Posted on 08/07/2020 8:27:14 AM PDT by Perseverando
Settlers in New England highlighted the conflict between self-preservation and the selfless sharing of the Gospel.
Gospel-motivated settlers wanted to bless the native inhabitants, both physically and spiritually.
Unfortunately, other settlers viewed natives as an unpredictable danger, as sometimes they would kidnap women and children, or steal from farms.
In a larger sense, what both sides were experiencing was a colliding of civilizations.
Europe, Asia, China, India, North Africa, and the Middle East, all had centuries of written languages, metal tools, scientific advancements, agricultural technologies, and powerful weapons.
By comparison, natives of North America had a subsistence lifestyle.
This was due in part to the continent's abundance of wild game, fish, and edible plants to forage.
The plentifulness of food in North America meant original inhabitants could survive adequately without the need to domesticate animals or crops; develop methods of smelting copper, bronze or iron; communicate through reading or writing; or even to invent a wheel for transportation.
When settlers arrived, Indians traded animal pelts to them in exchange for manufactured items, such as knives, axes, guns, and unfortunately, alcohol.
The Indians' dilemma was that, on one hand, they wanted to trade with the colonists, but on the other hand, they grew in dependency.
Indians also did not have the concept of land ownership, as the settlers did.
This led to a resentment of settlers who encroached into areas considered Indian territory.
Eventually, there erupted the first major confrontation -- the Pequot War of 1637.
In contrast, Gospel-motivated settlers wanted to show the Indians as much love and kindness as possible, in hopes they would open up to hearing the message of how much the Creator loved them and sent His son to die for them.
(Excerpt) Read more at myemail.constantcontact.com ...
Bookmark
Scouts: “Don’t worry boss, his body’s under ice.”
Metacomet: “You mean on ice.”
scouts: “No.”
And it's not just about jobs and economic opportunity. It's about freedom, exercise of "Creator-endowed rights and liberties," and opportunity for each citizen, not just self-appointed elitists who fancy themselves as entitled to make decisions for all.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to Roger Weightman on June 24, 1826:
" I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. may it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. all eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view. the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. these are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."Some time ago, I posted the following:
"Perhaps the so-called "progressive" enemies of freedom understand better than those who fancy themselves as "conservatives" that in order to reverse the Founders' ideas of "People over government," and institute "government over People," they must first marginalize and destroy the ideas from which liberty is derived.
The writings of America's Founders are replete with references which rebuke would-be tyrants and cite a Higher Source for life, liberty and rights. Early histories confirm those facts.
As so-called "progressives" have led a movement in forsaking the Founders' "reliance on Divine Providence," and belief that individuals are "endowed by their Creator," they also have forsaken the principles underlying America's Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and are systematically dismantling the greatest protections for liberty ever established for a people.
"Ideas have consequences"(Weaver).
The ideas of 1776 came out of a set of ideas consistent with liberty.
We tend to forget, or have never considered, that other world views existed then, as now.
Unless today's citizens rediscover the ideas of liberty existing in what Jefferson called "the American mind" of 1776, we risk going back to the "Old World" ideas which preceded the "Miracle of America."
There are those who call themselves "progressives," when, in fact, their ideas are regressive and enslaving, and as old as the history of civilization.
Would suggest to any who wish an authentic history of the ideas underlying American's founding a visit to this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" can be read on line.
This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.
Is there any wonder that the enemies of freedom, the so-called "progressives," do not promote such authentic histories of America? Their philosophy puts something called "the state," or "global interests" as being superior to individuals and requires a political elitist group to decide what role individuals are to play.
In other words, they must turn the Founders' ideas upside-down in order to achieve a common mediocrity for individuals and power for themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.