Trip to Boston
My wife and I had the opportunity to visit Boston last weekend for a wonderful Focus on the Family Conference. This was our first time to Boston and I have to say it is a fabulous city.
There is a tremendous amount of history and sites to visit. We took the bus tour and walked part of the Freedom trail and visited many of the sites listed in the picture.
The city itself is very friendly to walkers and we probably walked 10 miles or more in our 2 days. There are great restaurants, pubs, and outdoor dining venues. The diversity in language and nationalities was tremendous and the college atmosphere with all the youth was exciting.
It would certainly be a place I would like to visit when I had more time to actually study some of the historical sites.
One thing that could not be denied with all of the historic churches and history is that this nation was founded with Judeo-Christian beliefs at the forefront. Anyone denying this either has not been to Boston or is choosing to deny the obvious because of their personal beliefs and/or bias.
posted by Anonymous at 5:55 AM
26 Comments:
Pray tell, Reverend, which specific Judeo-Christian belief is on the menu today? Which God, which specific scriptural passage ... which contextual quagmire must I wade through in order to provide succor to the evangelical?
Funny that many of the settlers in Colonial America fled religious persecution (i.e., from fellow "Christians," not Muslims or Animists) and stifling orthodoxy, and once established here, immediately moved to inflict their own orthodoxy on others.
After all, "anyone denying this either has not been to Boston or is choosing to deny the obvious because of their personal beliefs and/or bias."
Otherwise, I envy you for visiting Boston. I haven't, but have a cousin there. He may well see us soon.
I love Boston; I lived in Cape Cod 18 years ago. I would love to go back and visit.
I would have liked to have gone for Focus on the Family Conference.
What was the topic of the conference? Was it their new tour on the Truth Project? I'm reading Dr James Dobson's book Bringing up Boys, it is a great book.
You could have expanded your religious tourism with a trip to nearby Salem where you could have studied the persecution of "witches."
NAC,
No one said there was a particular denomination.
They did flee from persecution and there were many denominations. But the overwhelming majority were Judeo Christian.
The price of enforced religious conformity became too high for most people in Europe and elsewhere and the promise of religious toleration provided a powerful incentive to accept the hazards of life in the American colonies.
Quakers came to Pennsylvania, Catholics to Maryland, Dutch Reformed to New York and later came Swedish Lutherans, French Huguenots, English Baptists and Scottish Presbyterians.
The prominent exception to toleration were the Congregational Puritans of Mass. Bay who were determined to establish a new Zion in the American Wilderness. They were unsuccessful.
Denominations are inclusive and implies the Christian group is denominated by a particular name but one member of a larger group—the church (Christians)—to which all denominations belong.
The denominational theory of the church, then, insists that the true church cannot be identified with any single ecclesiastical structure. This was developed by the 17th century Congregationalists at the Westminster Assembly (1642-1649) and articulated several fundamental truths:
Considering man’s inability to always see the truth clearly, differences of opinion about the outward form of the church are inevitable.
Even though these differences do not involve fundamentals of the faith, every Christian is obligated to practice what he believes the Bible teaches
Since no church has a final and full grasp of divine truth, the true Church of Christ can never be fully represented by any single ecclesiastical structure
The mere fact of separation does not of itself constitute schism; it is possible to be divided at many points and still be united in Christ.
Thus the denominational theory of the church looked for unity in some inward religious experience—and allowed diversity in the outward expression of that personal faith.
This is why the United States was so successful compared to where they came from.
To anonymous, it was the truth project and it was an excellent conferance. We hopefully will begin the 12 week class soon.
I am not sure who around here denies that Judeo-Christian beliefs played a roll. We can argue "forefront" till the cows come home.
So what? Many of these same people also believed in slavery.
Good point, IAH. They never want to discuss that part, do they?
Is this the same Dobson who has been advocating the participation of tax exempt religious empires in politics?
I don't use the word "theocracy" for the fun of it.
Slavery was a huge issue even in the beginning and nearly prevented the formation of the original 13 colonies.
The principles that formed the Declaration and later the Constitution were Judeo-Christian based. They were not slavery based. Slavery was kept only as a means to establish the original nation and it was regretted many, many times by most of the Founders.
Dobson also is entitled to his opinion on things, even if he is wrong with advocating this.
Tax exempt instituitions can choose to do as he advocates, but they should suffer the consequences of their decision.
I love Boston clam chowder!!!!
It's interesting that Boston, and Massachusetts in general, being one of the oldest areas in the U.S. and having survived the aforementioned early "Christian" influence, is now consistently pointed out as one of the most liberal enclaves in the country.
Maybe middle America just needs another hundred years or so. There's hope yet.
Massachusetts is also in a tight race with Louisiana for corruption. The "Big Dig" had huge budget overruns and, as we now know, had/has some serious quality control problems. You have to figure that any state that continues to send Ted Kennedy to the Senate term after term has a screw loose somewhere.
Funny, I thought the same thing about North Carolina and Jesse Helms.
In a nation populated by hypocrites, it ain't the meat -- it's the pork barrel motion that brings 'em back again and again.
NAC,
We certainly agree on the pork that is on all sides of the political spectrum. It is destroying our nation.
We need people who can think of others and what is good for the long term.
I still say that we should consider paying the legislators more and allow them to serve (~6years) but cannot be reelected for another term. Then they may actually try to do what will make sense rather than doing what gets votes.
HB, unfortunately the only profession that can accomodate a 6 year leave of absence without a severe blow to one's career track is being an attorney - and we have too many of those in politics now. I'm convinced that public funding of campaigns is the only way to go.
I am not opposed to that. It would certainly allow those without tremendous wealth to run.
Iamhoosier to invalidate the reasonableness of calling on ANY religious truth claims with trust, points to the sin of US slavery by US Christians.
saying,
"So what? Many of these same people also believed in slavery."
There is truth in his claim. Many tried to rationalize their sin with Scripture by pointing to Old and New Testament references to slavery in the culture. This terrible sin was rationalized through Scripture and driven by the lie that the slaves were not fully persons.
From my understanding of history. In intellectual/civilized ancient cultures, (i.e. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), that being a slave was preferable to living in the country. (The nomos) Slaves chose slavery to be part of the metropolis and have more resources. These slaves weren't normally physically mistreated and chose slavery as a way to feel more like a part of the popular culture and "society". The relationship between slave and owner was agreed upon and contractual. There were rules. (Of course the problem of sin keeps our lawyers busy, I am sure the problem of sin created those men who chose not to observe the laws, also.) The slave system as a whole was distinct from what the majority of the US slave trade became.
To my understanding there were a few "mutually consenting" owner/slave relationships.
In todays culture there is a sort of slavery that is similar to the slavery spoken of in the Bible.
When one chooses to carry large sums of debt on credit cards. One gets to have a better life style, be more a part of popular culture but pays for it in a financial sort of bondage and interest rates.
Real moral problems start to arise when any person (slave or free) is not seen as an equally, mutually, human and a person. In general,people acting immorally do evil to others they rationalize or perceive as lesser-persons or non-persons. A canibal might eat you, but not his own brother, because those in his own tribe are persons. You are not.
The cannibal holds the same values that you do, but the FACTS about the situation for the cannibal are different. You are supper, his brother is a person. There is a distinction between facts and values.
Roz I welcome hearing your understanding of slavery around 33 A.D.
apolo-ener-getic,
"Iamhoosier to invalidate the reasonableness of calling on ANY religious truth claims with trust, points to the sin of US slavery by US Christians."
Exactly where did ANY come up? Actually you don't understand my point at all. I am guessing because you don't want to. It is easier and fits in better with your beliefs. Perhaps we are both guessing.
I would thank you to not put words in my mouth. I know that I ain't got no good english like you do but I am tryin' to git beter.
Iamhoosier says,
"Exactly where did ANY come up?"
I apologize if I mis-stated your point. I hope you will forgive me.
I was focused on the part of your comment that serves to invalidate the reliability of Christian truth claims. Your calling upon historically acts of sins by Christians. Doing so, distorts the understanding of the source and value of the claims of Scripture. You affirmed that the influence of Christian ideas had a part to play in our culture, and that it is unreasonable not to acknowledge them. We agree on this. Then you made the statement I evidently misinterpreted and mis-stated.
Why might I have made that mistake?
**Because, unfortunately, mankind holds infallible truth--fallibly. Christians are redeemed sinners, but sinners none the less.
**I jumped the gun, because the value and potential success of the claim should be measured apart from mankind's on-going failure to consistently and clearly practice the claims.
I jumped the gun, because of an anonymous reference to witch hunts that serves the same purpose, and other conversations on this blog about the crusades and other atrosities in the name of God.
I jumped the gun because many hold anti-supernatural bias and do not receive information from truth explained through a supernatural source.
US slavery and the Salem witch hunts are detestable acts. I get as frustrated and disappointed as anyone that those calling themselves Christians associated the will of God with these choices.(mankind's will) It is man putting their stink on God.
Would one make a comment like yours, if they truly believed that truth claims from Scripture were Divine--from a supernatural, non-human source? Available to all? Beneficial to all?
Would you help me understand your point better?
Again, I apologize for any "stink" that I unfairly put on you.
Well, slavery c.6000 BC - AD 1550, or so, was about one thing at it's core: power. Military power, to be exact. It was not about color and not usually about race at all. It was simply a matter of one people being wealthy and militarily powerful enough to conquer another and to enslave them.
In ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, most of the fighting was over the "good land" near the Tigris, Euphrates or the Nile rivers. Indeed, the wars were largely over "water rights," and think how important it was then (even now)in that region. Those who were conquered, often had the same skin color as the conquerors/enslavers. Most, not all, but MOST worshiped the same, some of the same, or similar deities (one exception being the Hebrew people, a little later on).
This was true from c.600 BC in ancient Greece, where there was often warfare between city-states, made up of people who were ethnically and religiously the same.
In the times of the Roman Republic/Dictatorship/Empire, it was much the same. Slaves AND citizens could practice nearly any religion and were of many, varying ethnicities, including Italic. It was simply a matter of power, or class...not color. Indeed, slaves of Rome could often earn their freedom, become land-owners and prominent citizens in many cases.
The ancient Celts in western Europe often enslaved each other as did some ancient Germanic people. In the 9th century AD, the Norse and Danes of the Dublin-York alliance sold many Celtic and Romano-Celtic slaves in the Baltic region. Notice everyone involved here had caucasian skin tones.
Indeed, it was not until the AD 1500s, when DeGamma opened up exploration of Africa by late-medieval Europeans, that slavery/superiority became a "color" issue.
As for AD 33, or thereabouts, Christians were still really new within the Roman Empire, but persecution and enslavement did come to many Christians later, during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, until the time of Constantine (early 4th century).
apolo-ener-getic,
I made a feeble attempt yesterday to explain my use of these "actions" in the last comment under the France post from last week.
I do not believe as you do. According to you, that is bias on my part. OK. I may be wrong about this, but you would not seem to accept the term bias as applied to your beliefs. To you, it is the "truth". Fine. Believe what you want.
My problem, at times, with your truth is the acts that have been committed in service to this truth. I do not inject these just to raise emotion or a "gotcha" factor.
We learned more scientifically and discovered mental illness. Those people killing witches actually thought they were right. If you could go back in time and try to explain mental illness, you would likely be killed also.
How many actions have been committed in the name of truth that Christians today say, "We are sorry. Those people were mistaken. The knowledge did not exist yet."?
A more contemporary example. What will Christians be saying a 100 years from now when it is discovered that there is a physical reason for homosexuality? You got it, "Those people were mistaken to not grant them the same rights as........."
So many evangelicals come across as so sure that they are right. I am just pointing out that throughout history, others were just as sure. And they were wrong.
Terrific and very clear commentary IAH.
The only place I might part company with you is your prediction about fundamentalists future views on current beliefs such as the sinfullness of homosexuality. Any group of people that denies that the universe is billions of years old and that life emerged on this planet eons ago (and EVOLVED through natural selection)isn't likely to accept any new proofs that differ from their "divine truths."
If someone trained in science--say, medical science, believes biblical stories as literal truth (including Noah and the flood) and denies scientific methods of dating materials, then I am sure he/she won't have any trouble ignoring whatever is later discovered about the root causes of that awful sin called homosexuality.
A question that has burned in my mind for years is "What happened to all of those Catholics who went to Hell because they committed the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday?" The Church has since declared this is no longer sinful. Did all those meat-eating sinners get any recompense after they burned in Hell?
Hey, I wasn't kidding about the clam chowder!!!!
Though, I confess, I like Manhattan clam chowder too.
Roz
Roz says,
"As for AD 33, or the reabouts, Christians were still really new within the Roman Empire, but persecution and enslavement did come to many Christians later, during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, until the time of Constantine (early 4th century)."
Thanks for taking the time to give such a great overview. From the information that you provide, there isn't a strong show, so to say, for contractual slavery, or the more civil use of slavery spoken of in Scripture. Very interesting.
Thanks
Iamhoosier says,
I think that means I am forgiven, Thank you.
I do accept the word bias for my belief in a supernatural realm and truth claims. I do not take offense, you are correct I hold a bias. I wish we could examine evidence that supports the reasonableness of believing there is more than "the cosmic cube". I haven't found evidence other than rampant "dis-belief" to disprove a supernatural realm.
I don't think I have explained the point I am trying to make in response to your point very well either.
Iamhoosier comment,
"I am just pointing out that throughout history, others were just as sure. And they were wrong."
Yes x 1000+. Although mankind is given good advice, mankind does not always heed the advice or practice it well. God is not imperfect because we are imperfect.
Yes, 100 years from now, working with new facts, it is a good bet we will have be reasons for regret in decisions we have made.
Life is an art based on the natural world. (science) But, life is not an empirical science. The values taught in Scripture transcend time and man's wisdom.
It will always be GOD (good) advice for man to love the Lord their God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength and to love their neighbors as themselves.
RE:
"I haven't found evidence other than rampant "dis-belief" to disprove a supernatural realm."
You could make that statement about a million different belief systems. Not proving that a belief is wrong doesn't make it correct. And, let's be honest here. The "disbelief" you encounter has less to do with rejecting the possibility of a supernatural realm than finding your version of it implausible.
AEG,
No need for either one of us to apologize and/or grant forgiveness. We are discussing, you more eloquently than I. That still does not mean that I agree with you.(smile)
I probably share many of the same beliefs that you & Doc do. I believe in marriage(26yrs), personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility(I owe $0), and loyalty(have been working for & with the same man for 27yrs).
These beliefs have worked for me and I will share them with anyone who wants to listen. However, another belief of mine is that my way is not the only way.
Post a Comment
<< Home