Two Revolutions, Two Views of Man

Conservative Underground | July 6, 2010 | Jean F. Drew

[Alamo-Girl]

I am thrilled to hear you have a similar testimony, dear brother in Christ and "Rocky Ridge" kid!

[stfassisi]

I attend Mass more often than any Protestant service in the area because our elderly Catholic cousin is in a wheelchair and needs help.

Good News! I'm happy to hear this!

Truly, there are many doctrines in the Catholic belief which grate against my spirit, e.g. closed communion

There is a reason,and it's not that your being judged by the Church either.Here an excerpt from a simple dialog taken from thisrock.com

OBJECTOR: But why can’t the Church just say, "Come all Christians!" and make no further judgments?

CATHOLIC: Because the Church has a responsibility to teach what Scripture teaches. Think of it this way: If the Church allowed everyone to take Communion, it would be giving up its responsibility to teach what Christ and his apostles taught. If Scripture says that receiving communion is a fellowship or a sharing in the body and blood of Christ, and the Church allowed a person to receive it who didn’t believe in it this way, then the person is engaging in a act of lying, even if he is not aware of it as lying. By his actions he is saying that he believes what the Catholic Church says is true, but in his mind he doesn’t believe it. The Church does not want to put anyone in the position of having to lie with their actions, so it insists that a person receiving Communion must believe in the Eucharist in the way that the Catholic Church teaches.

if God led me to become Catholic, I would.

Since you attend Mass,I think you will become a Catholic someday. This gives me one more exiting thing for me to pray for ,dear sister. :) I was once a protestant,so you never know.

I am a bakery shop kid

Is this one of your cakes.LOL!

;

I wish well well in your search for truth,dear sister

[stfassisi]

Correction...
I wish well well in your search = I wish YOU well in your search

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights and the picture of that beautiful cake, dear brother in Christ!

I have heard the closed communion explanation before (and the close communion explanation from Lutherans) - but it doesn't satisfy because the priest or minister cannot know the mind and heart of the ones who do or do not partake of the cup and the bread.

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. - I Cor 11:28

But I don't wish to derail this thread into a sidebar on closed communions. It is enough that we have each made a statement.

May God ever bless you, dear stfassisi!

(Now for some coffee and pastries - I've suddenly become hungry ... LOLOL!)

[TXnMA]

"I wish YOU well in your search for truth."

You obviously missed the whole point of A-G's post: she, very clearly, has already arrived at the truth -- without having made any detours through a church hierarchy, intervention of "saints", dispensations from anyone in "Apostolic succession', bead-fumbling, etc., etc....

She like I, found her way directly to Christ -- through direct input from God via the Bible. We were like rifles -- loaded, cocked, sights on the target, firmly stabilized by slings -- and all it took was "recognizing how to release the safety" for us to "hit the X-ring".

And all that came through the WORD -- not some human-staffed and imposed organization. IOW: no church required. Specifically, no Church required...

Sorry if the above makes you feel superfluous and your Church unnecessary. If so, however, you are taking valuable first steps, and I "wish YOU well in your search for truth."

[Alamo-Girl]

She like I, found her way directly to Christ -- through direct input from God via the Bible. We were like rifles -- loaded, cocked, sights on the target, firmly stabilized by slings -- and all it took was "recognizing how to release the safety" for us to "hit the X-ring".

And all that came through the WORD -- not some human-staffed and imposed organization. IOW: no church required. Specifically, no Church required...

Truly, I am full of love, joy and peace exactly where I am.

Thank you so much for sharing your testimony and insights, dear brother in Christ!

God's Name is I AM.

[kosta50]

[Re: You've got to learn to stop making statements which can be easily checked and refuted, expecting to carry the day by sheer bombast."]

This is was in response to my assertion that in the 18th century English nouns were routinely capitalized, inlcuding the Declaration of Independence. The self-appointed censor-general who tracks my posts with admirable passion  even provided a link to show me that I was wrong, hence the "easily checked and refuted"  comment.

But if the particular individual bothered to preach what she preaches she would have learned that the document that handwritten draft that was approved on July 4th, 1776 (which was signed only by the John Hancock (president of the Congress) and Charles Thompson (Secretary), and was immediately sent to a printer a few blocks away for immediate distribution. The printed copies made by John Dunlap, a printer, on July 4th, 1776, are  known as the Dunlap broadsides (hi-res link) pictured below in reduces resolution.

 

The original handwritten Declaration John Dunlap used is lost, so the only copy of the Delcaration that is actually a July 4th copy is the Dunlap printed version. One thing that is immediately clear from looking at the hi-resolution image is that it apparently capitalizes nouns, such as Course, Events, etc. 

The so-called Goddard broadsides were officially printed in January 1777, showing signatures of all participants in the drafting and approving, while maintaining idential capitalization of the July 4th, 1776 Dunlap version.

The handwritten copy we usually associate with the "original" Declaration of Independence is a commissioned copy ordered by the Philadelphia Congress on July 19, 1776 in order for all participants to sign it. It's cursive text shows somewhat lesser tendency to capitalize every noun compared to the official July 4th printed versions but a high resolution copy leaves no doubt that such  capitalization is still present (see hi-res here), as evidenced by words such as Form, Men, Trade, etc.

Some other copies,such as the Boston broadsides follow the handwritten custom. And, for what it's worth,  this little article on English Capitalization – Rules and Regulations says of the 18th century capitalizations

Soon many writers capitalized every noun they found important. Consequently, in some books all or most nouns were being capitalized

So, I stand by my original statement. And so much for my censor-general telling me "You've got to learn to stop making statements which can be easily checked and refuted, expecting to carry the day by sheer bombast" with which you so wholehearteldy agreed but without ever realizing that his own advice might perchance bite both of you.

[kosta50]

"One great Advantage of the Christian Religion is that it brings the great Principle of the Law of Nature and Nations, Love your Neighbour as yourself..." -- John Adams Diary 46, Sunday, August 14, 1796, Pg 52)...

Very impressive. However, his "Christianity" is not what mainline Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.) ands for. His Christianity is akin and in fact a derivative of Arian "Christianity" which is about as Chrisitna as Mormonism.

Just because he used the same words doesn't mean he used the same concepts as Triniatrian Christians!

He was a member of the 18th century Unitarian church which in those days professed that the Bible is not divinely inspired, that God is one Person (i.e. only the Father), thereby denying the divinity of Christ. And for all but some peripheral "Christian" offshoots, Christianity is defined by the belief that the Christ and the Father and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal, one and the same God, equally divine, yet distinct hypostatic realities.

He and Thomas Jefferson therefore used terminology that did not clash with the terminoogy of the rest of the members of the Congress who were true Christians but did not share all their beliefs.

[grey_whiskers]

BFD.

So what you're saying, is that John is mythical, since he only appears in the Bible; that there have been numerous substitutions and mistranscriptions which render translations of the Bible, and the events related in it, suspect; but that for the Declaration of Independence, with the Original Handwritten Copy^TM LOST, we can infer from a printed (and hence, likely more formal) COPY, that we know the original capitalization, infallibly.

Nice try, child.

Oh -- did you bother to read up on the Scripture verses from both Old and New Testament, condemning and/or restricting slavery? Or read up on the history of the Church's campaigns against slavery, from the noted abolitionist (not apologist) Harriet Beecher Stowe?

[kosta50]

[to my passionate critic's remarks you wrote] Thank you for this wonderful material. A great deal to digest.

She takes issue with my statement that the Bible legitimizes slavery. To this she responds "the Old Testament forbids Jews from enslaving other Jews (Leviticus 25:39-42; see also Jeremiah 34:8-10)."

This was of course not due to some avant-garde humanistic notions of the ancient Jews, but because of the notion that Jews can be servants (slaves) only to their God.

In fact, only a verse hop further, the same Leviticus 25 says (my emphasis)

"⁴⁴'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have--you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you."

So pagans in the region are legitimate slave material according to God's own words.

Not so long ago, I was told by a very active Protestant Freeper on another thread that biblical slavery was not immoral because it was not a chattel-type of slavery as the American slavery was (!). This, of course, is yet another straw man.

This lady must not have done her Bible reading thoroughly, I suppose, since none other than the same Leviticus 25 says

"⁴⁵'Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.

 ⁴⁶'You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

To be sure, the Bible approves of slavery of any kind, including the worst chattel-type (where the slave is actually a property owned and passed on as inheritance), as long as the slave is not a Jew!

In other words, since Leviticus is one of the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) and therefore dictated to him by God word-for-word, it is God (not Moses through inspiration) who is establishing not only chattel-type slavery in Leviticus 25, but one based on race/religion.

Because the Bible says it's okay to own slaves as property, it must be morally acceptable to any Jew or Christian (that is, if they believe Leviticus is God's very word, as they claim) as one's faith in God would oblige them to do so.

My beloved self-appointed censor-general further builds her straw man by citing 1 Corinthians 7:21, 23 which read, respectively:

"...if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of it"

"You have all been redeemed at infinite cost: do not become slaves to men"

adding a comment "So it seems slavery is meant (at most) for those outside an active covenant with God."

Which in those days was most of the world. So, she seems to be suggesting that it's okay to be a slave if you are not "born again" which is no different than the OT saying you can own a slave a song as he is not a a Jew. I suppose racism and slavery go hand in hand, don't they, and all thanks to the Bible it seems.

So, it is really interesting where the Church got its ideas that a man is free as a matter of self-evident (I suppose biblical) truth! Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the pillars of Patristic thinking (when he was not following Origen's universal salvation Gnostic beliefs) on which the catholic and orthodox Church rests, assails slavery on biblical grounds!:

"You condemn man who is free and autonomous to servitude, and you contradict God by perverting the natural law. Man, who was created as lord over the earth, you have put under the yoke of servitude as a transgressor and rebel against the divine precept." [Gregory of Nyssa, IV Homily, Commentary on Ecclesiastes]

It makes you wonder if this (4th century) bishop ever read Genesis 9:25-27, or the already mentioned verses in Leviticus 25. :) 

Happy digestion.

[Diamond]

To be sure, the Bible approves of slavery of any kind, including the worst chattel-type (where the slave is actually a property owned and passed on as inheritance), as long as the slave is not a Jew!

In other words, since Leviticus is one of the Five Books of Moses (the Torah) and therefore dictated to him by God word-for-word, it is God (not Moses through inspiration) who is establishing not only chattel-type slavery in Leviticus 25, but one based on race/religion.

Because the Bible says it's okay to own slaves as property, it must be morally acceptable to any Jew or Christian (that is, if they believe Leviticus is God's very word, as they claim) as one's faith in God would oblige them to do so.

Why do you include Christians in the Old Covenant?! And if the Old Covenant tolerated or even approved slavery, what is that to you? You seem to take for granted that there's something morally wrong with it. Why? On what grounds do you oppose whatever they did then?

So, it is really interesting where the Church got its ideas that a man is free as a matter of self-evident (I suppose biblical) truth! Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the pillars of Patristic thinking (when he was not following Origen's universal salvation Gnostic beliefs) on which the catholic and orthodox Church rests, assails slavery on biblical grounds!:

"You condemn man who is free and autonomous to servitude, and you contradict God by perverting the natural law. Man, who was created as lord over the earth, you have put under the yoke of servitude as a transgressor and rebel against the divine precept."
[Gregory of Nyssa, IV Homily, Commentary on Ecclesiastes]

It makes you wonder if this (4th century) bishop ever read Genesis 9:25-27, or the already mentioned verses in Leviticus 25. :)

Certainly with the breadth of your intellect and scope of your knowledge you are aware of the Biblical distinction [on its own terms] between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. So why do you ignore that crucial distinction here? But again, on what philosophical grounds do you think there is something wrong with racism and slavery, assuming that you do?

Cordially,

[stfassisi]

You obviously missed the whole point of A-G's post: she, very clearly, has already arrived at the truth

When I wrote to AG "I wish you well in your search for truth" it was said in the Spirit of kindness and NOT judgment. Since NO person posses knowledge of "all knowing truth" (including you or I),it's very obvious the spirit you were in with your response is a spirit of pride or ignorance of good will!

I wish you well in your search as well

[Alamo-Girl]

I imagine that each of us being content as we are in God's love are speaking to one another like Paul in the following verse.

And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds. - Acts 26:29

Truly, I would that everyone could see through my eyes. And I can imagine no better spiritual vision than what He has already given me, though at the same time I do not doubt that I am not seeing all that could be seen.

Nevertheless I am fully content and peaceful as a sheep in the Good Shepherd's care.

The LORD [is] my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou [art] with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. - Psalms 23

God's Name is I AM.

[YHAOS]

“The self-appointed censor-general who tracks my posts with admirable passion . . . ”

Since your quarrel seems to be with grey_whiskers it’s a wonder you didn’t bother to ping him (or her, as the case might be). But I have summoned him should he wish to defend himself.

“So, I stand by my original statement.”

And I by mine. To verify that Barnhart’s was not a lone exception, I went to the Online Etymology Dictionary and found virtually the identical language: creator c.1300, "Supreme Being," from Anglo-Fr. creatour, O.Fr. creator (12c., academic and liturgical, alongside popular creere, Mod.Fr. créateur), from L. creator "creator, author, founder," from creatus (see create). Translated in O.E. as scieppend (from verb scieppan; see shape). Not generally capitalized until KJV (emphasis mine). General meaning "one who creates" is from 1570s.

If these dictionaries had not found the capitalization of Creator significant we must presume capitalization would not have been mentioned. Etymological Dictionaries do not customarily make frivolous points. Your own reference takes the trouble to note that “many” writers capitalized every noun they thought “important.” It must be believed that the noun Creator, meaning God, would have been thought important.

In the closing days of the Constitutional Convention Franklin wrote a speech to be read to the Convention by another party, due to Franklin’s frailty. There was some discussion whether a copy Madison had was authentic. Farrand’s research turned up another copy virtually identical to Madison’s copy save some difference in the capitalization! So here we have an example of where the speech differs only in capitalization from copy to copy. But, I know of no instance where Creator, meaning God, was not capitalized in the Founding Fathers’ writing.

[YHAOS]

“However, his "Christianity" is not what mainline Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.) ands for.”

You sound like a church prelate; obsessed with dogma. No church dogma could have inspired the American people to their revolutionary act. The issue was the Christian values infusing The Declaration.

“[Adams] and Thomas Jefferson therefore used terminology that did not clash with the terminoogy of the rest of the members of the Congress who were true Christians but did not share all their beliefs”

Oh! the perfidy, the deception! Adams and Jefferson did not subscribe to the dogma. No! they merely subscribed to the Christian values upholding The Declaration. At one point in our conversation, you seemed to think Adams an impeccable authority on the spirit that moved the American people to revolution. Now, you’re not so sure, it seems.

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles." (John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, 20 June, 1815, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh Editor, in 19 volumes). Not the dogma. The values.

"And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence." (John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797). Not the dogma. The values.

“[t]he rest of the members of the Congress,” you say, “[w]ere true Christians . . .” Indeed. Glad to hear you admit that fact . . . finally. And, the Christian values they embraced were indistinguishable from those of Adams and Jefferson. Not the dogma. The values.

"But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." (Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776). Not the dogma. The values.

“. . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 17 September, 1796, para 27 (see the complete paragraph for a more thorough exposition of this thought). Not the dogma. The values.

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" (Benjamin Franklin, 1787, when he was 81, from a speech given at the Constitutional Convention) Not the dogma. The values.

Even those of a later time understood that it was the Christian values, not the Christian dogma: “A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.” (Calvin Coolidge, “The Inspiration of the Declaration,” Speech at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 5, 1926). Not so much today, I guess, but there are still those of us who understand that it is the values of Christianity . . . not the dogma.

I told you before. I tell you again: “And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity (emphasis mine), in which all those sects were united; and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all these young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.” (John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, dated June 28, 1813, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh Editor, in 19 volumes). The values, not the dogma.

You’ve nothing left to argue but dogma. The values leave you twisting in the wind.

[kosta50]

Why do you include Christians in the Old Covenant?!

For the same reason Christians insist on the Ten Commandments.

You seem to take for granted that there's something morally wrong with it. Why? On what grounds do you oppose whatever they did then?

To me morality is a set of socially agreed upon standards of conduct that constantly evolve and vary from culture to culture. In our present-day Zeitgeist and Weltanschauung, slavery is considered immoral because that's what we currently believe.

you are aware of the Biblical distinction [on its own terms] between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. So why do you ignore that crucial distinction here?

I believe I answered that already. The Ten Commandments are part of the 613 mitzvot God mandated in the Torah. On what basis are, then, the Ten selected as morally 'biding' to Christians and the rest are not?

Moreover, this poses a problem with Judaism, which is seen as part of the moral and ethical continuum of Christianity (i.e. the so-called "Judeao-Christian tradition").

It seems reasonable that, being under the Law, every observant Jew is obligated by faith in God to believe that stoning someone to death would be a morally acceptable and legally mandated punishment, just as he or she would have to accept that owning non-Jewish slaves is morally justifiable.

I believe vast majority of observant Jews would deny that. But on what basis? besides, the New Covenant was promised only to the Jews (the two Jewish kingdoms House of Israel and the House of Judah), not to the Gentiles.

[YHAOS]

“She takes issue with my statement that the Bible legitimizes slavery.”

Again, you take issue with grey_whiskers, but post to me. You obviously want desperately to change the subject from the Christian values that drove the American revolutionary act and send me galloping down a sidetrack. If you wish to argue the Christian failure to end slavery, take it up with grey_whiskers.

With respect to slavery and the Christian values of the Founding Fathers, I will say one thing:

When the Founding Fathers came on the scene in the last half of the Eighteenth Century, slavery raged endemic throughout the colonies. When the last of the Founding Fathers departed from the scene in the first quarter of the Ninteenth Century, slavery was a crippled institution limited to one part of the new United States and doomed ultimately for extinction. The concurrence with the era of the Founding Fathers was no coincidence.

[kosta50]

I was responding to your post, not hers. Had you not made a comment I would have ignored hers, as I do, and as I told her I would. Believe me, she will find my posts (that's what she does, religiously it seems) with our without my pings.

It must be believed that the noun Creator, meaning God, would have been thought important

Apparently, based on capitalization alone, no more than any other word, such as Course or History, or Men, etc., all of which are equally capitalized. That's why I said capitalization of the word Creator in and of itself is not significant in that period.

But, I know of no instance where Creator, meaning God, was not capitalized in the Founding Fathers’ writing

Because it is treated as a proper name, just as George and John and Dick and Harry. They are all capitalized every time because they are proper names. Nothing special about that. Now, if the text used dsitinguishing capitalization, such as, say, the CREATOR, or the LORD, that would indicate distinction different from an ordianry noun.

God is capitalized simply because it is a proper name, like Christ (which simply means annointed), Allah or Buddha, Brahman, Baal, or Rah, or Satan, etc. If God is referred to as deity, there is no gramamtical reason to capitalizae it. Vatican documents routinely never capitalize divine pronouns as most Christians do (i.e. He vs. he, Him vs. him), because they are not considered proper names.

[grey_whiskers]

“The christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: both are derived from the worship of the Sun. The difference between their origin is, that the christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun”

I prefer G.K. Chesterton; more specifically, his short story The Eye of Apollo:

So her eyes got worse and worse with straining; but the worst strain was to come. It came with this precious prophet, or whatever he calls himself, who taught her to stare at the hot sun with the naked eye. It was called accepting Apollo. Oh, if these new pagans would only be old pagans, they would be a little wiser! The old pagans knew that mere naked Nature-worship must have a cruel side. They knew that the eye of Apollo can blast and blind."

[kosta50]

The concurrence with the era of the Founding Fathers was no coincidence

It was a world-wide movement which started with the French Revolution (even though Napoleon re-reinstated it). The British picked up the banner for political reasons and led the way first by abolishing slavery in Trinidad in the 1830's. The anti-slavery movement grew and exerted it pressure and eventually brought down slavery in the US as well. At the same time American industrialist had no moral problems with 16-hour a day child labor or practically slave-like conditions in which people lived and worked in northern industrial quarters. It was a politically correct thing to do in those days to oppose slavery, damn the workers, if you get what I mean. Nothing new under the sun. Just the same old double standards as usual. If you don't want to be a social nobody you have to go with the flow. It ha snothign to do with Chbristian principles.