A Wake Up Call - God is Speaking to Us

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

America was settled by Pilgrims - Pilgrims who paid a tremendous price to follow their God out of England, to escape a tyrant King who claimed to rule by Divine Right. The price they paid to settle your nation was absolutely horrendous, but they did it for Christ and His Church.

I think we need to fill in a few large gaps. The Pilgrims did not come to settle the nation and neither were they trying to escape a tyrant king. The first settlement of the British colonies was in Jamestown, VA in 1607 by a group of entrepreneurs who were given a charter from King James 1 and they named the settlement after the king. And this was the same King James that had commissioned the King James version of the Bible to be translated.

The second settlement was in 1620 in Plymouth, MA these settlers were part of a Protestant reformation movement in England called the Separatists They felt that the Church of England was not reforming fast enough and wanted to separate from it. But since it was the Church which received favored status by the state/country of England it had power to persecute Dissenters.

Later in 1630 a group of Puritans came over to Boston.

Once these Dissenters had power in MA they became the persecutors of those who dissented from them e.g. the Quakers several of whom they hung for their religious beliefs.

So let's be clear: Christians were persecuting Christians in England so those being persecuted left and when given the opportunity in the new colony in turn persecuted Christians. The persecutees became the persecutors once they had the power to do so.

But none of this had anything to do with starting a nation. They considered themselves as loyal subjects to Britain and the Crown. It wasn't until 169 years later (from Jamestown being established) that independence was declared. During the 169 years England had over 10 kings. The king at the time of the Revolution was George III and their initial complaint was that as British subjects they should have representation in the British Parliament - no taxation without representation. It was about economics. Nothing to do with religion.

About the divine right of kings: an argument could be made that this idea is soundly based in the NT where we are taught to obey kings. Even Jesus said "pay unto Caesar". (An argument made in Europe for 1500+ years.) And that the rebellion of the colonies was against the NT teaching and furthermore the founders replaced it with democracy which has its roots in pagan Greece.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

...they committed their children, their lives, and their testimony to the name of Jesus Christ. They ensured that every person in America received a Bible, and was educated about it. They committed themselves to prayer and fasting to seek His will...

When did they do this? Here are the words from the Treaty of Tripoli written in 1796 and signed by John Adams when he was President: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

Certainly the founders were informed by the Judeo-Christian tradition along with Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment. But the idea that they set up a Christian nation founded on the Christian religion is simply not true. If anything England at the time was a so called Christian nation.

[OBW]

I will be among the first to agree that America is among the greatest nations ever to exist. And the fact that there is a Judeo-Christian philosophy underpinning it and driving its basic ethos is part of the reason for that.

But no matter how far we try to take the Christian underpinnings, it is a secular nation. Everything in the little speech that guy gave was premised upon there being some contract between God and man concerning America that granted it blessing.

There is no such contract. This nation is what it is based upon the strength and will of rational people to choose good over evil.

The ongoing attempts by so many to recast it as some "walk through the carcass with God" experience just tugs at people's heart strings. It sounds so nice. Especially nice to have such a favored place before God. (Sound familiar? Just like we thought we had in the LRC.) And they are so sincere about it. So it must be right. It just feels right. That is how we get these crazy ideas. Someone feels it must be so and they play our emotions. And we dance. They may have good intentions, but the road to . . . .

It is an equivalent of discussing the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It is a complete distraction from the very purposes of scripture and the righteousness of God. And even, as Paul might have said, if it gets people to repent, the question will become "from what are they repenting?" Will it be from their own failures, errors, misdeeds, etc.? Or will it be for the nation's acceptance of abortion, gay marriage, etc.? Will it be for the nation pushing prayer out of schools, the ten commandments out of government buildings, or nativity scenes out of public parks?

No matter how you phrase it, for me to repent that America has "gone astray" is a joke. It has not gone astray. It is composed of people who were born astray. Everyone one is responsible only for themselves. They can't repent for others just like you can't buy people out of purgatory. And if we are not the ones aborting babies and performing marriage ceremonies for gays, then how do we repent for it?

It is a misguided distraction. It is similar to a malaise that has taken hold of the country in which no one is responsible for themselves and instead we all carry on with the sense of angst for the fact that someone else chose poorly and now faces jail or some other consequence. Blame their environment. Blame the schools. But never allow them to face the consequences. Don't mark their school papers with red because it is distressing.

So now we should add on to repent on behalf of others. Don't we have enough repentance to do for ourselves? If we think otherwise, then we are seriously mistaken.

I listened to the nonsense that the guy spoke. You can listen to me. I don't claim that my stance is "biblical" or that there are 9 harbingers out giving a warning. But that guy did.

[Thankful Jane]

One of the reasons I stopped posting on this forum was because of straw man arguments. These are fruitless and exhausting and I have no interest in participating in them. As one who always has to revisit the meaning of such terms as "straw man" that are used in argumentation, I'm offering here what Wikipedia says (for others like me who forget or don't know):


The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

I (speaking as the person who started this thread) never said (or thought) that I believed we were a “Christian nation” that was blessed and had lost its way and needed to get back to where it was. I also never said (nor thought) many other things that have been argued against (by Alwayslearning and OBW). I did not hear a “Christian nation’ message from Cahn. Clearly, Alwayslearning and OBW did, from what they heard (or partially heard). In my opinion, they do him a disservice by not properly representing his actual message in its entirety and instead presenting a distortion of it.


In the opening post, I didn’t try to repeat or analyze what Cahn said. I simply said it greatly affected me. I didn’t explain why it did. I thought I should just let his message speak for itself, as I still do, so I posted a link. Because of all the subsequent posts stating what Cahn was saying (as if it was fact), I will now say, in summary, what I heard. I heard a voice of warning, of God calling people (His people, mainly) to repent. I heard a voice of one crying in the wilderness--make straight the way of the Lord. I also heard the name of Jesus lifted high by a Jewish brother. I also realized there is a very real possibility that God is speaking through signs, such as some Cahn described. Some heard similarly. Others didn't hear this at all. Some couldn't even finish listening to him. So, I say let each man be persuaded in his own mind.

As for civil governments and God, I take my view of them from Paul:

I Tim. [2:1] I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; [2] for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. [3] This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.


Paul said it is “good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior” that those in authority in civil governments should provide/maintain an environment where people can live tranquilly in all godliness and gravity because God would have all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (which implies people could be free to speak the truth of the gospel.)

Our founding fathers set up a government that afforded people the opportunity to lead such godly lives. The government they formed also provided an environment which allowed people the freedom to speak and hear and come to the knowledge of the truth. (I would consider that fact to be a blessing.) A large majority of the founders valued the teachings of the Bible and of Christ and were influenced by them in shaping the civil government they established, with its Constitution. They spoke openly about God and His relationship to man. They prayed openly concerning their hope and intent for the new government. (Isn’t it possible that such a government came into being as God’s answer to the many prayers of foregone believers that were in line with Paul’s admonition in I Tim 2:1-3?)

Today, these founding values and principles, those who espouse them, and even God Himself are under open verbal and legislative attack. We are in danger of losing in a big way (from many different fronts) what Paul told us to pray for regarding civil government, and what I personally believe God gave us in answer to such prayers. So, we best be praying fervently, not that we can have some kind of perfect, blessed, government or “Christian nation,” but that we can have a government that allows us to live tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and gravity; that we can continue to have an environment where we can preach the gospel freely and men can be saved by the One who wants all men to be saved.

Time is short.

Thankful Jane

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

One of the reasons I stopped posting on this forum was because of straw man arguments...I (speaking as the person who started this thread) never said (or thought) that I believed we were a “Christian nation” that was blessed and had lost its way and needed to get back to where it was. I also never said (nor thought) many other things that have been argued against (by Alwayslearning and OBW). I did not hear a “Christian nation’ message from Cahn. Clearly, Alwayslearning and OBW did, from what they heard (or partially heard). In my opinion, they do him a disservice by not properly representing his actual message in its entirety and instead presenting a distortion of it.

I think your argument about straw man arguments is a straw man argument!

Here is what my response was to Cahn's talk:

"I was able to listen to his entire talk this morning. I don't think his passion can be disputed however I disagree with his underlying premise i.e. America was once a blessed nation because it was founded on eternal and heavenly principles and consecrated to God/Jesus and is losing (or has lost) that blessing under God's judgment for our sinful ways. And that the Twin Tower attack and more recent economic turn down are signs of this judgment. I think this is a very selective view of American history..."

In the post (#18) after mine NeitherFirstnorLast introduced the idea that America was a Christian nation and along the way in this thread others have expressed support for this view. I have expressed disagreement with this view as has OBW - which I think we're allowed to do. That's all - people in an open forum chit chatting back and forth.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

As for civil governments and God, I take my view of them from Paul:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I Tim. [2:1] I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; [2] for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. [3] This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; [4] who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.

This was written when the pagan Roman Caesers ruled and actively persecuted Christians unto death and yet Paul said to pray for this government not start a Revolution. It could be argued that the Founding Fathers should have followed Paul's admonishment and pray for King George III since he was not interfering in their practice of religion in the colonies. (The colonists were interfering with each other in their practice of religion.) But the Founders were interested in economics and that was the impetus for the Revolution.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

A large majority of the founders valued the teachings of the Bible and of Christ and were influenced by them in shaping the civil government they established, with its Constitution.

Yes the Judeo-Christian tradition did influence the Founding Fathers. Has anybody on this forum denied this? They were also influenced by the Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment traditions and I have already listed some of the items that came from these traditions.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Today, these founding values and principles, those who espouse them, and even God Himself are under open verbal and legislative attack. We are in danger of losing in a big way (from many different fronts) what Paul told us to pray for regarding civil government, and what I personally believe God gave us in answer to such prayers.

Personally I think of most people on earth Christian's in America are free to live tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and gravity and I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future. More or less us Christians here are like spoiled brats whining about how "Caesar" slighted us. We should go to China to see what it is like to really live under an oppressive government. (And yet somehow the church is thriving there!)

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

I think we need to fill in a few large gaps.

Once these Dissenters had power in MA they became the persecutors of those who dissented from them e.g. the Quakers several of whom they hung for their religious beliefs.

So let's be clear: Christians were persecuting Christians in England so those being persecuted left and when given the opportunity in the new colony in turn persecuted Christians. The persecutees became the persecutors once they had the power to do so.

alwayslearning,

We have all read a few books and/or seen a few YouTube videos. Thus we all have opinions. Our opinions are partly informed, but partly enclose gaps, as you mention. My opinion usually tends along your lines presented here, noting the unchristian behavior clearly exhibited by those (such as the Pilgrims/Puritans) who tried to present the world with "a city on a hill" of model Christian society.

But, speaking of gaps: look at the alternative. Elsewhere, at the same time, ecclesiastical/political powers in other societies were randomly choosing people for human sacrifice to make the gods happy so that it would rain. And so forth. The society established by the Pilgrims, while quite imperfect, was arguably more Christ-oriented and Christ-like than many, if not most, of their peers. There was more peace, more justice, more mercy, more longsuffering. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they were more Christian (fair, just, respectful, honest, tolerant) than many societies today!

So if you compare them to Christ; yes, you'll be bitterly disappointed. But if you compare them to the many alternatives, both in their day, and even up to 500 years later, they don't look quite so bad. Something to keep in mind. Remember that God judges each according to what they have been given.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

But, speaking of gaps: look at the alternative. Elsewhere, at the same time, ecclesiastical/political powers in other societies were randomly choosing people for human sacrifice to make the gods happy so that it would rain. And so forth. The society established by the Pilgrims, while quite imperfect, was arguably more Christ-oriented and Christ-like than many, if not most, of their peers.

If we are talking about degrees and the whole world then of course there is always somewhere better or worse. But in the context of the Pilgrims their knowledge base at the time was what was going on in England and to a lesser degree the Continent and especially the Netherlands. So we are really talking about a "Christian" context. They left a "Christianized" country. England was a country completely engrossed in Christianity. They were not offering human sacrifices to make the gods happy, etc. Even the coronation of their kings and queens was done (and still is) in a church. The King James version of the Bible was being translated. The name of Christ was completely interwoven into their political process and national narrative.

So what was the problem? The state/country favored a certain church i.e. the Church of England and it gave the clergy of this church a lot of power and they used this power to persecute dissenters i.e. other Christians who disagreed with them. Once the Pilgrims got to MA they did the very same thing. Was MA more "Christian" than England. Not really they were just a different brand. Was MA more Christian than tribes offering children as sacrifices to their gods in central Africa? Of course!

[OBW]

Jane,

I will agree that we, the people of God, need to repent. We always do. And we mostly don't want to. There was probably a lot you could say that would have been clearer, but you tied your thoughts to Cahn which probably did not truly express your thoughts.

In a different context (both secular and religious) I have this problem. I hold to a number of positions that a lot of others do as well. Positions such as on abortion, homosexuality, immigration reform, racial issues, and on and on. What I find most unsettling is that people who would stand up as spokespersons for many of those positions do not hold them in the same way. They are smug, nasty, belligerent, and even downright hateful. And I'm not just talking about the politicians trying to win favor with the "right" but also the leaders of so-called Christian organizations. And that means that if I open my mouth to talk about one of those positions, I get branded as "on of those kooks" rather than considered in a rational way.

Whether it is Rush Limbaugh, or the latest leader of some Christian coalition, they are too prone to demeaning and demanding rather than arguing positions.

And, unfortunately, you had something you wanted to say (that is probably very important). But you let someone who is pushing a ridiculous position say it for you. And as a result, you didn't say what you thought you were. You said what he said. You said all those things about "Christian Nation." You may not have intended it. But you did. And the only part of what he said that you really seem to have been aligned with is a need to repent.

And I will agree with that more than many would think. In fact, we need it so much because our typical worship has only a slight dusting of repentance. While I still would not want to be a regular participant in a church that is excessively liturgical, there is something about a liturgy that reserves time to stop thinking about what God as done for me, and how glorious everything is and think about how I do not deserve any of it. Even after doing this day after day, week after week, year after year, I still need to repent regularly. And so I do. A "worship service" could bookend the time with singing or reading, but the song will not be "I'm trading my sorrows," but "Lord have mercy on me." The reading will not be from the Psalms of praise, but of contrition. "Have mercy on me, Oh God, according to your steadfast love."

Sometime we just don't have the way to express what we want to say. Find a better stand-in than Cahn. It's like letting Rush Limbaugh give the altar call. "You sorry sinners better repent because you don't even deserve to stay in the country and vote if you don't." (That was hyperbolic but kind of typical of things he has said in pushing his agenda. And Cahn, Jewish or not, has become deluded with a false god — the United States of America.)

Despite my seeming harshness in posting, I am moved to repent. Repent that I too often say and do things that are not charitable to my "neighbor." And in this day and age, virtually everyone is your neighbor. That I want desperately to be righteous, just, and loving even with those that I would call sinners. And since I don't like people loving me in harsh ways, I try not to substitute so-called "tough love" for love since I would not love myself in that way. And since I generally fail at that, I get to repent a lot. We shouldn't need a revival to do it. It should be part of daily, or at least weekly life. Like those mooing cows that follow a liturgy. Those people that we learned to despise so strongly. Maybe they are more likely to be the "neighbor" in the story about the good Samaritan than any of the rest of us are.

That sets me to considering my need for repentance much more than someone laying the blame for 9/11 and so many more "ills" in our society at our feet for lack of repentance. Rain falls on the just and the unjust. Job did not "deserve" what he got. But he got it anyway.

[Thankful Jane]

I finally have some time to post. Sorry this doesn't follow the previous posts well.

Originally Posted by OBW

Jane,

....And, unfortunately, you had something you wanted to say (that is probably very important). But you let someone who is pushing a ridiculous position say it for you. And as a result, you didn't say what you thought you were. You said what he said. You said all those things about "Christian Nation." You may not have intended it. But you did. And the only part of what he said that you really seem to have been aligned with is a need to repent....

Sometime we just don't have the way to express what we want to say. Find a better stand-in than Cahn.

Mike,

I didn’t post Cahn’s message to have someone speak for me. I posted it because it spoke to me. I think it spoke to me because I believe that God is (was and will be until time is no more) actively involved in the affairs of men and history. Cahn’s point was not that we should return to a prior blessing, but that we need to be warned that God’s judgment was on the horizon, even had begun. Cahn paralleled events that occurred during God’s judging of Israel with events that happened on 9/11, not just because it sounded like a plausible thesis, but because he had seen that there were stunning parallels to Isa 9:10.

To me, the point of Cahn’s message was a wake-up call concerning God’s judgment. The Bible is plain that God, after much longsuffering, does move His hand to judge. His judgment is always with the end goal of salvation and restoration. The Bible also shows that God gives fair (even overly fair) multiple warnings before He judges.

Furthermore, judgment is not limited to God’s people only. God even warned Nineveh, the capitol of Assyria, a gentile nation, by sending the prophet Jonah to preach to them about God’s impending judgment. The ruler and the people of Nineveh repented and God did not judge them. This shows that a nation doesn’t have to belong to God or be under God’s blessing, and then lose it, in order to become qualified for judgment (or warning). Also Nebucchadnezer (Babylonian king) was judged as an individual ruler (he went mad and was chained to a stump for a period of time) that he might be humbled, so that the “living might know that the Most High ruled in the kingdom of men.”

Back to Cahn: It was what he shared about Isa. 9:10 that primarily got my attention. (I thought that others who heard his message would be struck with the same thing. Instead, you started a discussion on this thread about there being no relationship between Israel, God’s blessing on the U.S., etc. You did this while saying that you had only listened the beginning of Cahn’s message, so you hadn’t heard what he said about Isaiah 9:10. I understand that it was hard for you to listen to him because you didn’t like his opening and where you thought he was headed with it.)

With regard to what Cahn said about Isa. 9:10, none of us can accurately or thoroughly explain history from God’s perspective, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t get glimpses of His involvement, if we are watching, which we are commanded to do when we are told to watch and pray (Mark 13:33). I think that Cahn, in what he shared about Isa 9:10, provides such a glimpse.

Isaiah 9:10 shows things that happened to Ephraim (the northern kingdom) and Samaria (it's capitol, I believe) as God began to judge them. This verse was the proud, stouthearted response of the northern kingdom to a first wave of God’s judgment which came by way of an attack from the Assyrians (which God allowed to happen by removing the hedge of protection from Israel.) The people of the northern kingdom responded to this attack by saying, “The bricks are fallen, but we will build with hewn stone; the sycamores are cut down, but we will put cedars in their place.” Because of this proud, defiant response, Isaiah tells them next that there will be another Assyrian invasion. “...For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” Isaiah continues with prophecy about ever-increasing judgment against Ephraim.

Isn’t it possible that the reoccurrence in 2001 of specific things found in Isa. 9:10 are not coincidental and contain a message for us?

Ground zero, where Washington and others went to pray and dedicate America’s future to God immediately after Washington was inaugurated, was in New York, which was the US capitol at the time of Washington’s inauguration. On 9/12, Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, quoted Isa. 9:10 saying that the US would rebuild, not realizing that this same word had been spoken by Israel as a word of defiance against an act of God’s judgment which had been sent to wake them up.

The only building that was left intact at ground zero was the little chapel on the spot where Washington’s prayer and dedication had taken place. The chapel had been shielded from falling debris by a sycamore tree which was hit and cut down by that debris. Also, just as in Israel, where sycamores were cut down by God's judgment and then were replaced with cedar trees, the ground zero sycamore was replaced with a cedar tree.

Also, as had taken place in the northern kingdom, where a hewn stone was laid for the building of a new edifice (referred to in one place as a tower), a hewn stone was placed at Ground Zero as a foundation stone for the rebuilding of a new tower, called the Freedom Tower. On the third anniversary of 9/11 (9-11-2004) Jonathan Edwards, another congressman, gave an entire speech built around Isa. 9:10. In it he talked about how America was doing just that—rebuilding with hewn stone and planting cedars. (He was apparently unaware of the fact that this had literally occurred with respect to 9/11.) There are other uncanny parallels in actual things that happened at the time of 9/11 which fit with Isa. 9:10. I cannot simply write them off as coincidence without some real consideration and serious prayer. (I wonder if you and others who have used the argument that America was not particularly blessed by God in order to be dismissive of Cahn’s message, took time before you began your argument to stop and ask God to show you if Cahn’s message was from Him. I have to admit that I didn’t pray such a prayer at first, but I have now, and trust that He will answer.)

Obviously, Cahn had nothing to do with the things that happened. Rather, he reported to people, like a messenger, what God had shown him regarding Isa. 9:10 and events related to 9/11. The fact is that these things happened, and in my opinion, because I have heard about them from someone acting as a watchman (this is how I heard Cahn refer to himself in an interview), I should give them serious, sober consideration as a possible warning from God. I should take extremely seriously the need to begin praying desperately for God to turn people on this earth to Himself (not to restore our nation to some prior state of blessing. Blessing is the inevitable result of people turning to God.)

As I sit here writing, I can’t help but remember that Israel rejected time and time again the prophets that God sent to warn them. Shouldn’t we be cautious lest we inadvertently be found in similar shoes?

I heard a testimony from someone (years before hearing the Cahn message) that when they saw the towers fall on 9/11, they heard in their heart, and believed it was from the Lord, “It has begun.” They testified to me that this meant to them “judgment has begun.”

On the day that I heard Cahn’s word about Isaiah 9:10, this was my experience:

1. I saw a curtain pulled back, revealing awe-inspiring evidence that God is living, active, and very involved in what is happening today in the big picture on this earth. I was reminded that He is a hands-on God. He is not just sitting in the heavens in His front row throne-seat watching things unfold. He is unfolding them. (The timing of the video was significant to me because I had been recently witness to God actively orchestrating some specific things from the heavens, as only He can do, in several interrelated situations to which I was party.)

2. God got my attention freshly that I needed to be more diligently watching and praying. In particular, praying for the latter rain of the Spirit to be poured out on this earth for convicting men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment--for the salvation of many, for the manifestation of the sons of God, and for the enemies of Christ to be seen where they belong, beneath the feet of Jesus.

Thankful Jane

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I finally have some time to post. Sorry this doesn't follow the previous posts well.




Mike,

I didn’t post Cahn’s message to have someone speak for me. I posted it because it spoke to me. I think it spoke to me because I believe that God is (was and will be until time is no more) actively involved in the affairs of men and history. Cahn’s point was not that we should return to a prior blessing, but that we need to be warned that God’s judgment was on the horizon, even had begun. Cahn paralleled events that occurred during God’s judging of Israel with events that happened on 9/11, not just because it sounded like a plausible thesis, but because he had seen that there were stunning parallels to Isa 9:10.

To me, the point of Cahn’s message was a wake-up call concerning God’s judgment. The Bible is plain that God, after much longsuffering, does move His hand to judge. His judgment is always with the end goal of salvation and restoration. The Bible also shows that God gives fair (even overly fair) multiple warnings before He judges.

Furthermore, judgment is not limited to God’s people only. God even warned Nineveh, the capitol of Assyria, a gentile nation, by sending the prophet Jonah to preach to them about God’s impending judgment. The ruler and the people of Nineveh repented and God did not judge them. This shows that a nation doesn’t have to belong to God or be under God’s blessing, and then lose it, in order to become qualified for judgment (or warning). Also Nebucchadnezer (Babylonian king) was judged as an individual ruler (he went mad and was chained to a stump for a period of time) that he might be humbled, so that the “living might know that the Most High ruled in the kingdom of men.”

Back to Cahn: It was what he shared about Isa. 9:10 that primarily got my attention. (I thought that others who heard his message would be struck with the same thing. Instead, you started a discussion on this thread about there being no relationship between Israel, God’s blessing on the U.S., etc. You did this while saying that you had only listened the beginning of Cahn’s message, so you hadn’t heard what he said about Isaiah 9:10. I understand that it was hard for you to listen to him because you didn’t like his opening and where you thought he was headed with it.)

With regard to what Cahn said about Isa. 9:10, none of us can accurately or thoroughly explain history from God’s perspective, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t get glimpses of His involvement, if we are watching, which we are commanded to do when we are told to watch and pray (Mark 13:33). I think that Cahn, in what he shared about Isa 9:10, provides such a glimpse.

Isaiah 9:10 shows things that happened to Ephraim (the northern kingdom) and Samaria (it's capitol, I believe) as God began to judge them. This verse was the proud, stouthearted response of the northern kingdom to a first wave of God’s judgment which came by way of an attack from the Assyrians (which God allowed to happen by removing the hedge of protection from Israel.) The people of the northern kingdom responded to this attack by saying, “The bricks are fallen, but we will build with hewn stone; the sycamores are cut down, but we will put cedars in their place.” Because of this proud, defiant response, Isaiah tells them next that there will be another Assyrian invasion. “...For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” Isaiah continues with prophecy about ever-increasing judgment against Ephraim.

Isn’t it possible that the reoccurrence in 2001 of specific things found in Isa. 9:10 are not coincidental and contain a message for us?

Ground zero, where Washington and others went to pray and dedicate America’s future to God immediately after Washington was inaugurated, was in New York, which was the US capitol at the time of Washington’s inauguration. On 9/12, Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, quoted Isa. 9:10 saying that the US would rebuild, not realizing that this same word had been spoken by Israel as a word of defiance against an act of God’s judgment which had been sent to wake them up.

The only building that was left intact at ground zero was the little chapel on the spot where Washington’s prayer and dedication had taken place. The chapel had been shielded from falling debris by a sycamore tree which was hit and cut down by that debris. Also, just as in Israel, where sycamores were cut down by God's judgment and then were replaced with cedar trees, the ground zero sycamore was replaced with a cedar tree.

Also, as had taken place in the northern kingdom, where a hewn stone was laid for the building of a new edifice (referred to in one place as a tower), a hewn stone was placed at Ground Zero as a foundation stone for the rebuilding of a new tower, called the Freedom Tower. On the third anniversary of 9/11 (9-11-2004) Jonathan Edwards, another congressman, gave an entire speech built around Isa. 9:10. In it he talked about how America was doing just that—rebuilding with hewn stone and planting cedars. (He was apparently unaware of the fact that this had literally occurred with respect to 9/11.) There are other uncanny parallels in actual things that happened at the time of 9/11 which fit with Isa. 9:10. I cannot simply write them off as coincidence without some real consideration and serious prayer. (I wonder if you and others who have used the argument that America was not particularly blessed by God in order to be dismissive of Cahn’s message, took time before you began your argument to stop and ask God to show you if Cahn’s message was from Him. I have to admit that I didn’t pray such a prayer at first, but I have now, and trust that He will answer.)

Obviously, Cahn had nothing to do with the things that happened. Rather, he reported to people, like a messenger, what God had shown him regarding Isa. 9:10 and events related to 9/11. The fact is that these things happened, and in my opinion, because I have heard about them from someone acting as a watchman (this is how I heard Cahn refer to himself in an interview), I should give them serious, sober consideration as a possible warning from God. I should take extremely seriously the need to begin praying desperately for God to turn people on this earth to Himself (not to restore our nation to some prior state of blessing. Blessing is the inevitable result of people turning to God.)

As I sit here writing, I can’t help but remember that Israel rejected time and time again the prophets that God sent to warn them. Shouldn’t we be cautious lest we inadvertently be found in similar shoes?

I heard a testimony from someone (years before hearing the Cahn message) that when they saw the towers fall on 9/11, they heard in their heart, and believed it was from the Lord, “It has begun.” They testified to me that this meant to them “judgment has begun.”

On the day that I heard Cahn’s word about Isaiah 9:10, this was my experience:

1. I saw a curtain pulled back, revealing awe-inspiring evidence that God is living, active, and very involved in what is happening today in the big picture on this earth. I was reminded that He is a hands-on God. He is not just sitting in the heavens in His front row throne-seat watching things unfold. He is unfolding them. (The timing of the video was significant to me because I had been recently witness to God actively orchestrating some specific things from the heavens, as only He can do, in several interrelated situations to which I was party.)

2. God got my attention freshly that I needed to be more diligently watching and praying. In particular, praying for the latter rain of the Spirit to be poured out on this earth for convicting men of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment--for the salvation of many, for the manifestation of the sons of God, and for the enemies of Christ to be seen where they belong, beneath the feet of Jesus.

Thankful Jane

Nice response.

It is mind boggling to me that people can talk about praying for our leaders, and praying for God's blessing, etc. Yet if anyone suggests that God responds, or that in addition to blessing He might also judge, these very same ones reject that out of hand.

It would be pointless to even have the OT accounts if God does not continue to move and act. This idea is not something of the OT, it is clearly stated in Acts that our God is a sovereign God. Jesus is Lord indicates that nothing takes place that He does not allow.

If you think the formation of this country is under God's sovereignty or that the reformation of Israel is under God's sovereignty how can you not believe 911, or Hurricane Katrina are also under his sovereignty.

Now I can understand if someone supported the Iraq war thinking that they were somehow the ones behind the terrorist on 911, though you should now be clear that was not the case. I can also understand if you honestly felt we invaded Iraq due to WMD's, yet again that idea should have long ago been dispelled. Now my question is this, all those people who were killed under false pretenses deserve God's righteous judgment. Is God going to sit by idly? On a similar note, if God does not stand up in judgment on behalf of the 50 million aborted babies, who will? Isn't He the God of the fatherless?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Nice response.

It is mind boggling to me that people can talk about praying for our leaders, and praying for God's blessing, etc. Yet if anyone suggests that God responds, or that in addition to blessing He might also judge, these very same ones reject that out of hand. ...

Yeah...bottom line:

Don't mess with Jane.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

All this talk on the other threads about posters being "evasive" has left me feeling convicted. I hate conflict, it really bothers me. I don't like being in disagreement, though I sometimes feel called to make a stand for what I believe is the truth. Let me go further, and confess that when I fail to "convince", I feel like I have personally failed. I feel like I cannot communicate well enough, and because of that I've not only alienated brothers and sisters in Christ, I've also failed the Lord.

Well, that's childish thinking. We all should treat eachother gently and with respect, but we shouldn't be afraid to speak what we believe is the truth in love, ever. With that in mind, I feel I owe you some responses, AlwaysLearning.

First: About King James, the man who contracted the King James translation of the Bible and from whom the Puritans (Pilgrims) fled, you have said...

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

The Pilgrims did not come to settle the nation and neither were they trying to escape a tyrant king. The first settlement of the British colonies was in Jamestown, VA in 1607 by a group of entrepreneurs who were given a charter from King James 1 and they named the settlement after the king. And this was the same King James that had commissioned the King James version of the Bible to be translated.

To this I would offer:

"King James ascended the throne upon the death of his brother, Charles II. Members of Britain's political and religious elite increasingly opposed him for being pro-French and pro-Catholic, and for his designs on becoming an absolute monarch. James is best known for his belief in the Divine Right of Kings. James's time in France had exposed him to the beliefs and ceremonies of Catholicism; he and his wife, Anne, became drawn to that faith. James took Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church in 1668 or 1669, although his conversion was kept secret for some time and he continued to attend Anglican services until 1676." (courtesy of Wikipedia).

Of King James Bible Translation:

"King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication. First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even chance that James was the product of adultery. Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been scotched.

Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburgh. King Henry survived the explosion only to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England.

To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.

This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent, placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation, including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere ditherings of dissidents.

First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage" (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James.
Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era religion was controlled by the government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices:"

1.Roman Catholicism
2.Silence
3.The Inquisition

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous. An Englishman had three choices:
1.The Anglican Church
2.Silence
3.The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of persuasion. " (courtesy of www.gospelassemblyfree.com)



Of the Pilgrims, I would offer you this (courtesy of http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/chr...s/pilgrims.htm)

1596: "The term 'Pilgrims', was first used... in the 'Confession of Faith' they adopted and, in later references, to their own idea of life on earth as a pilgrimage towards heavenly bliss."

1590s: Committed Christians with access to Bibles began to question the old Catholic traditions which still influenced the new Protestant churches in England. These "Puritans" longed to see a more "pure" church, freed from the bureaucratic forms that clouded the truth of the gospel. They wanted to continue the "reformation" of the church, bringing it into line with Biblical guidelines.
Some of these Puritans, called "Pilgrims" or "Separatist" had little hope that the government controlled church could be reformed. They wanted to separate themselves completely from the official (Anglican) Church of England. But that was against the law. So when they decided to start new congregations and live by God's Word, they were persecuted.

Early 1600s:
One of the Separatist congregation was led by William Brewster in the village of Scrooby (or Scruby) in Nottinghamshire. But these Puritans had little freedom to worship God and follow His Word and their conscience. Non-conformity was punishable by imprisonment and torture.(Sounds like the illegal home churches in China, doesn't it?)
Young, fatherless William Bradford, born in 1590, joined the Scrooby congregation and would be among the 125 uncompromising separatists who fled to Holland in search of religious freedom. Loving God's Word, he read through the Bible at age 12.

1603: Queen Elizabeth died. (By now, the Bible was the most read book in the land) Her successor, King James I, persecuted Catholics as well as the Protestant Puritans and Separatists. He believed he had the divine right to rule as he pleased, and he opposed all who refused to submit to the official church bureaucracy."In a fit of rage at these people, the Puritans, King James vowed, 'I shall make them conform or I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse.'"Glimpses Issue #20: Pilgrims in a Strange Land

1606: The Separatists (uncompromising Puritans) would not violate their conscience by participating in the (Anglican) Church of England with its remnants of Catholicism. Believing the true Church must submit to the headship of Christ, not to the spiritual edicts of their hostile king or the compromising church establishment, they had asked permission to start their own church, but King James had denied their request. Ridiculed by their neighbors, harassed by the courts, and forbidden to share the truths of salvation, they saw only one option: to flee to Holland. "With the situation growing more intense the Scrooby congregation realized they could not stay, yet they were not allowed to go." Prisoners in their own land, they could not leave without passports and permission from the King's Privy Council.

1607: After secretly boarding a ship and paying "the large expenditure," the Separatists discovered that they had been betrayed. "King James' local sheriff with his bailiffs appeared on the scene to arrest them." They "stripped them of their money, books and other goods before they were presented to the magistrates." Many of the men were jailed -- including William Brewster and the 17- year-old William Bradford.The Pilgrims
Meanwhile, the Jamestown Colony is founded in Virginia.

Spring 1608: The second attempt to leave began even more disastrously. While loading his ship and waiting for the women and children to arrive, "the ship master saw a large company Kings' officers, both horse and foot, marching in with weapons to take those on shore. The Dutchman weighed anchor, hoisted his sails and sped away. The poor men who were aboard were in great distress for their destitute wives and children which they saw being taken into custody.... "While at sea the men had to endure a terrifying storm at sea, 'being fourteen days or more before they arrived at their port, in seven whereof they neither saw the sun, moon or stars.'" The ship was north toward the coast of Norway, began to sink and "even the mariners themselves feared for their lives."
Desperate, the Pilgrims turned to God. As Bradford recorded, "when man's hope and help wholly failed, the Lord's Power and mercy appeared in their recovery; for the ship rose again and gave the mariners courage again to manage her. And if modesty would suffer me, I might declare with what fervent prayers they cried unto the Lord in this great distress.... Upon which the ship did not only recover, but shortly after the violence of the storm began to abate, and the Lord filled their afflicted minds with such comforts as everyone cannot understand, and in the end brought them to their desired haven, where the people came flocking, admiring their deliverance, the storm having been so long and sore...."
"Those on shore who were arrested were shuffled from one place to another and from one justice to another. The authorities did not know what to do with them. If they jailed so many women and innocent children for no other reason but having to go with their husbands, there would be a public outcry against them. The remaining women had no place to go because their homes and goods had already sold or otherwise disposed of and they had no way of making a living. In the end the authorities were so weary of the problematic situation they were happy to be rid of them on any terms....
"Bradford continues, 'They endured many other passages and troubles and underwent these wanderings and travels both at land and at sea. Yet, by those so public troubles in so many places their cause became famous and occasioned many to look into the same, and their godly carriage and Christian behavior was such as left a deep impression in the minds of many.... And in the end, notwithstanding all these storms of opposition, they all got over at length, some at one time and some at another, and some in one place and some in another, and met together again according to their desires, with no small rejoicing.'"
Finally, 125 members of the Scrooby congregation reached Holland, including William Brewster and William Bradford, who had stayed behind to help the women and children."

1608-1620: "The twelve years these Christians spent in Holland were difficult ones, but they accepted the difficulties as part of their lot as pilgrims --wanderers and sojourners in a strange land.... Most of the pilgrims had been farmers in England, but in Holland they had to learn new jobs, and even the children were worn down by hard work."

1611: "Despite his treatment of the non-conformists, King James authorized the translation of the Bible we know as the King James Version. The work had begun in 1604, urged by John Rainolds, a Puritan, and accomplished by 54 scholars from Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster.

1617: While Holland offered a sanctuary from persecution, the pilgrims were still within reach of King James, who continued to harass the dissident pilgrims.
"Many of the Separatists began to wonder if there was any improvement in their lives since they were still overshadowed by persecution and religious strife. William Brewster had to go into hiding. Edward Winslow said: 'How hard the country was . . . How grievous to live from under the protection of the State of England. How like we were to lose our language, and our name, of English. How little good we did, or are likely to do, to the Dutch in reforming the Sabbath. How unable to give such education to our children as we ourselves have received.' ...
"William Bradford wanted to spread the Christian gospel in some distant part of the world - in truth to be a pilgrim. Having noted that the twelve year truce between Spain and Holland would expire in 1621, William also realised a new war would turn Leyden into a bloody battleground.
The congregation voted to emigrate to America, and young William Bradford began to plan the journey. Later he would write in his journal that the main reason for leaving was concern for the children who were "drawn away [from Christ] by evil examples into extravagant and dangerous courses."
A second reason was "a great hope and inward zeal they had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way thereunto, for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world--yea, though they should be but even stepping stones unto others for the performing of so great a work."

July 22 1620: The Scrooby Pilgrims left Holland for Southampton, England. Here they joined another group of English separatists.

5 August 1620: The Mayflower (with 80 passengers) and the Speedwell (with about 40 passengers) set sail and headed for Virginia. But when the Speedwell began to leak, the ships turned back for repairs. After a second attempt, the Speedwell was declared unseaworthy.

Sept. 6 1620: Once again, the Mayflower, an old cargo vessel used for hauling wine between England and France, set sail for Virginia carrying 102 passengers and 30 crew. Crowded together on the 90 foot long ship, the pilgrims endured cramped conditions, rough weather, sickness and shortage of food. "Not all of the 102 passengers on the two-month voyage were Christians, however. Some had other than religious reasons for going to America, but the pilgrims provided the leadership for this group composed of what they called 'strangers and saints.'"

Nov. 11 1620: After 66 days at sea, they sighted land and anchored at the tip of Cape Cod (now Provincetown) -- far north of the territory officially granted to them in northern Virginia. On the cold, rocky shores of what would become "New England," the pilgrims "fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven who had brought them over this vast and furious ocean."

Nov. 11-Dec 20 1620: For 36 days they remained at Cape Cod. Here the 41 men -- pilgrims and "strangers" together -- wrote the Mayflower Compact. To avoid rebellion and anarchy in the new land, the men signed this legal covenant (their constitution) thus establishing a self-government that promised equal rights and elections:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these present, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

Dec. 11 1620: After signing the Mayflower Compact, an exploratory team of 16 men left in a "shallow" (small sailboat that could navigate shallow coastal areas more safely than the ship) to search for a place to settle. On the 11th, they landed at Plymouth Harbor, on the western side of Cape Cod Bay. They found a good harbor, rivers of fresh water, and fields cleared for planting -- and saw no sign of the dreaded natives.

Dec. 21 1620: The Mayflower sailed into the Plymouth Harbor. They Pilgrims had reached their new home.WinterBut all was not well. While all had survived the journey across the Atlantic, disease now ravaged the small Plymouth colony. Weakened by cold weather and the hardships of the stormy journey, half of the travelers -- 51 of the 103 -- died soon after arrival. Day after day, new graves were dug. Heartbroken families mourned the loss of fathers, mothers and precious children.

Jan.- March 1621: At first, the surviving pilgrims continued to live in the stuffy, windowless hull of the Mayflower. They enduring gnawing hunger and continuing hardships. During the day, the men would face cold, wet winds to build simple houses for their own families as well as a "Common House" to store tools and shelter homeless women and children. Each Sunday, the Pilgrims would sing their beloved Psalms and hear sermons by William Brewster.

March 1621: Spring brought sunlight, warmth and other blessings. To help introduce them to the land, God first sent Samoset, a friendly native who spoke English. Samoset, in turn, brought Squanto, a local native who -- by God's providence -- had escaped the epidemic that killed his tribe. Some years earlier, slave traders had captured and brought Squanto to Europe where he had learned their language. He now stayed with his new friends and taught them how to catch fish, plant corn, hunt game, and separate safe edible plants from the poisonous plants.

Spring 1621: By the end of March, all the Pilgrims had moved into their new homes. Children were taught to read by their parents or someone else in the colony. The Bible provided the guidelines for living together as well as the certain hope that -- no matter the difficulties they might face -- God would bring ultimate triumph.



...To be continued....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

First: About King James II, the man who contracted the King James translation of the Bible and from whom the Puritans (Pilgrims) fled, you have said...

You are a Canadian and you don't know your English history of the Monarchy ...

It was not James II who had the Bible translated, but King James I.

.................................................. ... selah

I noticed you edited your post, but you still got the two King James' confused.

James I 1603-1625

James II 1685-1688

[aron]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

...To be continued....

If alwayslearning were to continue your story he might point out that once the Pilgrims became established they became oppressive towards others (Quaker, Indians, Baptists, 'witches', etc), just as they had been oppressed in Merrie Olde England.

But the problem with "just as" is that it involves a simplification, in order to identify a trend, which simplification results in a loss of detail which ruins the ability to make a fair assessment.

I think God is detailed. Every hair on your head is numbered. The Puritans indeed became oppressors, as they and their fathers/mothers had been oppressed, but were they trending in a positive direction, or were they actually just as bad? Were they more "christian" than what they had fled from, or just as unchristian?

Jews were oppressed in Nazi Germany; eventually Israelite Jews oppressed Palestinians. Is Benjamin Netanyahu therefore just as bad as Adolf Hitler? Probably not. Details matter. I think this is important as you & alwayslearning and others fill in the blanks. I think the best we can do is have a discussion and hope that sloooowwwly a consensus emerges.

People who staunchly hold that "America is (or was) the new Covenanted Israel" or "America was founded by brigands and misanthropists" are barely more helpful to the conversation than the person who saw the face of Jesus in his french toast this morning. Their "vision" pretty much precludes conversation.

[Thankful Jane]

I would like to post further on this thread and respond more specifically to some things, but it seems I have no time this week. (Next week may be better.) For now, I just want to say a few things.

Thank you, Mike, for your last few posts. I really appreciate your kinder tone and your more thoughtful approach to this thread (and your repentance … fully accepted). If I came across badly at any point, I too repent. Thank you for hearing what I wrote about my main reason for posting Cahn’s message being a call to repentance. There was also another reason, as yet unmentioned, which I alluded to in my first post and indicated I might write more about later. Lord willing, I will.

Someone once told me that real communication takes place when a speaking person (or a writer) is able to convey to listeners (or readers) the actual meaning he/she intends to convey. When that happens, there is genuine communication. Another wise person told me that whenever respect, in attitude, tone, and language, is missing from dialogue, there is no possibility of real communication taking place. I believe that good and useful communication can take place on this forum if writers will work hard to write as clearly and respectfully as they can and if readers will take the time to really try to hear and understand what a writer is saying (or trying to say). It is easy to be reactive (…speaking from experience), but not so easy to take a deep breath, read a post slowly a second or even third time, ask God’s help to understand what is being said, and take time to think about it (all of it) carefully before responding.

I personally think communication is one of the most difficult things we do in life. (My husband and I are 100% in agreement about this statement. We have four plus decades of trying to learn to communicate well and some days it seems we’re still in first grade.)

My openness to Cahn’s message was due, in part, to recent happenings in my life that I referred to in the “cloud” part of my first post. I didn't explain this. My openness was also due, in part, to my current view of American history.

Although I had no intention of discussing views of American history when I posted, this became a topic (in retrospect, understandably so). So, for now, in hope of being a better communicator, I am providing a link to a document about historical revisionism with respect to this country. I know it might be better if I wrote what I think about this, but I don’t have time to do so. So, I submit this article, not to argue a position, or insist that others believe this, but just to show a little more of what has influenced my views about American history. Maybe some will find this helpful. The perspective I held about the founding of America, one that I was taught in school, has changed significantly over the last few years.

(The fact is that none of us human beings can say with certainty that we have the correct perspective on historical matters. We weren’t there in the early years of America's history and no one from that era remains that can answer our questions. Our only source of information is written materials. And, as is true with knowing the Bible, we should do our own research, homework, etc. to see if the things we have heard are so.)
--------------

Lord, help us learn to communicate (fellowship) well. Help us walk in the light one with another as You are in the light. Thank you for your blood that cleanses us from all sin as we do so.


Here is the link: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissue...les.asp?id=100

Thankful Jane

[aron]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Lord, help us learn to communicate (fellowship) well. Help us walk in the light one with another as You are in the light. Thank you for your blood that cleanses us from all sin as we do so.


Here is the link: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissue...les.asp?id=100

Thankful Jane

TJ,

I also repent to all & sundry if my tone is smug and/or off-putting. I tend to write quickly, with whatever inspires or amuses me, and then hit "submit". Naturally a lot of it isn't as inspiring, informative or enlightening to others.

I do a lot of history, science, theology reading on the internet. So I run into the equivalent of the "Wallbuilders" site fairly often (I actually have read this site before). Usually the authors' views are so narrowly focused that I don't have much patience and skim the bulk of the material.

As far as the U.S. or any group as specially blessed or different in God's eyes I don't really buy it. In a previous post the writer escapedfromthecurse listed 15 blessings applicable to the U.S. But aren't they also applicable to Sweden, Canada, and Bermuda? It's like they are trying to force the facts to fit their theory. Germany has well-known history of brutal intolerance to the Jews, and now they are one of the most economically viable ('blessed') countries in Europe. So eftc's list, while interesting, just doesn't "show" me anything, really.

But my commentaries are perhaps not advancing the collective wisdom much either. I will acknowledge that. So I try to remember: God loves the other person as much as He loves me. Try to respect the other person, and their ideas, as much as I wish others to pay attention to mine.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

If alwayslearning were to continue your story he might point out that once the Pilgrims became established they became oppressive towards others (Quaker, Indians, Baptists, 'witches', etc), just as they had been oppressed in Merrie Olde England.

But the problem with "just as" is that it involves a simplification, in order to identify a trend, which simplification results in a loss of detail which ruins the ability to make a fair assessment.

I think God is detailed. Every hair on your head is numbered. The Puritans indeed became oppressors, as they and their fathers/mothers had been oppressed, but were they trending in a positive direction, or were they actually just as bad? Were they more "christian" than what they had fled from, or just as unchristian?

"Just as" is a qualitative assessment. "Degrees" is quantitative. The religious intolerance of the Puritans in MA was just as it was in England when they left and no they were not trending in a positive direction. They banned Quakers from the colony. They executed Quakers. They whipped Quakers out of towns throughout the colony. Finally King Charles II stepped in and expressly legally forbade them from persecuting those who professed Quakerism - that's how bad it was.

I think some Christians today yearning for the "good old days" of the Puritans are comfortably doing so while living in the luxury of a pluralistic democracy. They wouldn't survive a day in a monolithic theocracy! IMHO they should stop complaining and start appreciating what the Founders actually did - yes Puritans, etc you can believe whatever you want and practice religion how you want but you have no right and more importantly no power to impose it on anybody else.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayslearning

The religious intolerance of the Puritans in MA was just as it was in England when they left and no they were not trending in a positive direction.

I am not convinced of this, but I have not read enough, nor studied anyone who has read enough, to give you any argument countering yours. Probably it was not the "shining city on the hill" that some wished it were, but I felt at least it was a move in the right direction.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

I am not convinced of this, but I have not read enough, nor studied anyone who has read enough, to give you any argument countering yours. Probably it was not the "shining city on the hill" that some wished it were, but I felt at least it was a move in the right direction.

Since MA was part of Britain at the time I think you might find it interesting and informative to study what was going on in England at least from the time of the settlement in Plymouth until King Charles II had to intervene due to the Quaker persecution. Actually you might find it helpful to study what was going on there and in France (our main ally in the Revolution) from the time of the Jamestown settlement until the Revolution.

[alwayslearning]

Thank you for taking the time to post at length NFNL. I appreciate your effort. I made some direct comments on some of your post and then some more general comments at the end.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

First: About King James, the man who contracted the King James translation of the Bible and from whom the Puritans (Pilgrims) fled, you have said...To this I would offer:
"King James ascended the throne upon the death of his brother, Charles II. Members of Britain's political and religious elite increasingly opposed him for being pro-French and pro-Catholic, and for his designs on becoming an absolute monarch. James is best known for his belief in the Divine Right of Kings. James's time in France had exposed him to the beliefs and ceremonies of Catholicism; he and his wife, Anne, became drawn to that faith. James took Eucharist in the Roman Catholic Church in 1668 or 1669, although his conversion was kept secret for some time and he continued to attend Anglican services until 1676." (courtesy of Wikipedia).

As Ohio has already pointed out this quote is referring to King James II not King James I.

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Of King James Bible Translation:

"King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

But further down you write/quote this:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

1611: "

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Despite his treatment of the non-conformists, King James authorized the translation of the Bible we know as the King James Version. The work had begun in 1604, urged by John Rainolds, a Puritan, and accomplished by 54 scholars from Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster."

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

1607:

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

After secretly boarding a ship and paying "the large expenditure," the Separatists discovered that they had been betrayed. "King James' local sheriff with his bailiffs appeared on the scene to arrest them." They "stripped them of their money, books and other goods before they were presented to the magistrates." Many of the men were jailed -- including William Brewster and the 17- year-old William Bradford.The Pilgrims
Meanwhile, the Jamestown Colony is founded in Virginia.

Yes meanwhile the Jamestown Colony was founded in VA by a group of businessmen in search of gold and other assets under a charter from King James 1. William Brewster eventually came over to MA on the Mayflower 13 years later.

I think we should perhaps go back a little further to grasp the situation in England more clearly:

What you have described regarding the religious and political turmoil in England in the 1600s actually started under the reign of King Henry VIII in the mid 1500s when he took over the Church of England (Anglican) because the Pope wouldn't give him a divorce from his wife. With this move he and future kings and queens became the head of the Church of England and this Church was the established church/religion. And this word "established" is quite important as it turns up again in early American history. So the Church was Catholic and became Protestant as King Henry was influenced by the Protestant Reformation that had come to England from the Continent. But some Catholic influences remained in terms of practices i.e. level of formality, litgury, etc. BTW the functioning head i.e. in charge of day-to-day operations, theological issues etc. was/is the Archbishop of Canterbury. As is evident the religious and political were tightly intertwined in England (and on the Continent).

I mentioned in a previous post the Church of England/King or Queen/ Archbishop of Canterbury persecuted Dissenters and had the political power to do so. The Church under King James 1 was no exception. And this included Catholics (who's property was confiscated) not just Separatists, Puritans, etc. when the King or Queen was Protestant. Now when an actual Puritan gained power in England i.e Oliver Cromwell he not only killed the King he also committed what some consider to be at the level of genocide against Catholics - especially in Ireland. And when the Separatists and Puritans had the political power in the colonies they in turn persecuted "Dissenters" e.g the Quakers, Baptists, etc. You will believe what we believe and do church how we do church or you'll be persecuted. (BTW I think understanding power will help you understand this history.)

This whole dynamic is what I previously described as Christians persecuting Christians. It was infighting. In other words the Hindus in India weren't arguing about Bible translations, church practices, etc. Neither were the Buddhists in China or the animist Cherokees in the "New World". (And putting things in perspective I like how Winston Churchill describes the American Revolution in his work A History of English-Speaking Peoples as "The Quarrel with America".)

Now since you seem to be perturbed by the concept of the divine rights of kings please let me reiterate: this idea and practice was common in Europe and Britain for centuries. This was not some random idea that popped into a king's head in the 1600s. And the Bible was used as a justification for their position on this issue:

Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

2 Peter 2:1: "Submit yourself for the Lord's sake to every human institution whether to a king..."

Mark 12:17: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars."

So the reasonable argument could be made that the Founding Fathers instead of starting an armed Revolution should have submitted to King George III. I'm not making that argument because I know the Judeo-Christian tradition was not their only influence. The idea of democracy came from Greece and separation of powers from Rome, etc.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

. . . Let me go further, and confess that when I fail to "convince", I feel like I have personally failed. I feel like I cannot communicate well enough, and because of that I've not only alienated brothers and sisters in Christ, I've also failed the Lord. . .

I try to only feel I've failed when they don't understand what I said. I have found that convincing reasonably goes two ways. It may be me that rethinks.

I know there are some who doubt that. But if it weren't true, I'd still be i the LRC.

[OBW]

Jane,

The problem with the position is not that there were not more people who both religiously and/or philosophically were of a Judeo-Christian mindset.

It is that just because they were that the nation is imbued with some special blessing that we can try to get back.

The nation is its people. When we were closer to being on the same page (philosophically, if not religiously), the relative harmony could be seen as blessing. Further, since it was harder for enemies to launch attacks on the country, there was little opposition from outside. But both of those have changed. We are not all on the same page. And Joe Terrorist (or Sven or Jose, or Achmed, or whoever) can much more easily do serious damage even if he/she cannot start a war.

The problem still is that the nature of the nation as blessed by God because of special status is a historical falsity. It is its own recast.

Yes, God and the Bible have been slowly excised from secular history. But even when they were there, the premise that we now presume about it was not true.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, God and the Bible have been slowly excised from secular history. But even when they were there, the premise that we now presume about it was not true.

Secular history usually admits a broader spectrum of opinion, and data. It admits religious opinion, as one of many. So if a religious opinion says "X causes Y" (i.e. God's covenant with Israel was transposed to the North American colonies/nation and caused subsequent blessings/prosperity) then secular history should treat that hypothesis as all others.

I see two related reasons why such a religious/spiritually-oriented hypothesis of history's events is ignored(excised) by the secular writers. First, as I said, the religious opinion is now seen as but one of many. It needs to compete with other religions and other viewpoints. It is no longer monopolistic in social discourse, but is merely one idea in a welter of ideas. There is a marketplace, if you will.

Secondly, compounding this challenge, is the problem that the religious idea usually doesn't know how to compete. In social science (e.g. history) one holds forth a hypothesis (X caused Y), discusses the idea's lineage, shows how it explains observable phenomenon, shows alternatives, acknowledges flaws & weaknesses, shows where this idea could be improved upon with more study, etc. One is literally humbling oneself and acknowledging the marketplace. Religious hypotheses, from what I observe, usually denigrate everyone else or simply pretend alternatives don't exist. They usually end up in some weird place of circular reasoning, cutting off any evidence from "outside" which could restrain the madness of the prophet.

For example, "There can only be one apostle in each age" is based upon the speaking of God's oracle, who is naturally God's man of the current hour, i.e. the apostle of the age. See how easy that is? As long as you don't allow any competing voices, you can go on and on. And, as I said, you can get stranger and stranger.

"In a multitude of voices there is safety" So said the wise writer of Proberbs. He repeated this formula 3 times in that book. Instead we now see "One Publication" and "BrotherLeesaid".

Believe me, I come up with some strange (or "novel") ideas myself. Some of them I become fascinated with. They hold a marvelous explanatory power... suddenly everything becomes so clear to me! I run around, and hold forth my revelation to my friends. But my revelation is, at best, "my truth" to (quietly) live and to hold, within what the collective church lives and holds. If I marginalize (dismiss or ignore) church teachings I will be marginalized instead. I believe that likewise religious histories have become marginalized because they don't respect the marketplace of ideas, and how it operates. If you show more respect for others' ideas you will get more traction & reception for your own.

[alwayslearning]

Originally Posted by aron

Secular history usually admits a broader spectrum of opinion, and data. It admits religious opinion, as one of many. So if a religious opinion says "X causes Y" (i.e. God's covenant with Israel was transposed to the North American colonies/nation and caused subsequent blessings/prosperity) then secular history should treat that hypothesis as all others.

I see two related reasons why such a religious/spiritually-oriented hypothesis of history's events is ignored(excised) by the secular writers.

I think it is generally accepted by both secular and Christian historians that the Judeo-Christian tradition had an influence on the Founders. This is no secret - it is an obvious fact. How could it be otherwise? But apparently some Christians are not satisfied with that and I think this thread is a case in point.

In one of my initial posts I stated what I consider to be common knowledge: "In actuality the nation was founded upon 3 strands of tradition: Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment." To my surprise I received quite a bit of flack for making this statement. In fact it was implied that I was being blinded by the god of this age who was tricking people into believing this sort of thing. Please note I did not say:

"In actuality the nation was founded upon 2 strands of tradition: Greco-Roman and European Enlightenment."

Neither did I say: "In actuality the nation was not founded on the Judeo-Christian tradition."

So what's the problem? Do some Christians seriously think that ignoring the other influences on the Founders is a credible position to take? Franklin was friends with Voltaire while he was in Paris as our ambassador lobbying the French to finance the Revolution. They were buddies and palled around town together. He even asked Voltaire to bless his grandson. Jefferson was very sad that Voltaire had died by the time he got to Paris but made sure he had a bust done of him to put in his study back in VA. He had many of his books in his library and was well read in Voltaire. Their views on religious and political liberty were informed by Voltaire. Should Christians cover this up and pretend it didn't happen? We can't handle the fact that the Founders were influenced by three strands of tradition? Are we that insecure?