to go away because they had shown kindness to the Israelites.
Not
> > quite 100% right. Or perhaps 100% not right.
>
> But you miss the most obvious message of I Samuel 15... All of Saul's
actions
> are considered an abomination by God.
You insist on snipping things out of context.
> > The Israelites were much given to fighting, although it's interesting to
see
> > parallel texts from their opponents in the area. (See below.) But let's
> > start with what you've got here -
> >
> > Deuteronomy 20:16-18
<snipped>
> > Deuteronomy 7:2 (expanded slightly)
<snipped>
> > First, there's this comment in NIV: [1] The Hebrew term refers to the
> > irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by
totally
> > destroying them.
>
> Those abusive anti-semitic NIV translators!!!
I don't duck the hard texts - my point here is "often". You're insisting on
your original formulation "every non-Jew that breathes".
> > Then, there's the point that the Israelites didn't destroy
> > them all, whether by the Lord's command or not. In the last quote, we
see
> > the Amalekites again, so they can't have got them all first time around,
it
> > seems. It seems some of the Canaanites got away too (Judges 1:27-33)
>
> Everything you said here is true. But if you think that it refutes my
> "abusive" claim that the Jews "actually felt commissioned by God to kill
every
> non-Jew that breathes"
It does.
> > There are a couple more points to be made here. First, this is how wars
seem
> > to have been fought in those days and in that area.
>
> It sure was!! So how is my statement that "they actually felt commissioned
by
> God to kill every non-Jew that breathes" an invention of my mind and an
> abusive interpretation of the text??
It's a difficult element in the OT. Using it to manufacture your
anti-Semitic slogan is perverting Scripture to your own ends.
> > Riedel, Tracy and
> > Moskowitz, "The Book of the Bible" comments:
> > Ancient documents from Mesopotamia to Egypt abound in joyous references
to
> > annihilating neighbours - frequently the very same peoples the Bible
> > mentions. For example in the Amarna letters, the Amorites were said to
be
> > troublesome foes of the house of Egypt's Pharoah and deserves
annihilation.
>
> You are correct sir! Are you ready to apologize for calling me an
anti-semite
> for just telling you the facts of Ancient History?
No, because that's not the basis of the accusation.
> > In any case, we don't have a mandate anywhere here "to kill any non-Jew
that
> > breathes", and I find the present tense here distinctly worrying.
>
> PRESENT TENSE!!!! Go back and read my damned posts, you liar and
slanderer! I
> said, again and again,
> "they actually **FELT** commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew that
breathes."
Are you blind? You'e just written yet again "commissioned by God to kill
every non-Jew that **BREATHES**". "Liar and slanderer"??
> Let me give you a little English grammar lesson pal.
>
> present tense=FEEL
> future tense=WILL FEEL
> past tense=FELT
>
> For more on grammar see, HARBRACE & HARCOURT's handbook on WRITING.
>
> Now, quiz one: If I say, The Jews FELT commissioned by God, what tense am
I using?
For this verb, the past tense. I have several grammars in my library, along
with various style guides. Bt I'm sure that Harbrace & Harcourt agree that
"breathes" is the present tense.
> So, let's look again at the conflict--
>
> I said, "the Jews actually felt commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew
that
> breathes" to which you called me "abusive," "anti-semitic," "religious
> fanatic," and a host of other slanderous things
I've explained the "religious fanatic" label, which had and has nothing to
do with this. "Abusive" also refers to something else. This is dreadful
stuff, Mister Gardiner - pulling things out of context and throwing them
together. I feel tempted to point to the Goebbels model for this kind of
discourse, but that would just add another red herring to the shoal (NOT
"shoa", just in case).
> Then we read this from the Hebrew Pentateuch--
>
> Deuteronomy 20:16-18
> 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you
as
> an inheritance, DO NOT LEAVE ALIVE ANYTHING THAT BREATHES.
> 17 Completely destroy [1] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
> Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.
> 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they
> do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
>
> And now you're attempting to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid
> admitting your slanderous behavior.
>
> All you really had to do was admit that, in your ignorance of the Bible,
you
> made a mistake, and I really would have been very understanding. Most
people
> are quite unfamiliar with the fact that God sanctioned genocide in
Deuteronomy 20.
>
> Just be honest. It's called integrity, it will really feel good if you try
it.
> Don't be so worried about saving face. You don't have to be right all the
time.
It's called mining the Old Testament for anti-Semitic texts, Mister
Gardiner. See below.
> > > Go ahead, show me where he says "Anabaptists should be coerced to
believe
> > my
> > > tenets of faith."
> >
> > Well, Mister Gardiner, some of us aren't paid for teaching complaisant
> > children and co-writing superficial books. I've spent a little time on
your
> > OT materials, and they don't substantiate your claim that the Jews
believe
> > they were commanded by God to kill every non-Jew that breathes.
>
> Let the reader Judge--
>
> Deuteronomy 20:16-18
> 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you
as
> an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
> 17 Completely destroy [1] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
> Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.
> 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they
> do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
You've just quoted that. Now let's go back a couple of verses to Deuteronomy
20:10-12
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be
subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to
that city.
Let the reader judge indeed!
> I guess you have a point there. The text doesn't mention anything about
> Eskimos or Japanese people.
Or "every non-Jew that breathes".
> > I'm not
> > going to spend the next two days checking through Luther's
correspondence -
> > perhaps someone else in this thread will.
>
> It will be just as embarassing to you, or whoever does it, as your
research
> about God commanding genocide in the OT.
Well, you've shown that you're incapable of embarrassment.
> > You're flailing and babbling because you're
> > wrong on Luther, and all the squid ink and the Biblical verses and the
> > childish insults can't save you.
>
> I have provided Luther's textual evidence where he forcefully made a case
for
> "liberty of conscience." You have said that Luther did not grant that to
the
> Peasants, anabaptists, Jews, etc. You base this on the fact that Luther
> sanctioned the Civil Government's putting down of the anabaptist
rebellion.
>
> That is a non-sequitir (you may have to look up what that means)
I don't have to look it up to know what it means OR how to spell it.
> To prove your claim logically you need to show where Luther admitted that
> liberty of conscience in matters of faith should not be granted to anyone
who
> disagreed with him. That was your claim in a previous post.
>
> Go ahead. Make my day. Prove this with something substantive.
>
> You have taken a diversion on God commanding Genocide in the OT and you
have
> been demonstrably in error; now you proclaim, by fiat and without any
> evidence, that I am "wrong about Luther."
>
> Do yourself a favor, quit while youre ahead.
I am.
> > > I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
> > > ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was
> > birthed.
> > > What would you call a "social milieu"?
> >
> > Precisely - you're insisting that these people provided the whole
context.
> > The truth is more complex, and you won't admit this.
>
> Did you read what I said? I said that Christianity provided the DOMINANT
> social milieu: go back and look at the thread.
No - you go back and look at the thread and what you yourself wrote. You'll
find this:
> The fact remains that these people, with all their flaws and foibles,
> their bad deeds (which you think trump their profound contributions)
> provided the social milieu which birthed the United States of America.
> That is the gist of what I have been attempting to convey. Nothing more,
> nothing less.
Just to remind you, that's "provided the social milieu". Now, you might
'wish' you'd written "the DOMINANT social milieu", but that's actually what
I told you that you *should* have written.
> You are implying that I have no
> knowledge about the influence of Classical, native american, and Deistic
> influences. Believe me, I know about the peripheral influences on the
culture.
> You are building a strawman which isn't there. If you want to prove that
> Christianity did not provide the dominant socio-cultural milieu, then
provide
> your evidence, and I will be glad to engage you; if all you want to say is
> that Christianity was not the SOLO factor in the American Colonies, then I
> have no contention or response.
I'm not implying anything of the kind. I'm stating that you don't give these
enough credit in your simplistic and single-minded argument.
> > > Were there other influences? You better believe it!
> >
> > I do believe it. Can it be that the point is getting through to you too?
>
> When have I EVER said that there were no other influences??
Since you don't remember what you wrote and have edited it mentally and
physically to this degree, there's no point in continuing this exchange with
irrationality.
> > > But, was there a
> > dominant
> > > culture? Yes there was. Thats where your secular fanaticism has
clouded
> > your
> > > reasoning. You impose your late 20th century indifference to religion
upon
> > > these people whose world was very different than ours. It's just bad
> > history
> > > on your part.
> >
> > And now you're imposing your misinterpretation of my position - you have
no
> > basis whatever for accusing me of "secular fanaticism" or "late 20th
century
> > indifference to religion". You spread yourself too thin, Mister
Gardiner,
> > and you attribute disagreement or an attempt to restore some balance to
> > ideological differences. You just don't have what it takes
>
> But I do use evidence, data, and sources. That is what separates you and
me;
> all you do is pontificate without any evidence.
Goodbye, Mister Gardiner. You're a troll in alt.history.colonial, which is
where I found you, and I've wasted quite enough time on you.
> RG
> http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Rick Gardiner
>
[snipped everything lacking substance in your response]
> > > In any case, we don't have a mandate anywhere here "to kill any non-Jew
> that
> > > breathes", and I find the present tense here distinctly worrying.
> >
> > PRESENT TENSE!!!! Go back and read my damned posts, you liar and
> slanderer! I
> > said, again and again,
> > "they actually **FELT** commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew that
> breathes."
>
> Are you blind? You'e just written yet again "commissioned by God to kill
> every non-Jew that **BREATHES**". "Liar and slanderer"??
Socrates felt he should teach every young man who breathes...
Present tense or past tense, dunce?
John Winthrop felt he should hang every witch that breathes...
Present tense or past tense, dunce?
Hariet Tubman felt she should attempt to free every slave that breathes...
Present tense or past tense, dunce?
> > Let me give you a little English grammar lesson pal.
> >
> > present tense=FEEL
> > future tense=WILL FEEL
> > past tense=FELT
> >
> > For more on grammar see, HARBRACE & HARCOURT's handbook on WRITING.
> >
> > Now, quiz one: If I say, The Jews FELT commissioned by God, what tense am
> I using?
>
> For this verb, the past tense. I have several grammars in my library, along
> with various style guides. Bt I'm sure that Harbrace & Harcourt agree that
> "breathes" is the present tense.
Harbrace and harcourt will tell you that in the sentence above "breathes" is
not the predication of the sentence. Felt is the main verb, "breathes" is
embedded in an indirect clause which modifies the direct object. Thus, when
one writes, "Socrates felt he should educate every young man that breathes" no
thinking person concludes that the writer thinks Socrates is presently living.
I guess this degree of English is simply above you. The moderately educated
reader understands, I'm sure.
But more importantly, if you have a problem with the present tense of
"breathes," then it is really with the Deuteronomy passage that you have a
problem (There you also find the same tense of "breathes"). I am intelligent
enough to know that the "breathes" in that passage referred to a past tense
event. According to your understanding of the English Language, you think that
the Bible tells Jews today to leave nothing alive that is still breathing.
That's idiotic. You are the anti-Semite.
> > So, let's look again at the conflict--
> >
> > I said, "the Jews actually felt commissioned by God to kill every non-Jew
> that
> > breathes" to which you called me "abusive," "anti-semitic," "religious
> > fanatic," and a host of other slanderous things
>
> I've explained the "religious fanatic" label,
Nope. I asked you to substantiate your "religious fanatic" allegation and all
you did was deny that you ever said anything about my religion. Go ahead,
check it out.
> "Abusive" also refers to something else.
You said that I "abused the Bible" by saying that the Jews "felt commissioned
by god to kill everything that breathes."
The passage of course says "leave nothing alive which breathes"
> > Just be honest. It's called integrity, it will really feel good if you try
> it.
> > Don't be so worried about saving face. You don't have to be right all the
> time.
>
> It's called mining the Old Testament for anti-Semitic texts, Mister
> Gardiner. See below.
Explain how a passage in which God favors and chooses the semitic people over
and against their neighbors is Anti-Semitic???
> > > they don't substantiate your claim that the Jews
> believe
> > > they were commanded by God to kill every non-Jew that breathes.
> >
> > Let the reader Judge--
> >
> > Deuteronomy 20:16-18
> > 16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you
> as
> > an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.
> > 17 Completely destroy [1] them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
> > Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.
> > 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they
> > do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.
>
> You've just quoted that. Now let's go back a couple of verses to Deuteronomy
> 20:10-12
> 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
> 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be
> subject to forced labor and shall work for you.
> 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to
> that city.
Ah, I note the correction. The Jews believed that in some cases they were to
kill everything that breathes (20:16), and in other situations, such as the
one you cite above, they were to enslave everyone that breathes. Now that's so
much nicer. I think I would rather have been put to death.
> Let the reader judge indeed!
Ok.
> > I guess you have a point there. The text doesn't mention anything about
> > Eskimos or Japanese people.
>
> Or "every non-Jew that breathes".
Can you tell me besides the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites,
Hivites, Amalekites, Philistines, and Jebusites, what other people were in the
world of the Jews of Ancient Canaan?? Do you really think the Japanese were in
their perview?? Do you really think that if the Japanese had been in their
perview, God wouldn't have commanded their destruction as well??
> > It will be just as embarassing to you, or whoever does it, as your
> research
> > about God commanding genocide in the OT.
>
> Well, you've shown that you're incapable of embarrassment.
I'm not the one who irresponsibly threw around the "anti-semite" slander. That
is shameful.
> > Did you read what I said? I said that Christianity provided the DOMINANT
> > social milieu: go back and look at the thread.
>
> No - you go back and look at the thread and what you yourself wrote. You'll
> find this:
> > The fact remains that these people, with all their flaws and foibles,
> > their bad deeds (which you think trump their profound contributions)
> > provided the social milieu which birthed the United States of America.
> > That is the gist of what I have been attempting to convey. Nothing more,
> > nothing less.
>
> Just to remind you, that's "provided the social milieu". Now, you might
> 'wish' you'd written "the DOMINANT social milieu", but that's actually what
> I told you that you *should* have written.
Again, this is a simple matter of 10th grade vocabulary, and you know it. The
very definition of "Milieu" implies a dominance of environmental factors, but
does not--by definition--indicate an exclusive set of circumstances.
For example, if I am concerned about milieu of criminals in a prison, I am not
necessarily denying that there are prison guards in a prison who are neither
criminals nor what I am afraid of.
I should have brought this simple matter of English vocabulary to your
attention when you first implied that I was making an exclusive claim. Well,
no, you should have known that "milieu" does not necessarily involve an
exclusive claim.
This is really basic sophomore English. I can't believe that someone who is
adept enough at getting online is so intellectually challenged as to not know
these things.
> > > > Were there other influences? You better believe it!
> > >
> > > I do believe it. Can it be that the point is getting through to you too?
> >
> > When have I EVER said that there were no other influences??
>
> Since you don't remember what you wrote and have edited it mentally and
> physically to this degree, there's no point in continuing this exchange with
> irrationality.
You really nailed me with a lot of powerful evidence. As a matter of fact you
really got me on this one--
> > That is a non-sequitir (you may have to look up what that means)
>
> I don't have to look it up to know what it means OR how to spell it.
This is called desperation in a newsgroup: when you really need to win a
point, criticize spelling typos.
> > But I do use evidence, data, and sources. That is what separates you and me;
> > all you do is pontificate without any evidence.
>
> Goodbye, Mister Gardiner. You're a troll in alt.history.colonial, which is
> where I found you, and I've wasted quite enough time on you.
Great. This was all worthwhile, because I bet you'll think twice before you
shoot at the mouth irresponsibly calling someone an "anti-semite." I'll bet
you'll not be so quick to shoot at the mouth next time you hear that the God
of the Jews commanded genocide.
It was good interacting with you.
Rick Gardiner
> > Milton, Oliver Cromwell, and a number of other professors and clergymen who
> > provided university leadership during the commonwealth period... the time when
> > John Locke was forming his ideas. Locke latched on to Milton's views on
> > freedom of conscience and the importance of faith being a "voluntary"
> > commitment to God, rather than a coerced commitment, and Locke published
> > LETTERS CONCERNING TOLERATION in which he focused on this important
> > Protestant idea.
>
> Luther, you're rushing off to Locke, hoping to god that there's nobody out
> there with the depth of specialisation needed to shoot you down on this.
> You're a superficial tapdancer, Gardiner.
Actually I'm hoping there's someone who might prove the specialists wrong.
1. To show Locke's profound influence over Jefferson and religious freedom in
the U.S. see Sanford Kessler, "Locke's Influence on Jefferson's `Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom'" Journal of Church and State, Volume 25 (1983) 231-52.
2. According to Fox Bourne, Locke's premiere biographer, Locke was first
introduced to the idea of religious freedom of conscience by the dean of
Oxford when he was a student there. Who was the dean?-- the famous Puritan
John Owen, who preached a sermon called "Discourse on Toleration" which Locke
embraced (see http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/constitution/locke-bio.html).
Locke also embraced the teachings of the Puritan, John Milton, such as
Milton's, A Treatise of Civil Power in Ecclesiastical Causes (see
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/civil_power/index.html). See
Hudson, Winthrop. “John Locke: Heir of Puritan Political Theorists,” in
Calvinism and the Political Order. Edited by George L. Hunt. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1965.
4. When it comes to Milton and Owen, their Puritan heritage is commonplace to
trace. They were both reared under the influence of the early Puritans: Ames,
Perkins, Sibbes, Baxter, Travers.
5. The early Puritans received their views while in exile in Geneva; their
mentors: Calvin, Beza, Bucer, et al.
6. Calvin took the Protestant Baton largely from Luther.
I'm hoping there is someone with the erudition and specialization to show
which fact is such a "fabrication" of mine?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|Mike Curtis wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <ul...@universitylake.org> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|> >>
>:|> >> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|> >>
>:|> >> Smart assed Gardiner is at it again, being his usual lovable self. Yea,
>:|> >> right LOL
>:|> >
>:|> >Dumb assed alison
>:|>
>:|> See http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
>:|
>:|Thanks Mike. Perhaps you noticed who was the first to call who a "smart ass."
>:|
>:|I hope your buddy alison takes a close look at your fallacy page.
>:|
=====================================================================
Smart assed Gardiner is at it again, being his usual lovable self. Yea,
right LOL
>:|Mr. Nelson,
>:|
>:| Are you serious?? Do you really mean to say that the causes and motivations
>:|of a war have nothing to do with the war? Are guns and strategies the only
>:|thing important when discussing a war? Perhaps it would behoove you to read a
>:|bit of John Adams regarding what the revolution really was
>:|
>:|(try http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=144&parent=54)
>:|
>:|"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war?
>:|The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in
>:|the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of
>:|their duties and obligations"
>:|
>:|Adams to H. Niles, 2/13/1818
>:|
>:|The discussion as to the ideas behind the revolution is as pertinent as can
>:|be. Quite frankly, I don't find a discussion of muskets, etc., very
>:|interesting; so please keep take such off-subject banter to alt.guns or something.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, as mahab...@my-deja.com wrote:
Being snarly at people who disagree with you (even if they were snarly
first) isn't a very good reflection of Christian love, is it? The Tao
Teh Ching says, "The sage is just to the just, and also just to the
unjust, because the Tao is just." With struggle, perhaps Christianity
can rise to the same level as Taoism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As maff91 likes to finish his posts with:
Gardiner ineffectually crosses swords with Jim Alison.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Smart assed Gardiner is at it again, being his usual lovable self. Yea,
>:|> right LOL
>:|
>:|Dumb assed alison hasn't changed much either; still refusing to deal with the
>:|substance of an argument, but rather opting to give the one-liner ad hominems.
>:|
>:|Next approach is sure to follow: alison will post 67 pages of irrelevant
>:|letters and supreme court decisions having nothing whatsoever to do with the
>:|theory of the Declaration of Independence, and then he will proclaim "see, I
>:|buried gardiner in evidence."
>:|
>:|I suppose that's the best approach when the evidential well is dry.
>:|
>:|Oh, I forgot, he is also sure to appeal to Maff91 as the authoritative judge
>:|of the debate.
>:|
LOL seems to bug the hell out of you as much as you mention it
My comments was to your chat side manner, attacking another who dare
challenge you
U do seem to have major problems in that area.
What is it use net rage?
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Smart assed Gardiner is at it again, being his usual lovable self. Yea,
>:|> right LOL
>:|
>:|Dumb assed alison hasn't changed much either; still refusing to deal with the
>:|substance of an argument, but rather opting to give the one-liner ad hominems.
>:|
=====================================================================
Smart assed Gardiner is at it again, being his usual lovable self. Yea,
right LOL
>:|Mr. Nelson,
>:|
>:| Are you serious?? Do you really mean to say that the causes and motivations
>:|of a war have nothing to do with the war? Are guns and strategies the only
>:|thing important when discussing a war? Perhaps it would behoove you to read a
>:|bit of John Adams regarding what the revolution really was
>:|
>:|(try http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=144&parent=54)
>:|
>:|"But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war?
>:|The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in
>:|the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of
>:|their duties and obligations"
>:|
>:|Adams to H. Niles, 2/13/1818
>:|
>:|The discussion as to the ideas behind the revolution is as pertinent as can
>:|be. Quite frankly, I don't find a discussion of muskets, etc., very
>:|interesting; so please keep take such off-subject banter to alt.guns or something.
jal...@pilot.infi.net
>:|
The same, huh? In your mind this means that the other two are quoting the
first, huh?
No one else ever expressed that, right?
No one else ever thought that, huh?
Ever hear of the interesting situation where in various parts of the world,
totally independent people arrive at the same conclusions?
There is also the interesting little situation whereby someone can quote
something another said, simply because it is a great quote and fits a poi
the person is making at that exact moment. They can quote that person
without being a fan of that other person, buying into that other persons
total philosophy, or even some parts of that other person's overall
philosophy.
Why shucks, a person can even quote some Christian Church father, while
being totally indifferent to the Christian religion, or while being an
atheist, or a firm believer in a totally different religion.
>:|Luther had his weaknesses: his view of Jews and anabaptists; Jefferson
>:|and Madison had their weakenesses: their view of blacks and natives
>:|(whom they called savages).
>:|
>:|Thus, although its obvious that two centuries separated these men, their
>:|fundamental understanding of liberty of conscience took the same form.
Liberty of conscience regarded the mind, it did not necessarily refer to
just religious beliefs or thought. Madison viewed such as a form or
property.
>:|True, the personal doctrines of Luther were not the personal doctrines
>:|of Jefferson, but everything that Jefferson said above, Luther would
>:|have agreed with, and everything Luther said above, Jefferson would have
>:|agreed with (short of perhaps the strong biblical role, though Jefferson
When you get into saying what people who are separated by many years from
each other and whom are all dead would agree with each other, you lose
credibility.
You have no way of knowing this, no way of proving it and you are engaging
in pure speculation.
It is just as possible both men could have hated each other and the very
things you think they would have agreed on, they might have very strongly
disagreed on.
PaulDanaher
> [snipped everything lacking substance in your response]
(I'll keep that, it amuses me.)
Well, Mister Gardiner, you've established to everybody's satisfaction that
your level of personal abuse and irrationality is directly related to the
number of times you've been caught out in a blunder. On that basis, I am
going to take your advice (although not, I think, in the spirit in which it
was given) and quit while I'm well ahead.
You're becoming one of the bag people of the newsgroups, pushing your
baggage around on your cybertrolley, mumbling your strange personal liturgy
and screaming abuse at people who try to talk to you.
I hope you find a way back.
Rick Gardiner
> each other and whom are all dead would agree with each other, you lose
> credibility.
> You have no way of knowing this, no way of proving it and you are engaging
> in pure speculation.
Pure speculation, huh?
Have you ever read Sanford Kessler's, "Locke's Influence on Jefferson's 'Bill
for Establishing Religious Freedom'" Journal of Church and State, Volume: 25
(1983), 231-52.
Would you call his evidence "pure speculation"?
No? Well then it is pretty clear and obvious that Jefferson's view of
Religious Liberty was formed by Locke's view of Religious Toleration as
expressed in his LETTERS ON TOLERATION.
Where then, did Locke derive his ideas on Toleration? The Pulitzer Prize
winning scholar of the 17th century, Roland Bainton, says that Locke's view of
Toleration was not at all original, but rather was a product of his Puritan
upbringing (see Travail of Religious Liberty, p. 237.) Perhaps the authoritive
biographer of Locke would know a little about this, huh?
H. Fox Bourne attributes Locke's development of his views of Toleration
principally from John Owen, the dean of Oxford while Locke was there, who was
a hard-core Calvinist and Puritan (In case you have never heard of him, see
http://www.theocentric.com/johnowen/life_of_owen/index.html). According to Fox
Bourne, assists came from Locke's history teacher, Lewis Du Moulain, a French
Huguenot whose family lived through the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, and
whose Uncle authored the Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos.
Then there is the matter of Locke's taking his views on Religious liberty from
John Milton, which I have been asserting for quite some time, and which no one
has put forth an ounce of evidence in opposition. Is this speculation? Try
John T. Shawcross, John Milton and Influence: Presence in Literature, History,
and Culture Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1991. Shawcross
demonstrates the influence of Milton...on Jefferson... both directly and
through Locke.
Then there is the matter of Benjamin Whichcote. According to Cranston's
Biography of Locke, Locke became a member of Whichcotes congregation.
Whichcote was a Puritan-trained clergyman and graduate of Cambridge
University. A number of sources give major credit to Whichcote for shaping
Locke's views on Toleration.
Now when it comes to Owen, Milton, Moulain, and Whichcote, if I have to show
you where these Calvinists derived their ideas, then you have a historical
vacuum in your head.
In a nutshell, Jim, your preposterous thought of likening the connection of
Jefferson and Madison's views to that of the Protestant reformers as akin to
"the interesting situation where in various parts of the world, totally
independent people arrive at the same conclusions" is demonstrably ignorant.
To say that we have no way of knowing or showing the connection is also assanine.
We can, and I did, show a an unbroken line of descent regarding liberty of
conscience from Jefferson back to Locke, back to the Puritans. There is no
"coincidence" there. There is no speculation there. All you have to do is pick
up Jefferson's writings and you'll see that he attributes his views largely to
Locke, whose writings Jefferson called "perfect." All you have to do is pick
up Locke's works and he will tell you directly what his sources were: e.g., Milton.
If you don't trust me that Milton was a Puritan, just to a brief internet
search for his bio, you'll see that he was the Prince of Puritans.
Since I haven't made the full connection to Luther, if you care to challenge
the fact that the Calvinists and Puritans were heirs of Luther, go ahead and
challenge me.
The thing is, Jim, you don't even try to make an effort to debate with
evidence any longer. You have reduced yourself to criticizing only one's
"lovableness," "reputation," and the possibility that these identical ideas
were produced as a matter of mysterious coincidence.
It's extremely weak, Jim, and you know it. But, on the other hand, you know
you have no chance in making your point if you actually have to rely on the
historical data.
Here's what you can (and probably will) do:
1. you can try to turn this discussion into a debate about a Supreme Court
decision in the 60's, in order to divert the attention away from your
extremely lacking history of the 17th century, to a time in history which you
know more about
2. you can appeal to posters from other newsgroups with words of wisdom about
how to lose a debate
3. you can post the same answer 6 times in duplicate to make it look like you
really overwhelmed me
4. you can call me more names
5. you can ignore me for a while and hope that I'll go away
Or, you can give yourself an education by looking at the data
See http://www.universitylake.org/primarysources.html
Blessings,
RG
Rick Gardiner
>
> > [snipped everything lacking substance in your response]
>
> Well, Mister Gardiner, you've established to everybody's satisfaction that
> your level of personal abuse and irrationality is directly related to the
> number of times you've been caught out in a blunder. On that basis, I am
> going to take your advice (although not, I think, in the spirit in which it
> was given) and quit while I'm well ahead.
>
> You're becoming one of the bag people of the newsgroups, pushing your
> baggage around on your cybertrolley, mumbling your strange personal liturgy
> and screaming abuse at people who try to talk to you.
>
> I hope you find a way back.
In other words, you can't stay in the ring with regard to the facts and
evidence, so you just go down with a low-blow and quit.
You didn't have to go through all this excusing of yourself. All you had to do
was admit that you were out of your league, and gracefully back away. It is
seen by all for what it is.
I admit that there are a trail of people who have never been able to deal with
evidence and have therefore resorted to calling names (e.g., "bag-people"),
and you have now joined them. So here's your approach from now on, it's called
the 7th grade method-- Get together with all the others and have fun agreeing
with one another's insults.
I pity you.
Nicholas Wren
Sorry to be replying to all these newsgroups, but I don't know where
this was posted from. (I'm posting from alt.atheism, so feel free to
snip the other groups if anyone replies). I was just looking for a
clarification. The Madison and Jefferson quote here looks to be clear
advocacy for the role of reason in religion. Is this really patently
the same as Luther's position regarding reason? I recall seeing some
quotes from Luther which appeared to be something less than a ringing
endorsement of the value of reason with regard to faith. Is there a
context these quotes should be read in which would make them accord
more closely with what Madison and Jefferson seem to be saying here?
Nick
Rev Peter
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
[snipped]
>
> The Hebrew scriptures do not teach our people to grovel before unjust
> kings and potentates.
That is correct, but the Christian scriptures break this pattern and
grovelling becomes a necessary virtue. It amazes me how christians use
Hebrew scriptures in order to defend christian resistence; for no
christian can resist authority without bringing condemnation upon
himself.
Rom. 13: 1-4, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and
those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists
authority HAS OPPOSED THE ORDINANCE OF GOD; and they who have opposed
WILL RECEIVE CONDEMNATION UPON THEMSELVES. 3 For rulers are not a
cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you wnat to have no
fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise form the
same; for IT IS A MINISTER of God to you for good. But if you do what is
evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; FOR IT IS A
MINISTER OF GOD, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices
evil."
Simply put, ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY GOD ACCORDING TO
CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURE; including Stalin's Russia.
peace
Rev Peter
--
The Bad News Page
http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rev Peter
ul...@universitylake.org wrote:
> Rev Peter wrote:
> >
> > In article <381FBB44...@deism.com>,
> > "Robert L. Johnson" <b...@deism.com> wrote:
> > > The relevance is that the Christian mind-set and Bible don't allow
for
> > > rebellion.
> > > They tell us to be good slaves and to obey our masters. To rebell
> > > against the gov
> > > is going against Christian scripture. This fact takes the wind out
of
> > > the religious
> > > right's false claim that America was founded as a Christian
nation.
> >
> > That is absolutely correct. Rom 13: 1-3 clear states that even
resisting
> > authority is a sin. "there is no authority EXCEPT from God" and "he
who
> > resists authority has opposed the ordiance of God; and they who HAVE
> > opposed, WILL RECEIVE CONDEMNATION UPON THEMSELVES." Simply put, to
> > resist authority, or rebel, is a christian SIN. No bible following
> > christian would rebel; according to the bible, if they rebel, they
will
> > RECEIVE CONDEMNATION!
>
> Rev. Peter,
>
> Your biblical canon seems to only contain 4 or 5 verses. What say you
of
> Peter's command in Acts 5 regarding the civil magistrates command: "we
must
> obey God rather than man."
>
> I guess Peter was simply not a Christian in that sentiment.
Of course he is, you conviently left out I Peter 2: 13-14, "Submit
yourselves for the Lord's sake to EVERY human institution, whether to a
king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the
punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."
Simply put, a christian SUBMITS.
Snipped the rest of the baseless and unbiblical assumptions. NO
CHRISTAIN RESISTS GOVERNMENT, THE MINUTE HE DOES SO, HE IS NO LONGER A
CHRISTIAN.
Rom. 13: 1-3, "Let every person be in subjection to the governing
authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and
those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists
authority HAS OPPOSED THE ORDINANCE OF GOD; and they who have opposed
WILL RECEIVE CONDEMNATION UPON THEMSELVES."
It is apparent, that you are not a biblical christian, for if you
submitted to God, you would submit without complaint to EVERY human
institution. According to christian scriptures: ALL GOVERNMENTS ARE
ESTABLISHED BY GOD.
"But I am mistaken in speaking of a Christian republic; each of these
two words excludes the other. Christianity preaches only servitude and
dependence. Its spirit is too favourable to tyranny for the latter not
to profit by it always. True Christians are made to be slaves; they know
it and are hardly aroused by it. This short life has too little value in
their eyes." -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
A christain is a slave, he is never a citizen.
peace
REv Peter
Rev Peter
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Deism is superior to christianity, and Judaism, and Islam; that is
true.
> >
>
> Actually Deism is the modern instantiation of the original high
>religion
> based on the seven Noachide (or Noachic) laws. Even adherents to
> rabbinic Judaism (based on the Talmud) recognize the religion of
> the Noachic commandments as being of equal standing to the Torah.
Good point.
>
> As it says in the beginning of the Mishna, all the righteous of the
>Earth
> shall have a portion in the World to Come.
Possibly.
> That is referring to the
> religion of Noah and his sons after the flood.
Not really, the flood is a legend. A kernel of truth inside a larger
story.
> It is also the religion of
> Abraham (actually Avram prior to his name change). Abraham was
> no benighted idol worshipper before he became the first Jew|Moslem
> (choose one according to your particular inclinations).
Neither. In all likelihood, Abraham was a political invention of Moses
in order to give the different tribes a common heritage, it was a
unifying idea. When a real past will not work, create a national myth.
> As far as I can tell Deism is the only god centered religion in the
> world
> that can accommodate the modern rational (scientific) view of the
> cosmos without turning into a pretzel.
That is true. We have the advantage of not having ancient stories and
texts blocking our way.
> I myself am not a Deist ( I am Jewish) but I recognize the validity
of Deism. If I had different
> parents, I probably would have been a Deist (or a Buddhist or
> a Taoist).
In my case, I was a christian for over 30 years. But by carefully
reading the Tanakh, I realized that Christainity is not only NOT a
successor of Judaism, but that it is a heretical perversion. The idea
that God would debauch a virgin, sacrifice a righteous man for sinners,
and ignore his own promises to the Hebrews are contrary to the teachings
of the Torah. Even Jesus' supposed sacrifice is invalid:
1) an atonement sacrifice could only be offered by a priest of Aaron's
line.
2) an atonement sacrifice had to be performed according to ritual and on
the altar.
3) an atonement sacrifice was burnt after being killed.
Jesus meets none of these requirements. I then considered Judaism, but
rejected it because of its bloody history in the Torah, the idea that
God would tell a people to inflict genocide on another people is
contrary to all concepts of a just God. Islam was rejected, it implies
that God did not get it right the first time. So after examining the
different belief systems which exist, Deism was the most rational, and
most respectful of God. For Deists do not attribute human failings and
brutalities onto God. We let God be God.
peace
Rev Peter
--
The Bad News Page:
http://campus.fortunecity.com/defiant/666/
Visit Biblical Errancy:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld
Rick Gardiner
>
> On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 09:13:53 -0600, Rick Gardiner
> <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> clarification. The Madison and Jefferson quote here looks to be clear
> advocacy for the role of reason in religion.
Indeed.
> Is this really patently
> the same as Luther's position regarding reason?
Well, for one, the central issue here is religious liberty and its
objective, and in both cases the authors believe that an uncoerced
religious commitment is requisite of true faith.
Secondly, Luther's position on the role of religion is often
misunderstood by those with only a superficial understanding of the man.
For a comprehensive look, see THE ROLE OF REASON IN LUTHER'S THEOLOGY,
by Siegbert Becker.
Luther was very critical of Aristotle and Aquinas in their MORAL
reasoning and their slavish worship of deduction, but Luther himself was
very fond of reason, conscience, and common sense.
As a matter of fact, his stand at Worms was based upon his mental
conviction in the same regard that Madison and Jefferson believed that
"the duty we owe to our creator can only be directed by our conviction
and reason."
This is not to say that the entirety of Luther's theology and the
entirety of Jefferson's theology are identical. That's nonsense. But
it's just as much nonsense to allege that Jefferson did not inherit his
views of religious liberty from the dissenters of the Protestant stripe
in the previous centuries.
On this issue of religious liberty, Luther and Jefferson are very very
close. Sure, one can point out that Luther supported governmental
suppression of the Peasants and Jefferson supported governmental
suppression of blacks, so their commitments to liberty are both called
into question, but in theory, their views on liberty of conscience are
nearly identical.
> I recall seeing some
> quotes from Luther which appeared to be something less than a ringing
> endorsement of the value of reason with regard to faith. Is there a
> context these quotes should be read in which would make them accord
> more closely with what Madison and Jefferson seem to be saying here?
If you want to see the context for the Luther quote, the whole document
is at http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/Secauth.HTM
If you want to see the whole Madison quote, the whole document is at
http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/writings/memor.htm
Rick Gardiner
>
> In article <3820456D...@usa.net>,
>
> >
> > The Hebrew scriptures do not teach our people to grovel before unjust
> > kings and potentates.
>
> That is correct, but the Christian scriptures break this pattern and
> grovelling becomes a necessary virtue.
LOL. Christianity accepts the entirety of the Hebrew scriptures as
inspired and authoritative (See Matt 5...every jot and tittle of the
Hebrew Scriptures was divine according to Jesus).
> It amazes me how christians use
> Hebrew scriptures in order to defend christian resistence; for no
> christian can resist authority without bringing condemnation upon
> himself.
What of Peter? Isn't Acts chapter 5 in the New Testament?
maff91
<Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
Jefferson got his ideas from many sources.
* Williams, Robert A., Jr. "The Algebra of Federal Indian Law: The
Hard Trail of Decolonizing and Americanizing the White Man's Indian
Jurisprudence." Wisconsin Law Review (March, 1986), p. 219.
Williams supports his case for Native American self-governance by
describing the Iroquois confederacy and its historic influence on the
formation of the United States. He cites Canasatego's advice to
colonial representatives in 1744, and Benjamin Franklin's 1751 letter
to his printing partner James Parker, as well as Thomas Jefferson on
Indian governance. He also cites Felix Cohen's 1952 essay in The
American Scholar. Williams, a member of the Lumbee tribe, was a
visiting professor of law at the University of Arizona when this
article was published.
Bickford, Walter. "Significance of the Oneida Indian Nation Land Claim
Suit." [letter to the editor] Boston Globe, April 15, 1985.
Bickford, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries,
Wildlife, and Recreational Vehicles, is replying to Allen Van
Gestel's March 18 opinion piece in the Boston Globe that argues
against a land claim of the Oneida Nation. Bickford's letter
concludes with a summary of Iroquois contributions to American
thought. "It was as ambassadors in the 1740s to the Iroquois League
that Franklin, and later Jefferson, learned of 'self-evident truths,'
'inalienable rights,' 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'
and that 'all men are created equal.' .... European thinkers appear to
have received much inspiration from America's true founding fathers,
or 'forgotten founders,' the Indians," Bickford writes.
Johansen. "The Indian's Past May be His Future." Seattle Times, May 9,
1976, pp. A-1, E-1.
Sidebar, headlined "Bicentennial? It Isn't Their Birthday Party," (on
p. E-1) mentions Franklin's interest in Iroquois politics, and the
Albany conference of 1754. Johansen first became acquainted with the
idea of native influence on democracy from Sally Fixico, a Cherokee,
who was then a student at Evergreen State College, Olympia, as he
researched this newspaper series.
Files also contain a short item (no author listed), dated August 14,
1975, from an unidentified newspaper, headlined "Essay on Indian
Culture by Nancy Duffy is Recognized." U.S. Congressman William F.
Walsh is said to have read into The Congressional Record an essay by
Nancy Duffy "of WHEN-TV," whose "delightful brief essay...acknowledges
[that] Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson...recognized a form of
democracy among the Iroquois, 'whose Five Nation League of Peace
precipitated our own Constitution.'"
Ellis, Joseph J. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997.
On page 101, Ellis summarizes Jefferson's attitudes toward
governmental organization: "There was European society, with
governments that ruled by force, usually monarchical in form, what
Jefferson described as `wolves over sheep.' Then there was American,
and to slightly lesser extent, English society, with governments
responsive to the populace as a whole, where `the mass of mankind
enjoys a precious degree of liberty & happiness.' Finally, there was
Indian society, which managed itself without any formal government at
all [sic] by remaining small and assuring the internalization of
common values among all members." Ellis quotes Jefferson's 1787 letter
to Edward Carrington in which he says that "those societies (as the
Indians) which live without government enjoy in their gen'l mass an
infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under
European governments."
__________. "Iroquois Confederacy Formed Basis for U.S. Constitution."
Indian Life Magazine 17:1 (March/April, 1996), p. 9.
This brief piece, adapted from the Cherokee Advocate, notes that the
Cherokees "belong to the Iroquois language family," and that "the
Iroquois were extensively studied and praised by Benjamin Franklin and
Thomas Jefferson. They often referred to it as the basis for the
United States Constitution."
Markoff, John. Waves of Democracy: Social Movements and Political
Change. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Pine Forge Press, 1996.
In this study of ideological change in democratic thought, Markoff
writes, on page 39, "In the centuries that followed the voyages of
Columbus, European discussion of political institutions sometimes
showed significant awareness of the non-European world....It is
certain...that some were quite fascinated by, say, the Indians of
North America (as were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, for the
latter of whom the world's outstanding model of decentralized
federalism was the Iroquois." Forgotten Founders [1982, 1987] is
cited.
Mihesuah, Devon A. American Indians: Stereotypes and Realities.
Atlanta, Georgia: Clarity Publishers, 1996.
This book takes up various stereotypes attributed to Native Americans,
one of which is "Indians had nothing to contribute to Europeans or to
the growth of America." The author writes, on page 55, that "the
American Founding Fathers (such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
and Benjamin Franklin)...were influenced not only by European writers
such as Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, as well as ideas found in
the Magna Carta and the Greek and Roman empires, but also by the
powerful, well-organized Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Kaianerekowa (Great
Law of Peace)."
Pratt, Scott L. "The Influence of the Iroquois on Early American
Philosophy." Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society
32:2(Spring, 1996), pp. 275-314.
Pratt examines "possible connections between what we might call a
Native American philosophical perspective and what we recognize as
early American philosophy," finding that no published studies make
this connection. Pratt studies the writings of Cadwallader Colden,
Benjamin Franklin, Alexis de Toqueville, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson,
and others. He finds that philosophical discussion of Native America
was copious in the writings of the period, centering often on the
Iroquois Confederacy. Along the way, Pratt considers Iroquois
influence "in the development of the form of the United States
government." (p. 278). Scott cites Forgotten Founders [1982, 1987] and
mistakenly attributes to it an assertion that "U.S. political
structures were all but copies of the Iroquois confederate structure."
This essay also cites Barreiro [1992] and Venables [1992] on the
'influence" issue.
Stubben, Jerry. [Review of Hauptman, Tribes and Tribulations (1995)].
American Indian Culture and Research Journal 20:1(1996), pp. 253-256.
Stubben praises Hauptman's collection of nine essays as well written
and documented, but "Hauptman's use of the psychological profile of
James Wilson to rebut Donald Grinde's and Bruce Johansen's argument
that the Iroquois and other Native American nations influenced the
founding fathers in their development of democracy in America is less
than convincing." By concentrating on Wilson, "a minor player in
Iroquois/colonial relations," writes Stubben, "Hauptman overlooks the
influence of Native American political thought on major players such
as Franklin, Jefferson, and Rutledge."
Thompson, William N. Native American Issues: A Reference Handbook.
Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO/Contemporary World Issues Series,
1996.
In an overview of Native American political sovereignty (on p. 5),
Thompson notes that "the federal union of the five Iroquois nations
and the Tuscarora not only preceded the union formulated by the
founding fathers of the U.S. Constitution, but it was a model closely
studied by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and other
founding fathers of the United States..." On page 90, on an historical
timeline, Thompson writes that Franklin "followed the structure of the
Iroquois Confederation" in his Albany Plan of 1754. Thompson cites
Felix Cohen (1942), Johansen (1982), and Jose Barreiro (1992).
Howard, Jean, with Margaret Rubin. Manual for the Peacemaker. Wheaton,
Illinois: Quest Books, 1995
This book traces the story of Deganawidah and Hiawatha. and includes
exercises designed to make the Peacemaker's teachings useful to all.
In its introduction (on pp. xxii and xxiii), Manual for the Peacemaker
discusses ways in which Iroquois political thought helped shape that
of Franklin, Jefferson, and other founders of the United States, as
well as French and British philosophers. Howard quotes from Johansen,
Forgotten Founders [1982, 1987] and Felix Cohen, "Americanizing the
White Man" [1952].
George, Doug (Kanentiio). "Iroquois Have Good Reason to See Positives
in Fourth of July." Syracuse Herald-American, July 2, 1995.
"We Iroquois have mixed feelings regarding this day," George says of
the Fourth of July. "We are concerned that the lessons in democracy
our ancestors taught the Founding Fathers have not yet been fully
realized." George notes the impact of the Iroquois at the Albany
Congress of 1754, and writes: "It is now well established that
Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, George Washington, John
Adams, and James Monroe studied the Iroquois manner of government in
order to mine its concepts for their own use." Iroquois feelings about
the Fourth are mixed because George Washington's armies devastated
lands of those who sided with the British in the American Revolution.
There are more citations contained in
<http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/NAPSnEoD.html#TOC>.
>Where then, did Locke derive his ideas on Toleration? The Pulitzer Prize
>winning scholar of the 17th century, Roland Bainton, says that Locke's view of
>Toleration was not at all original, but rather was a product of his Puritan
>upbringing (see Travail of Religious Liberty, p. 237.) Perhaps the authoritive
>biographer of Locke would know a little about this, huh?
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary,
will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the
brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason
and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all
this artificial scaffolding. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John
Adams, 11 April 1823, as quoted by E. S. Gaustad, "Religion," in
Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: A Reference
Biography, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986, p. 287.)
Are you projecting?
>
>To say that we have no way of knowing or showing the connection is also assanine.
>
>We can, and I did, show a an unbroken line of descent regarding liberty of
>conscience from Jefferson back to Locke, back to the Puritans. There is no
>"coincidence" there. There is no speculation there. All you have to do is pick
>up Jefferson's writings and you'll see that he attributes his views largely to
>Locke, whose writings Jefferson called "perfect." All you have to do is pick
>up Locke's works and he will tell you directly what his sources were: e.g., Milton.
So why don't you cite Jefferson?
There're is going to be any fundamentalist agenda to re-write history.
>
>Blessings,
>RG
Gardiner ineffectually crosses swords with Jim Alison.
--
L.P.#0000000001
Rick Gardiner
> >> > Rev Peter wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > The Christian
> >> > > great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
> >> > > 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
> >> >
> >> > The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see
> >> http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
> >> >
> >> You can't possibly argue from the historical record that the German
> >> Christians were not overwhelmingly Nazis!
> >
> >Of course not, but you also can't possibly argue from the historical record
> >that the Western Allies were not overwhelmingly Christians as well. Thus, you
> >can't infer a correlation between Christianity and Nazism...
>
> No one was doing that. You said that they were Social Darwinists, not
> Christians. And you are using David Irving to boot!
The website I cited above is not David Irwings site. It is hosted by a fellow
named Kevin Davidson.
The material you posted regarding Luther, however, did originate from a
bonafide neo-Nazi website. You said, "who cares, if they say 2+2=4, then its
still true." Thus, I say, if David Irwing says 2+2=4 it's still true.
> > there is no
> >necessary connection, any more than there is a necessary connection between
> >being a Christian and being an anti-Nazi.
>
> That quite a bit different from what you said above. Yet the Germans
> had Luther to fall back on for some of their anti-Semitism. As you
> well know, Mr. Gardiner, the holocaust and its history is a bit out of
> your league. Remember?
I'm not very interested in researching the holocaust. I think it was the
second worst tragedy in the history of humankind.
The details of it are out of my league, but the details of Martin Luther and
his theology are something which I'm certain I have spent many more class
hours and research hours on than you. This I assure you: your spin on Luther
is very wrongheaded.
Robert J. Kolker
Rev Peter wrote:
> God would tell a people to inflict genocide on another people is
> contrary to all concepts of a just God. Islam was rejected, it implies
> that God did not get it right the first time. So after examining the
> different belief systems which exist, Deism was the most rational, and
> most respectful of God. For Deists do not attribute human failings and
> brutalities onto God. We let God be God.
You should be aware that the version of Judaism that survived is not
biblical Judaism but rabbinic or talmudic judaism. Several generations
in Dispersion and getting the shit kicked out of one tends to turn
down the fanatical aspects of one's religious heritage. The Judaism
that came out of Babylon (remember, the version of the Talmud that
is most authoritative is the Talmud Babli, the Babylonian Talmud) is
a major modification of the religion of the Jews. The Talmud has a
much higher ethical content than does the Bible which is filled with
Blood, Noise and Nastiness. The way it shook down, the ethical
center of Judaism became the application of the Golden Rule, to
wit do NOT do unto others what you DON'T want them to do
to you.
It is no surprise that over half the Unitarian/Universalists are folks
who were brought up Jewish although not in the Orthodox
tradition. I stay with Judaism for the historical continuity. When I
see the Titus Arch in Rome I ask where are the Imperial Romans?
Nowhere. But I, and my people for better or worse are still alive
and kicking. In my mind I am more of a Taoist cum ethical humanist
with a hard heart. That is why politically I am a libertarian and not
a liberal.
Bob Kolker
Mike Curtis
>Mike Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >PaulDanaher wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:381E41BB...@pitnet.net...
>> >> > Rev Peter wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The Christian
>> >> > > great awakenings are on the level of the Nazi Party Rallies of the
>> >> > > 1930's. Germany was a Christian nation.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Nazi's were Social Darwinists, not Christians (see
>> >> http://www.calweb.com/~kwdavids/table.html).
>> >> >
>> >> You can't possibly argue from the historical record that the German
>> >> Christians were not overwhelmingly Nazis!
>> >
>> >Of course not, but you also can't possibly argue from the historical record
>> >that the Western Allies were not overwhelmingly Christians as well. Thus, you
>> >can't infer a correlation between Christianity and Nazism...
>>
>> No one was doing that. You said that they were Social Darwinists, not
>> Christians. And you are using David Irving to boot!
>
>The website I cited above is not David Irwings site. It is hosted by a fellow
>named Kevin Davidson.
He is using David Irving's book.
>The material you posted regarding Luther, however, did originate from a
>bonafide neo-Nazi website.
And I pointed out to you that those were Luther's words I posted. The
source in this case is good.
> You said, "who cares, if they say 2+2=4, then its
>still true." Thus, I say, if David Irwing says 2+2=4 it's still true.
Actually, he was quoting David Irving's book.
>> > there is no
>> >necessary connection, any more than there is a necessary connection between
>> >being a Christian and being an anti-Nazi.
>>
>> That quite a bit different from what you said above. Yet the Germans
>> had Luther to fall back on for some of their anti-Semitism. As you
>> well know, Mr. Gardiner, the holocaust and its history is a bit out of
>> your league. Remember?
>
>I'm not very interested in researching the holocaust. I think it was the
>second worst tragedy in the history of humankind.
>
>The details of it are out of my league, but the details of Martin Luther and
>his theology are something which I'm certain I have spent many more class
>hours and research hours on than you.
Wonderful. Then you ought to be better prepared when Luther's
anti-Semtism is the subject. Especially when his anti-Semitic writings
are used by Neo-Nazis and, in fact, by Nazis of the 20s, 30s, and 40s.
> This I assure you: your spin on Luther
>is very wrongheaded.
Luther was many things. I only pointed to the anti-Semitic nature of
his writings. Your description of my "spin" is what is at fault.
Mike Curtis
>> >> >I define social milieu to include the educational, legal, domestic,
>> >> >ecclesiastic, etymological, cultural background in which the U.S. was birthed.
>> >> >What would you call a "social milieu"?
>> >>
>> >> But it is virtually impossible to tie you down to a birth date.
>> >
>> >Conceived in the 17th century,
>>
>> Conceived? What was conceived?
>
>The idea of a federal union based on the principles of Protestant Social
>Contract theory:
The federal union was conceived in the 16th century?
> the consent of the governed, checks & balances, three
>branches of government, a representative (presbyterian) legislature, etc.
In the 16th century?
>> > the birthdate was July 4, 1776.
>>
>> So we are dismissing the 16th-Century,
>
>I said the conception took place in the 17th century, the 16th century is not
>dismissed, it is instead the period of "foreplay" :)
With that admission, I still do not see any conception of a united
federal union in the 17th-Century.
>> okay, and now we have this
>> total colonial idea of a single nation united to fight the mother
>> country? Are you serious?
>
>The idea of "Uniting" Colonies was definitely present as early as 1643 (see http://www.universitylake.org/history/1643.html)
"The Articles of Confederation between the Plantations under the
Government of the Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government
of New Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut,
and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination
therewith:"
This is a puritan combination of limited scope. "The said United
Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally
hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity
for offence and defense, mutual advice and succor upon all just
occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties
of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare. "
And it didn't really work all that well. I suppose we can find ideas
for all kinds of things if we want to be petty enough. You could use
Franklin's united/divided to make the same point. Only it might be
closer to the point you want to make. But I do realize you want to
place this back to the Puritans to get you religious bent in there.
>The idea of rebelling against royal authorities certainly appeared in various
>parts of America as early as 1676 (see
>http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1651-1700/bacon_rebel/bacon.htm), and definitely
>by the time of the Revolution of 1688 (e.g., Leisler's Rebellion).
BS. The idea of rebelling against royal authorities goes back way
before that. Back as far as William I.
>> >> >If you don't think the colonial educational establishment was permeated with
>> >> >Christianity,
>> >>
>> >> What colonial educational establishment?
>> >
>> >The Grammar Schools Tutors, Catechists, and Universities
>>
>> Sorry, but there was no colonial establishment of these things. There
>> was no central power that would constitute an establishment of
>> education.
>
>(see Kevin Stewart's response and I say ditto)
>
>> There were still atheists.
>
>I am really interested in this. I have never been able to come across any
>colonial American atheists.
> Could you perhaps help me? Not even Thomas Morton
>of Merrymount or any of those accused of witchery at Salem qualify as
>"atheists." I'd like to find some documented evidence of atheism so that I can
>include that document on my website... just to be balanced :)
It doesn't take any great leap to understand that saying one was an
atheist would not be conducive to personal wealth or acceptance. The
times were not tolerant but you do keep forgetting that. One point
thrust would be when people finally got tired of paying taxes to
churches they did not wish to attend. The laws state that if one was
an atheist they had to publically admit this to avoid taxes. One can
imagine the results socially and financially of such an admission.
>I just can't find any. Please help.
No. You try learning a bit of social history first. They are out there
in those times. The laws reflect it. Bradford comments on such cases
also in his history. Try reading the primary materials you promote.
>> >> >If you don't think the legal establishment was not permeated with
>> >> >Christianity,
>> >>
>> >> What legal establishment?
>> >
>> >The colonial law schools and courts.
>>
>> Which were different in every colony.
>
>All of the British colonies adopted the British common law in their judicial
>processes.
As was pointed out to you in the past and you have conveniently
forgotten is that each colony developed and accepted different laws
from home and even adapted new laws to fit their conditions.
Remember this?
We'll start with the settlers of New Plymouth having already settled.
Based on records it appears they brought no manuals of law with them
until after 1636. (Goebel, 34) We have a group who felt they could
"create a corporate capacity on the civil side by complying with its
own formalities of ecclesiastical association, which looked primarily
to the Bible for substantive norms of conduct." (Goebel, 32) They
brought the experiences of their English burroughs with them along
with an imperfect memory of local laws. They built a set of local laws
based on those experiences and the "Plymouth court records bare a
striking resemblance to those of the English manorial courts of this
period." (Haskins, 41) Not only did they bring their past legal
experiences along with them, as well as their religion, they even
brought aspects of their Dutch experiences with them. (Haskins, 41)
"There were several references to the common law of England, by which
to a substantial degree they felt bound. But there are other
provisions that reflect local English customs of the districts from
which they had come."
They changed law that caused them grief in the home countries. The
laws involving property, debtors, creditors, and the importance of the
family as a unit. (Haskins, 40) Their dissatisfaction with English
land law and with english criminal law and procedure resulted in
something quite different from English common law. They relied upon
and made literal use of biblical texts "in framing provisions relating
to crime provides, in another area, evidence not only of tradition and
design, but the continuing importance of the religious ideals which
had inspired the founding of the colony." (Haskins, 40) I take issue
with Haskins on that score based on the order that Bradford and
Winslow stressed their complaints. I've posted this information in
other threads.
These laws on behavior are Mosaic and the saints did rely quite a bit
on the Mosaic Laws contained in the Old testament which the first five
books used to be the Torah to the Jews. This was a product of various
civilizations also. There was some codification of the law in the
world's history of jurisprudence. We have the Code of Hammurabi, the
Twelve Tables at Rome along with the "primitive Anglo-Saxon
compilations which antedate the Norman Conquest." (Haskins, 39)
One of the innovations by the folks at Plymouth was the civil
marriage. They introduced a legal marriage performed by officers of
the civil government. "Bradford speaks of the practice as having been
founded on the 'laudable custome of the Low-cuntries,' nd appears to
be one of the fruits of the Pilgrims' sojourn in Holland." (Haskins,
43)
Another advance was dealing with primogeniture. As early as 1627 a
visitor commented on the practice of evenly distributing property
evenly among the children. The eldest only " 'has an acknowledgement
for his senority of birth.' The reference to seniority was to the
practice of giving a double portion to the eldest son, pursuant to the
precept of Deuteronomy 21:17, upon which it was ostensibly based."
(Haskins, 43).
Another novel change was for providing the window with one third of
both real and personal property upon the death of her husband. Only by
exception as was the old practice in England could a window share in
personal property. (Haskins 43)
Most important of all and probably as a result of experiences in
England Plymouth introduced a system of recording sales, gifts,
mortgages, and other conveyances of houses and lands. "Stemming in
part from a peasant psychosis bred of years of misery brought on by
the enclosure movements, . . . , the recording system furnished basic
guarantees of security of land titles." (Haskins, 43)
They codedified their laws to prevent arbitrary actions of the state
from occurring as was their experience elsewhere. These colonists
lived under the rule of law. No man was above the law.
So "if we remember that these men were English commoners and religious
zealots, the records of civilization in their motherland will enable
us to effect that meticulous and microscopic reconstruction essential
to the true depiction of transplantation of any culture. Local custom,
substantive as the Winchester measure, pretentious as the notion of
the code, ineradicable as the methods of law administration,
fortuitous as a form of tenure; bitter experience at the hands of a
zealous bishop and his pursuivants, or a stony-hearted evicting
landlord; hope and salvation in the Word of god preached by word or
pamphlet, these things are the materials that went with settlers to
Plymouth and out of which their law was fashioned." (Goebel, 36)
"As in ancient Greece, where the promotion of good order in the
community was believed to give individuals a wider freedom, so in
Plymouth the community was believed to thrive in the right living of
its members. Indeed, there is more than casual relation between
Plymouth ideals and the recurrent statements throughout Greek
literature that to obey the law is to be free. That idea was echoed
and given wide currency by Cicero, and later was reinforced by Puritan
doctrine which prescribed obedience to the law as a religious duty."
(Haskins, 45) This does not mean that all law is religious.
This as things were in 1636. Changes would result in the colony's
laws. Additions would be made. Other colonies would develop local laws
based on their customs and experiences that would be quite different
from those of the Puritans. This doesn't exclude the thought of them
borrowing from each other. The examples cited above show that though
behavioral law was along biblical and mosaic lines there was also a
body of civil law. There was law that was English common law made in
ways that they could best remember and then there was new innovative
laws.
So when one persons asserts that Christianity was a part of the common
law, I suppose one can say that is a true assertion but then go on to
explain what else the law was also. Mentioning only one part is rather
devious and deceptive.
This article was quickly put together from two articles in _American
Law and the Constitutional Order - Historical Perspectives_, edited by
Lawrence M. Freedman and Harry N. Scheiber, Harvard, Second Edition,
1988. The page number I referenced above are from that edition.
> As you have indicated with some secondary citations, some went over
>and above the common law and added Biblical law; but I know of no colony in
>which the British common law was rejected.
Jeez. You really don't understand the differences among various
British people who came to this country. Or Germans. Or Dutch. Try
reading ALBION'S SEED. It is a fine history.
Rick Gardiner
Nobody has denied that Jefferson got his ideas from a hodgepodge of
sources. His architecture came from a particular renaissance figure, and
his views on science were derived from others including franklin.
Question: since the subject matter at hand is Jefferson's view of
religious toleration, do any of the sources below indicate that
Jefferson drew his views of religious toleration principally from any
source other than locke?
If so, please indicate which ones and what their evidence is? if not,
kindly apologize for posting so much irrelevant and off-subject
material.r
Otherwise, refer to Sanford Kessler's, "Locke's Influence on Jefferson's
'Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom'" Journal of Church and State,
Volume: 25 (1983), 231-52.
Nope, it doesn't appear that your sources have much to do with
Jefferson's view of toleration. They seem to be more pointed toward
Jefferson's views of governmental structure.
You're off topic.
> >Where then, did Locke derive his ideas on Toleration? The Pulitzer Prize
> >winning scholar of the 17th century, Roland Bainton, says that Locke's view of
> >Toleration was not at all original, but rather was a product of his Puritan
> >upbringing (see Travail of Religious Liberty, p. 237.) Perhaps the authoritive
> >biographer of Locke would know a little about this, huh?
>
> And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
> supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary,
> will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the
> brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason
> and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all
> this artificial scaffolding. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John
> Adams, 11 April 1823, as quoted by E. S. Gaustad, "Religion," in
> Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: A Reference
> Biography, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986, p. 287.)
What you have posted may indicate that Jefferson felt that the doctrines
of the trinitarians were fables, but what in the world does what you
have posted above say about where Jefferson derived his views of
religious toleration?
You might as well posted Jefferson's view of classical architecture.
> Gardiner ineffectually crosses swords with Jim Alison.
Maff91, known also as the URLbot, also ineffectually crosses swords with
Dr. Sinister.