How do we answer charges...

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

How do we answer charges against the Protestant Church throughout its history? No matter which side you side with there is violence, genocide etc... This does not paint a very good picture of us and it is the first thing that seems ever to be pointed to when you mention Calvinists, Puritans etc...

Whether it is the fighting in France, the English Civil War with all its fall outs, the slaughter of royalists or the looting of Catholic Churches people always find something to charge us with. Then there were the American Puritans who treated the Native Americans in a way which often can only be compared to genocide. How do we answer such claims? What about people like Stonewall Jackson who was so racist towards the Native Americans that he killed thousands of them? Isn´t this same man quoted by the protestants and I even found a t-shirt with him on it. How can we defend Protestantism and Calvinism etc... while having such people as these as our ideological founders or historical relatives?

 

[RamistThomist]

Um lets see...Inquisitions, the Papacy, corruption, the fact that the Bible says one thing that is in direct contradiction with the Magisterium...

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Yes but liberals in particular are quick to point out they dont like the Catholics either :S - and that is why religion is bad (according to them)

If anything we dig a deeper hole for ourselves if we start pointing to what other 'Christians' have done.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
How do we answer charges against the Protestant Church throughout its history? No matter which side you side with there is violence, genocide etc... This does not paint a very good picture of us and it is the first thing that seems ever to be pointed to when you mention Calvinists, Puritans etc...

Whether it is the fighting in France

Easy hoss, it wasn't the Catholics being slaughtered on a large scale. Remember St. Bartholomew's Day? Don't let em forget that!

Then there were the American Puritans who treated the Native Americans in a way which often can only be compared to genocide. How do we answer such claims?

Simple, deny them http://www.visionforum.com/booksandmedia/productdetail.aspx?productID=64103

What about people like Stonewall Jackson who was so racist towards the Native Americans that he killed thousands of them?

Please document that from a primary source. Stonewall Jackson was one of the greatest Christians on the North American Continent. Not to mention that he actively evangelized the slaves when their genteel Northern Abolitionists sought only to use them for political means.

Isn´t this same man quoted by the protestants and I even found a t-shirt with him on it. How can we defend Protestantism and Calvinism etc... while having such people as these as our ideological founders or historical relatives?

Do you read historical revisionism for fun?

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Yes but liberals in particular are quick to point out they dont like the Catholics either :S - and that is why religion is bad (according to them)

If anything we dig a deeper hole for ourselves if we start pointing to what other 'Christians' have done.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Ask them how they can say that something is bad without a transcendent standard to judge it by.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih


What about people like Stonewall Jackson who was so racist towards the Native Americans that he killed thousands of them? Isn´t this same man quoted by the protestants and I even found a t-shirt with him on it. How can we defend Protestantism and Calvinism etc... while having such people as these as our ideological founders or historical relatives?

Simply where did you find this quote?

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

I have actually boxed up and sent home my American History books from University by my lecturer was quick in his lectures to point out Stonewall Jackson as ordering such things as hunting down of Indians, he was very harsh on them etc... to get more details I would have to get my books back. About his quote - I dont see it as bad - I want to know how to explain away the wicked that he did. You can find the t-shirt on our very own apuritansmind.com http://www.apuritansmind.com/images/TShirts/StonewallJacksonSmall.jpg

 

[RamistThomist]

I simply deny those charges as libel against a godly man. You have yet to prove them except state that a history professor told you so. Well, I state that Stonewall Jackson's biographers say otherwise.

I mean, it is one thing to say that the War was over slavery or what not, but to accuse one of the greatest men to ever live in the past 200 years is outrageous.

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

i generaly dont source what I thought to be common knowledge over here anyway so I will have to go off next time I find sources and provide them for you.

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is probably how they butchered the history over there. The Federal Army before the Civil War (of which Jackson was a part) did carry out wars against the Indian Nations (although Jackson was not a part of these wars, he being in Mexico at that time). And there was a ferocity about Jackson when he fought (much like King David). He wanted to "raise the Black Flag" and end the war quickly. He knew that being fierce in battle and the advantage of possible ending the war and saving more lives on both sides (not really Hitler-esque, huh?).

The modern liberal historian who has an agenda to push (and it isn't advancing the kingdom of God) probably reasoned thus:

Jackson was in the United States Army
2. The US Army fought the Indians
3. We will assume Jackson probably fought the Indians
4. Therefore, Jackson was brutal to the Indians.
5. Jackson fought for the South (which every body knows was evil, along with every body fighting for it)
6.Ergo, Jackson was a terrible man

Wow, if that is all it takes to be a historian in the academy I ought to change careers. I think I will make up history as I go along. Gee, let's see, I don't like Robert E Lee because he was a white Christian, I think I will slander his character...Even though it may not be popular and won't get one tenure, historical honesty is still a duty.

Historically speaking the time frame does not allow Jackson to be butchering Indians when he was in Mexico, having one wife die in childbirth, touring Europe, getting remarried, and teaching at VMI. The only way that he could be butchering Indians is if he were in two places at once (which is feasible for a revisionist historian). Not to mention that even his enemies at that time attributed to him the highest quality of Christian character.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Finn McCool]

 

[cupotea]

Originally posted by Finn McCool

Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih

Then there were the American Puritans who treated the Native Americans in a way which often can only be compared to genocide. How do we answer such claims?

Simple, deny them http://www.visionforum.com/booksandmedia/productdetail.aspx?productID=64103

Sorry, I've got to call you on that one. The Puritans--many of them, anyway--did treat the natives terribly. What IS overlooked is that the natives were just as cruel (if not crueller). What is also overlooked are the "Praying Indians", i.e. the towns of converts set up because the Puritans DID see hope of grace in the natives. John Eliot translated the entire Bible into a Native American language in the 1660s, and prettymuch dedicated his life to converting them. Unfortunately, his work was all undone with King Philip's War in 1675. There was also the American Society, set up to convert the natives. My point is, indeed there was a lot of racism, but it was on both sides, and it wasn't hopeless--the Puritans did what they thought was best.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Finn McCool

Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Yes but liberals in particular are quick to point out they dont like the Catholics either :S - and that is why religion is bad (according to them)

If anything we dig a deeper hole for ourselves if we start pointing to what other 'Christians' have done.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Ask them how they can say that something is bad without a transcendent standard to judge it by.

Bingo

 

[RamistThomist]

Anyway Fraser,
I think you have Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson confused with Andrew Jackson and his Indian Policies. I will trust that you just got your names mixed up. Furthermore, I wouuld again add that I want to see primary documentation that Stonewall Jackson sanctioned the slaughter of Indians. Saying, "My history book tells me so" doesn't cut it. I can make mere assertions; that doesn't require a PhD.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Finn McCool]

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

I will recant in the face of such opposition and I no longer have my history books on me. Delete this thread if a moderator wants to...

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Originally posted by Finn McCool
Anyway Fraser,
I think you have Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson confused with Andrew Jackson and his Indian Policies. I will trust that you just got your names mixed up. Furthermore, I wouuld again add that I want to see primary documentation that Stonewall Jackson sanctioned the slaughter of Indians. Saying, "My history book tells me so" doesn't cut it. I can make mere assertions; that doesn't require a PhD.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by Finn McCool]

I could possibly have gotten Andrew Jackson and Stonewall Jackson confused. Somewhere in the back of my head I thought the two were the same. I was just walking off to work after writing that and suddenly had doubts about whether they were the same people. I was wrong.

rage against me if you like but I confess I made a mistake

 

[RamistThomist]

I understand. I did give you the benefit of the doubt, however. I knew that the INTENSE Christianity of men like Lee and Jackson would be missed by those who don't give a rip about practical Christianity (liberal revisionists). I probably over reacted as well, although I do think you are thinking about Old Hickory Andy Jackson.

Can we

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

I just found a painting of Andrew Jackson and I believe I was thinking of him.

 

[cupotea]

And according to http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html (a post on here from a few days ago), Andrew Jackson was Presbyterian...

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Originally posted by Cottonball
And according to http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html (a post on here from a few days ago), Andrew Jackson was Presbyterian...

Yes but at least you can sideline Andrew Jackson as unlike Stonewall Jackson he is not well known as a godly Christian...

[Edited on 11-11-2004 by Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

 

[cupotea]

You're not kidding! "Hey outside world: Andrew Jackson does not represent us."

 

[JohnV]

Fraser:

Ravi Zacharias answered that question once. In the first place he compared such accusations against the incomparably greater numbers of murders perpetrated by anti-Christian men. Hitler was a bad one for that, but it did not get better after that. Stalin was worse, but it did not get better after that. We can talk about China or about the Iran/Iraq affair, but we really need go no further than our own borders, in the gleeful slaughter of preborn babies for the sake of sexual freedom and pleasure.

But he also noted that the atrocities usually referred to, such as the religious wars in the middle east, in Ireland, and perpetrated by the RCC, the persecutions by Christian leaders of Christians who dared to refuse subservience to false doctrine, all these are not the outcome of religious truth or doctrine, but rather of a fervour out of a self-righteous religious zeal.

In the end it is a comparison of one type of apostacy against another type of apostacy, not one of Christianity against non-Christianity. Whenever believers do things such as that it is found out that they were not really that true after all, that they had their own motives in mind. And even an example like Calvin's hand in the execution of Servetus, the historical facts, as mentioned above, are important to keep in mind, as opposed to innuendo or hearsay. Not every execution is wrong, even if the social Status Quo says it is. In this case, and this is my opinion on it, this example can be used for the opposite argument instead, to show that Christians have a higher sense of justice than non-Christians.

I wish I could cite Zacharias for you, but I heard it on a radio broadcast quite a while ago. If I recall, he was answering a question from the audience, and went into quite a bit of detail. Boy, he was ready for that one.

[Edited on 11-11-2004 by JohnV]

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Originally posted by JohnV
Fraser:

Ravi Zacharias answered that question once. In the first place he compared such accusations against the incomparably greater numbers of murders perpetrated by anti-Christian men. Hitler was a bad one for that, but it did not get better after that. Stalin was worse, but it did not get better after that. We can talk about China or about the Iran/Iraq affair, but we really need go no further than our own borders, in the gleeful slaughter of preborn babies for the sake of sexual freedom and pleasure.

But he also noted that the atrocities usually referred to, such as the religious wars in the middle east, in Ireland, and perpetrated by the RCC, the persecutions by Christian leaders of Christians who dared to refuse subservience to false doctrine, all these are not the outcome of religious truth or doctrine, but rather of a fervour out of a self-righteous religious zeal.

In the end it is a comparison of one type of apostacy against another type of apostacy, not one of Christianity against non-Christianity. Whenever believers do things such as that it is found out that they were not really that true after all, that they had their own motives in mind. And even an example like Calvin's hand in the execution of Servetus, the historical facts, as mentioned above, are important to keep in mind, as opposed to innuendo or hearsay. Not every execution is wrong, even if the social Status Quo says it is. In this case, and this is my opinion on it, this example can be used for the opposite argument instead, to show that Christians have a higher sense of justice than non-Christians.

I wish I could cite Zacharias for you, but I heard it on a radio broadcast quite a while ago. If I recall, he was answering a question from the audience, and went into quite a bit of detail. Boy, he was ready for that one.

[Edited on 11-11-2004 by JohnV]

It sounds like an impressive answer and wish I could read what Zacharias had first said. This was the kind of reply I wanted before I got weighed down with errors in my 'facts' (yet more proof humanity is depraved)