What is your opinion of the Puritans?

[Joe McCarthy]

Their effect on culture, society, history, their religious and social structure, their influence and role in England and America, etc.

[Óttar]

I have an antipathy toward pretty much any ascetic religious movement, especially Puritanism. I have Puritans in my family history, but I have more respect for the Virginia settlers; pragmatic people, loyal, cultivators of tobacco.

[Stars Down To Earth]

Their blind religiosity is a huge turn-off for me, and I wouldn't want to be one of them, but it's undeniable that they did great deeds as well.

In America, those pilgrims were the first settlers to get there, so they basically laid the foundation for all Anglo-American civilization. Their religious values have influenced America in very many ways (the modern-day televangelist trend and love-hate addiction to porn can be traced back to them, for example). In England, they didn't have nearly as much influence on the nation's culture. In fact, the English Puritans didn't do much except launching a rebellion under Cromwell and fucking over Scotland.

The Puritans are an oddly fascinating phenomenon. Anglos are generally a very un-religious people who can't bother with rituals and all that shite. They only go through religious fervor in short but intense "bursts", which happen on rare occasions. I tend to think the Puritans were such a "burst".

[Oreka Bailoak]

In large part the problem confronting Whites stems from our psychology of moralistic self-punishment exemplified at the extreme by the Puritans and their intellectual descendants, but also apparent in a great many other Whites. As Fischer noted, “New England … had the lowest relative rates of private crime (murder, theft, mayhem), but the highest rates of public violence—’the burning of rebellious servants, the maiming of political dissenters, the hanging of Quakers, the execution of witches’” (p. 189). These people will eagerly use government against the politically incorrect, morally reprobate ne’er-do-wells in their midst.

They were always striving to create that perfect city on the hill society and overtime they began overly critiquing themselves to the point where their descendants have drown in humanist, cultural relativism, multiculturalism, social egalitarianism, government centralization and politically correct beliefs (it all emanates from the Northeast of America stronger than any other region) I think their culture/society was a little crazy in this respect. But this was after they quit being isolationists.....

In old days when they lived by themselves in isolation and weren't busy forcing their cultural critiques upon mainstream society I must admit that I liked their isolated culture...

The Puritans, like the Amish and Hutterites, sought to build their own society and exclude outsiders rather than dominate non-Puritans. But the very success of the Puritan enterprise—its size, its wealth, and its control over a large area of land comprising the Massachusetts Bay Company—made it the target of the British colonialists seeking to control their possessions and a goal for immigrants seeking economic advantage. The Amish and Hutterites, on the other hand, because of their very low economic and political profile, would never have excited the sort of attempts at control which the British exercised on the Massachusetts Bay (Company. But in the absence of control over their own territory, the group strategy quickly unraveled. The Puritans lost the abilities to govern their territory, control the behavior of its inhabitants, and control immigration. And in the absence of these prerogatives, the Puritans gradually ceased being a well-defined group strategy. These trends were well in place by the end of the 17th century, less than 75 years after the origins of the colony. . . . Without control of a specific territory, the Puritans succumbed to their own individualistic tendencies and those of the surrounding culture.

One wonders what might have happened if the British colonial authorities had allowed the colony complete sovereignty and if it had ultimately become a nation-state. Such a state, based on a clearly articulated exclusivist group strategy, might have been extremely successful. Composed of a highly intelligent, educated, and industrious citizenry, and with a proneness to high fertility and strong controls promoting high-investment parenting, it might have become a world power.

[Joe McCarthy]

I have an antipathy toward pretty much any ascetic religious movement, especially Puritanism. I have Puritans in my family history, but I have more respect for the Virginia settlers; pragmatic people, loyal, cultivators of tobacco.

My experience is that there are many self-hating Puritan descendants like yourself in New England. Most of the conservative Calvinists left before the advent of the 19th century and the region sunk into its well known state of affairs featuring liberalism, Unitarianism (the oldest Puritan meeting house in New England is run by Unitarians), Transcendentalism, abolitionism, etc., and then saw the advent of Irish leftists like the Kennedys as well.

To top it all off, these reprobates now spit on the memory of their ancestors.

[Joe McCarthy]

They were always striving to create that perfect city on the hill society and overtime they began overly critiquing themselves to the point where their descendants have drown in humanist, cultural relativism, multiculturalism, social egalitarianism, government centralization and politically correct beliefs (it all emanates from the Northeast of America stronger than any other region) I think their culture/society was a little crazy in this respect. But this was after they quit being isolationists.....

In old days when they lived by themselves in isolation and weren't busy forcing their cultural critiques upon mainstream society I must admit that I liked their isolated culture...

Good stuff. Here is other info I posted from Edward Creasy on another thread:




The five northern colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont, usually classed together as the New England colonies, were the strongholds of the insurrection against the mother country. The feeling of resistance was less vehement and general in the central settlement of New York, and still less so in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the other colonies of the South, although everywhere it was formidably strong. But it was among the descendants of the stern Puritans that the spirit of Cromwell and Vane breathed in all its fervor. it was from the New Englanders that the first armed opposition to the British crown had been offered; and it was by them that the most stubborn determination to fight to the last, rather than waive a single right or privilege, had been displayed. In 1775 they had suceeded in forcing the British troops to evacuate Boston; and the events of 1776 had made New York (which the Royalists captured in that year) the principal basis of operations for the armies of the mother country.

Essentially the American Revolution was a continuation of the English Civil Wars; a sort of Puritans' revenge for the ultimate failure of the Protectorate. The Founders, particularly the Puritan descended Samuel Adams, admired Cromwell, and Adams himself has been called the father of the American Revolution (he was a man intensely proud of his Puritan roots and has also been called the last of the Puritans). I also find it interesting that the civil wars spilled over into the colonies, where Puritans fought for parliament and Southerners fought for the royalists.

[Oreka Bailoak]

Essentially the American Revolution was a continuation of the English Civil Wars

I bought a book about this but haven't had the time to read it yet.

Here's what the book, "The Cousins' Wars" is about...

Phillips make a compelling argument that the three wars, English Civil War of 1640, American Revolution of 1776, and American Civil War of 1861, all carry the same dynamics between combatants. Those dynamics, Catholic vs. Protestant, Reformer vs. Conservative, Land Holder vs. Artisan, tumble down from one war to the next
http://www.amazon.com/Cousins-Wars-Religion-Politics-Anglo-America/dp/0465013708/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316494909&sr=8-1

[Óttar]

To top it all off, these reprobates now spit on the memory of their ancestors.
So just because I have Puritan ancestors I all of a sudden have to think Puritans were the bees knees?

:confused:

[Joe McCarthy]

So just because I have Puritan ancestors I all of a sudden have to think Puritans were the bees knees?

:confused:

This is symptomatic of the liberal disease. We have deracinated people who have contempt for their heritage, and go off half-cocked into weird hobbyism or ersatz religions like paganism or Hinduism. This seems particularly prevalent among Puritan descendants who remained in New England, i.e., the liberal faction that rejected orthodox Calvinism for universalism and other heresies.

[Óttar]

This seems particularly prevalent among Puritan descendants who remained in New England, i.e., the liberal faction that rejected orthodox Calvinism for universalism and other heresies.
You actually believe in Calvinism? So you are one of the 144,000 of God's elect? :coffee:

[Joe McCarthy]

You actually believe in Calvinism? So you are one of the 144,000 of God's elect? :coffee:

It'd be better to say I'm a cultural Calvinist, but I'm descended from the conservatives who left New England and I'm proud of my heritage, unlike you.

[Óttar]

It'd be better to say I'm a cultural Calvinist, but I'm descended from the conservatives who left New England and I'm proud of my heritage, unlike you.
I am very proud of my heritage, I just don't care for the Puritans. :cool:


i.e., the liberal faction that rejected orthodox Calvinism for universalism and other heresies.


It'd be better to say I'm a cultural Calvinist,
I don't know Joe, I'd say you've fallen into heresy. :coffee:

[Joe McCarthy]

I don't know Joe, I'd say you've fallen into heresy. :coffee:

Yes, I have, but that isn't what I'm discussing. I'm referring to a cultural-historical process that began in 18th century New England when Puritan descended Congregationalists broke into two factions - those who maintained belief in predestination and total depravity, and those who adopted heresies involving man's goodness and universal salvation. These latter heretics later translated these new theological views into the political sphere, with disastrous consequences.

My family was part of the faction that remained orthodox and moved out of the region. My own religious lapse indicates no sympathy for the heretics of New England or their ultra-liberal descendants today.

[Joe McCarthy]

In fact, the English Puritans didn't do much except launching a rebellion under Cromwell and fucking over Scotland.
.

Didn't do much? Who else has overthrown the monarchy?

It's true the Puritans had less lasting effect on England, and in my view that's been to England's detriment as it's likely they would have developed as an even stronger commercial power under Puritan rule and it's less likely there would have been an American Revolution.

Your comment about Scotland puzzles me. Scotland was a Royalist stronghold, made Charles II king, and invaded England, only to get rolled as Cromwell's opponents always did.

[Agrippa]

Judaised Christian Europeans.

[Raskolnikov]

Calvinism did not hold up. The Puritans in specific are continual splitters. In moving to Britain, Netherlands, Ireland, the US, Africa, and as mentioned, the believers dwindled and moved from New England to the Midwest. In doing so they would seem to leave a wake of atheists and xenophiles, though it's kind of the other way around.

Orthodox Calvinists were already irreligious. Historically they fought against a spiritual caste, practically all ceremonies and feelings of compassion; the whole interconnected lifestyles and artistry associated with religious society were replaced with the famous work ethic.

More curious than the level of their spirituality, is that orthodox Calvinists were already xenophilic. Is it not quite strange to identify as the Israelites? They use their ancient laws and think they're 'chosen' too? The only ones stranger for this mimic are the Amish. In identifying with a foreign and-or historical people who are quite out of reach, they seem to be doing something very similar to the tribalists, New Agers, wanksters. Something's not right.

[Joe McCarthy]

The Puritan belief that they were a New Israel had practical benefits as it led them to believe they were fleeing bondage in Egypt (England) to come to the promised land in the New World. It established a cultural-religious ethos that helped drive them to succeed.

The charge of irreligion is baseless. In political terms they rejected the divine right of kings, a recent concoction with little scriptural basis. They were also more religiously observant, and more apt to take the Ten Commandments seriously, than their adversaries.

But most importantly Puritans developed an evolutionary group strategy that allowed them to accomplish great feats despite great odds and little state support. The problem, ultimately, is that the decentralized nature of Congregationalism did not provide any kind of protective barrier against factionalism and heresy.

[Occident]

In New England the Puritons had by the end of the 17th century created the highest general standard of living than any other populace in the world, where land ownership was wide spread and common, where a majority of the population (both male and female) were literate, and whose city folk grew wealthy on trade with England and the other colonies, fostering the development of craft-trades and professions to a European standard. All this without the slaves that kept the average white man of the Chesapeake in an economically stunted position vis a vis the New World aristocracy he found himself subserviant to. Politically they had created little republics within the wider framework of monarchal empire, where most elements of the Commonwealth dream of civil war England could be a living reality.

In England, by the same time, they had spearheaded the creation of the constitutional monarchy in the Glorious Revolution (anyone who thinks their political influence died with Cromwell is wildly mistaken), won religious freedom for all protestants, and mostly ended royal ordained monopolistic trade within the English nation itself.

I also disagree strongly that Puritonism quickly disapated in England. Ever heard of Methodists? Puriton values only really declined within the establishment in the late 19th century and early 20th, due to successes of the subversive Oxford Movement within the Anglican Church. Remember that Puritonism was not represented solely by congregationalism, there were always (and indeed still are) anglican puritons who wanted reform from within the national church.

[Occident]

Calvinism did not hold up. The Puritans in specific are continual splitters. In moving to Britain, Netherlands, Ireland, the US, Africa, and as mentioned, the believers dwindled and moved from New England to the Midwest. In doing so they would seem to leave a wake of atheists and xenophiles, though it's kind of the other way around.

Orthodox Calvinists were already irreligious. Historically they fought against a spiritual caste, practically all ceremonies and feelings of compassion; the whole interconnected lifestyles and artistry associated with religious society were replaced with the famous work ethic.

More curious than the level of their spirituality, is that orthodox Calvinists were already xenophilic. Is it not quite strange to identify as the Israelites? They use their ancient laws and think they're 'chosen' too? The only ones stranger for this mimic are the Amish. In identifying with a foreign and-or historical people who are quite out of reach, they seem to be doing something very similar to the tribalists, New Agers, wanksters. Something's not right.

The relationship with Israel is not ethnic, but in correlation to possesing a special contract with God, the Covenant, whereby they will improve the world in ready for the messiah and in turn God will protect their people from destruction.

They were not against "feelings of compassion", they simply refused to be ruled by emotion, instead emphasising the value of rational thought, God's greatest gift to man, in understanding man's place in the world and his relationship with the creator. Hence the encouragement of literacy and the establishment of North America's first university (Harvard).

[Joe McCarthy]

In New England the Puritons had by the end of the 17th century created the highest general standard of living than any other populace in the world, where land ownership was wide spread and common, where a majority of the population (both male and female) were literate, and whose city folk grew wealthy on trade with England and the other colonies, fostering the development of craft-trades and professions to a European standard. All this without the slaves that kept the average white man of the Chesapeake in an economically stunted position vis a vis the New World aristocracy he found himself subserviant to. Politically they had created little republics within the wider framework of monarchal empire, where most elements of the Commonwealth dream of civil war England could be a living reality.

In England, by the same time, they had spearheaded the creation of the constitutional monarchy in the Glorious Revolution (anyone who thinks their political influence died with Cromwell is wildly mistaken), won religious freedom for all protestants, and mostly ended royal ordained monopolistic trade within the English nation itself.

I also disagree strongly that Puritonism quickly disapated in England. Ever heard of Methodists? Puriton values only really declined within the establishment in the late 19th century and early 20th, due to successes of the subversive Oxford Movement within the Anglican Church. Remember that Puritonism was not represented solely by congregationalism, there were always (and indeed still are) anglican puritons who wanted reform from within the national church.

Good post. I like the point about Methodism and I'll point out that in the US the temperance movement (banning of alcohol) was pushed primarily by Methodists.

Within an American context Congregationalism is the important factor. The early settlers were separatists. It even remained the state religion in Massachusetts until well into the 19th century.

[Occident]

Within an American context Congregationalism is the important factor. The early settlers were separatists. It even remained the state religion in Massachusetts until well into the 19th century.

Really? Didnt it conflict with the constitution?

[Hevneren]

Europeans following a Middle Eastern religion like so many others. I fail to see their usefulness.

[Joe McCarthy]

Really? Didnt it conflict with the constitution?

No. The First Amendment was only intended to prevent establishment of a national church.

[Joe McCarthy]

Europeans following a Middle Eastern religion like so many others. I fail to see their usefulness.

It's safe to say they've had more of a positive impact on our civilization than atheists. Puritans gave us Harvard and the Mayflower Compact. Atheists gave us Lenin.

[Occident]

Well thats quite a revelation about the first ammendment, thankyou.

[Hevneren]

It's safe to say they've had more of a positive impact on our civilization than atheists. Puritans gave us Harvard and the Mayflower Compact. Atheists gave us Lenin.

Wrong. An understanding of education and clever people gave you Harvard. The Bible says nothing on the building of elitist universities. Also, Communist dogma gave you Lenin. :rolleyes:

[Joe McCarthy]

Well thats quite a revelation about the first ammendment, thankyou.

Since the early 1960s the Supreme Court has interpreted the establishment clause of the First Amendment so far as to mean prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. That wasn't the original intent though. We just got a bunch of leftists on the court who basically rewrote the First Amendment.

[The Ripper]

You actually believe in Calvinism? So you are one of the 144,000 of God's elect? :coffee:

Isn't that what the Jehovas believe?

Anyway, I have nothing positive to say about puritans.

[Argyll]

They were horrible monsters of people. They were basically a cult of early Evangelicals. Read the sermon Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God. It's complete and utter bull shit. Also read The Scarlet Letter and find out more about the bull shitness of their society. When they wanted to "create a perfect utopia society" they created the adverse! When American children grow up, we are taught that the puritans/pilgrims were good little folk running away from England to escape religous persecution. It was the fucking opposite. Except for the persecution part. But they deserved it. They put so many limits on people's lives. For one instance, the banned all dancing because it was sinful. They thought singing was sinful, unless it was about God. They were the people who affected American culture with their self-loathing ways. They're the reason why we have so many censors on things. It's ridiculous!

[rhiannon]

Their effect on culture, society, history, their religious and social structure, their influence and role in England and America, etc.

This is going to sound bad....for the Puritans were my ancestors.....but I cannot STAND them.

Their version of Judeo-Christian values has left lasting impression here in the US....most of which we'd be better off without. Maybe that's just me....

[Joe McCarthy]

Another self-hating Puritan.

Check.

[rhiannon]

Another self-hating Puritan.

Check.

I am NOT a Puritan, sir. My ancestors were....but that was long enough ago that it is no longer relevant....

Would you suppose I have undying love or admiration for them???

I do respect the fact they were brave enough to BAIL out of Britain and face the possibility of death on the voyage here....

But the crap that happened once they were here??? No thanks. That whole mindset of theirs is alien to me and to the way I was raised... Fear of God's wrath does not rule my life. I'm much happier for it:)

[Joe McCarthy]

I am NOT a Puritan, sir. My ancestors were....but that was long enough ago that it is no longer relevant....

Would you suppose I have undying love or admiration for them???

I do respect the fact they were brave enough to BAIL out of Britain and face the possibility of death on the voyage here....

But the crap that happened once they were here??? No thanks. That whole mindset of theirs is alien to me and to the way I was raised... Fear of God's wrath does not rule my life. I'm much happier for it:)

American culture is so deeply immersed in Puritanism that it affects us in ways we're not even aware of. You cannot escape it. It's part of who we are. Rejecting it is tantamount to rejecting what America really is. We are seen as Puritans by foreign commentators. They are our most ckearly defining feature that distinguishes us from Europe.

[rhiannon]

American culture is so deeply immersed in Puritanism that it affects us in ways we're not even aware of. You cannot escape it. It's part of who we are. Rejecting it is tantamount to rejecting what America really is. We are seen as Puritans by foreign commentators. They are our most ckearly defining feature that distinguishes us from Europe.

You are DEAD ON CORRECT.

I have such a love-hate relationship with so many aspects of America.....it's difficult to describe on an internet forum.

That's about the size of it. But...when I think of Puritans....I imagine God-wielding kooks that made a point of accusing people of Heathendom and subsequently executing these poor souls..

That did happen, after all.

[Oreka Bailoak]

I'm really surprised how many people hate the Puritans.

And surprisingly, all the reasons given for disliking them are because they were too religious. What we know today about science that refutes religion for so many people largely wasn't known back then. I have great respect for people who followed so closely the traditions of their ancestors. If you're going to truly be Christian you might as well go all out and follow it as close as you can, no matter what sect you are, and they surely did this (I can understand this because of imperfect information for most people back in those days).

There is no doubt that they were a cut above the rest of American society; they had the highest morals in America, the lowest crime, the highest percentage of highly educated descendants being doctors engineers lawyers etc. (good genetics), they had huge families, they had the most successful American cities.

I only selected 'undecided' because Puritan ideals held by their ancestors haven't been successful transitioning into the 20th century. Multiculturalism killed them as a distinct group in the 18th century and today with the coming of non-Puritan ideas like culturally and ethnically egalitarian beliefs held by their descendants the situation to me looks suicidal when coupled with the old Puritan idea of excessive moral self critiquing.

Which ironically their ancestors are still doing on this thread towards the old Christians with imperfect information after they've discovered modern day 'science'. suddenly it becomes impossible for their ancestors to have been good people even though 99% of the group clearly was back then (especially compared to the rest of American society at the time).

You guys need to read this book...
http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-British-Folkways-Cultural/dp/0195069056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316528487&sr=8-1

[Electronic God-Man]

For the most part, I respect them, though I disagree with them on many things.


American culture is so deeply immersed in Puritanism that it affects us in ways we're not even aware of. You cannot escape it. It's part of who we are. Rejecting it is tantamount to rejecting what America really is. We are seen as Puritans by foreign commentators. They are our most ckearly defining feature that distinguishes us from Europe.

This is true. Puritanism was/is one of America's defining features that sets us apart from Europe.

Also, Puritanism gave America its strong literary/scholarly tradition.

Furthermore, on the topic of Methodism, my great-grandfather was a lay minister in a local Methodist church and a descendant of Puritan New Englanders. His daughter, my grandmother, was half Anglo-American and half Irish. Though she was Catholic, I swear she read the Bible like a Puritan.

[Argyll]

You are DEAD ON CORRECT.

I have such a love-hate relationship with so many aspects of America.....it's difficult to describe on an internet forum.

That's about the size of it. But...when I think of Puritans....I imagine God-wielding kooks that made a point of accusing people of Heathendom and subsequently executing these poor souls..

That did happen, after all.

Especially dealing with things like nudity and sex.

[rhiannon]

Especially dealing with things like nudity and sex.

LOL. Agreed!!

[Sally]

Puritans have had an unmistakable influence on American life, I must admit. My parents, though both non-practicing Christians as adults, attended churches strongly influenced by Puritanism as children. My father was raised Presbyterian and my mother, though baptised Anglican, attended a Congregational church.

Though I received no religious instruction as a child, the following quotes by Puritan or Reformed writers illustrate some of what I was either explicitly or implicitly taught as a child:

"Neither be idle in the means, nor make an idol of the means."
-William Secker

"The indulgence of one sin opens the door to further sins. The indulgence of one sin diverts the soul from the use of those means by which all other sins should be resisted."
-John Owen

"Covetousness is dry drunkeness."
-Thomas Watson

"Better to bear than to swear, and to die than to lie."
-Thomas Brooks

"Some temptations come to the industrious, but all temptations attack the idle."
-C.H. Spurgeon

[Argyll]

LOL. Agreed!!

While a lot of Europe is freer to express themselves in those ways (and not meanning interracialy or slutily) we have to face endless censors and such. So many people freak out if they see the slightest bit of nudity, which isn't a big deal at all.

[rhiannon]

While a lot of Europe is freer to express themselves in those ways (and not meanning interracialy or slutily) we have to face endless censors and such. So many people freak out if they see the slightest bit of nudity, which isn't a big deal at all.

You're preachin' to the choir:)

Case in point: Breastfeeding! There are so many people here who get offended when they see a woman breastfeeding in public!!

It's unfuckingbelievable!!

[Argyll]

You're preachin' to the choir:)

Case in point: Breastfeeding! There are so many people here who get offended when they see a woman breastfeeding in public!!

It's unfuckingbelievable!!

I mean, we were born naked, so I don't really see how it's shameful. That's what a lot of puritans made it out to be. They condemned their followers for making babies. Which doens't make sense, at all. lol Breastfeeding is only natural, so if we see a cat or dog feeding their kittens or puppies, why don't we freak out and try to place a pixel block in front of them?

[Hevneren]

You're preachin' to the choir:)

Case in point: Breastfeeding! There are so many people here who get offended when they see a woman breastfeeding in public!!

It's unfuckingbelievable!!

I know it's a bit off-topic, but this reminds me of something.

http://www.hln.be/static/FOTO/pe/9/2/14/large_450689.jpg

It was funny reading about the reactions to this. I think people here were a bit puzzled by this. :D

[The Ripper]

Its the epitome of hypocrisy, pop stars sell almost solely with sex (its not like anyone likes them for their musical merits) but God forbid if an actual nipple pops out!

I've always considered Anglos to have strange approach to nudity, not just the puritan Americans. For example some English blokes once thought it was really gay that in Finland men sit naked in the sauna together. Perhaps places like Australia are more relaxed?

[Óttar]

I've always considered Anglos to have strange approach to nudity,
That reminds me of how I accidentally walked in on my German roommate naked in Berlin. At first I was a little flustered, but then I thought, 'Oh wait! I'm in Europe. No one gives a shit.'

My roommate was like, "How's it going?"

:D

[The Ripper]

That reminds me of how I accidentally walked in on my German roommate naked in Berlin. At first I was a little flustered, but then I thought, 'Oh wait! I'm in Europe. No one gives a shit.'

My roommate was like, "How's it going?"

:D

Well, Germans are renowned for their large population of nudists, not sure if that is entirely natural either. :D

[El Palleter]

Judaised Christian Europeans.For once and without letting it to be taken as setting a precedent, I agree with you.

However, I feel compelled to make it more clear that they ought to be thought of as judaised ex-Christians (and judaisers), or Conversos (if looked at from the side of Judaism).

I've voted for the only decent option in the poll, The Taliban without the smell. But even that option is too benevolent since Puritans (and all other Calvinistic sects) carry around the foetor judaicus (the Judaic stink), to paraphrase Schopenhauer.

Whether one believes that doctrines impregnated of religious social-judaism are good or bad, is a matter for a different discussion.

[askra]

fortunately we have kicked out great part of them by Europe centuries ago :thumb001:

[El Palleter]

In New England the Puritons had by the end of the 17th century created the highest general standard of living than any other populace in the world, where land ownership was wide spread and common, where a majority of the population (both male and female) were literate, and whose city folk grew wealthy on trade with England and the other colonies, fostering the development of craft-trades and professions to a European standard.The only university in North America in the 17th century was in Mexico (where the first university was founded in 1551, i.e. 16th century), and there were more in other parts of Central and South America. Not to speak of a large network of mostly Jesuit-run schools.

None that I know of in the territories of later U.S. or Canada.

I must dismiss that as over-romantic nonsense.


In England, by the same time, they had spearheaded the creation of the constitutional monarchy in the Glorious Revolution (anyone who thinks their political influence died with Cromwell is wildly mistaken)Who is they?

The Glorious Revolution is a misnomer for an invasion of England by the Dutch, that met no resistance.


won religious freedom for all protestantsA characteristic of Modernism that set a precedent which is enjoyed by Muslims throughout Europe nowadays. Great.


I also disagree strongly that Puritonism quickly disapated in England.who or what did what?


Ever heard of Methodists?ouch!

[El Palleter]

I've always considered Anglos to have strange approach to nudity, not just the puritan Americans.Even their approach to sexuality is very strange...unnatural in the way that it is self-restrained. I don't think that it's a direct influence from religious Puritanism in the English, but rather the print left by the social puritanism of the Victorians.

It's different to the Americans, in my experience. Plus, with Americans, you have both extremes equally characteristical.


For example some English blokes once thought it was really gay that in Finland men sit naked in the sauna together.Strange. I would have thought that they showered together at school, after sports.

The only reason why one could see it as gay is from a strictly personal point of view, if he gets sexually aroused.


Perhaps places like Australia are more relaxed?Breaking social chains from Victorian England must have made a difference.

[Joe McCarthy]

For once and without letting it to be taken as setting a precedent, I agree with you.

However, I feel compelled to make it more clear that they ought to be thought of as judaised ex-Christians (and judaisers), or Conversos (if looked at from the side of Judaism).

I've voted for the only decent option in the poll, The Taliban without the smell. But even that option is too benevolent since Puritans (and all other Calvinistic sects) carry around the foetor judaicus (the Judaic stink), to paraphrase Schopenhauer.

Whether one believes that doctrines impregnated of religious social-judaism are good or bad, is a matter for a different discussion.

You seem to be very much the type who would see Puritanism as a form of Gnosticism in the vein of Eric Voegelin's work on 'political Gnosticism'. Maybe you're unfamiliar with Voegelin?

[Saturni]

If it weren't for the Puritans extreme morbidity, we probably wouldn't of had the works of HPL.

[Joe McCarthy]

The only university in North America in the 17th century was in Mexico (where the first university was founded in 1551, i.e. 16th century), and there were more in other parts of Central and South America. Not to speak of a large network of mostly Jesuit-run schools.

None that I know of in the territories of later U.S. or Canada.

I must dismiss that as over-romantic nonsense.


Harvard was founded in 1636. I'd need to double check but I believe Yale and Princeton were founded in the 17th century as well.

[Joe McCarthy]

It's different to the Americans, in my experience. Plus, with Americans, you have both extremes equally characteristical.


Is the other extreme any worse than what is found in France, Scandinavia, Italy, or much of Eastern Europe?

In any case the hedonism of some Americans is not a legacy of Puritanism but a later European immigrant import, probably derived from the large number of Irishmen brought in. Their illegitimacy rate once rivaled the black rate now.

In other words, such a thing is an essentially alien imposition of immigrant culture on the founding stock and ethos of this country.

[Óttar]

The only university in North America in the 17th century was in Mexico...

None that I know of in the territories of later U.S. or Canada.

*Ahem*...


Harvard University is a private Ivy League university located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, established in 1636 by the Massachusetts legislature.

[Joe McCarthy]

If it weren't for the Puritans extreme morbidity, we probably wouldn't of had the works of HPL.

Unsurprisingly Lovecraft was himself of Puritan stock.

[Loddfafner]

Alas I have forgotten my sources, but I recall reading some research a while back that argued that the Puritans were not at all puritanical, so long as they stayed within well-defined boundaries. They were overtly sexual and had a lot of fun.

One more point on Puritanism: it seems that Boston is ground zero for the whole PC thing, and maybe political correctness is a hangover from puritanism but keeping similar habits of thought.

[Joe McCarthy]

Alas I have forgotten my sources, but I recall reading some research a while back that argued that the Puritans were not at all puritanical, so long as they stayed within well-defined boundaries. They were overtly sexual and had a lot of fun.

One more point on Puritanism: it seems that Boston is ground zero for the whole PC thing, and maybe political correctness is a hangover from puritanism but keeping similar habits of thought.

I agree with you that the reputation of Puritans as prudish killjoys is unwarranted, and it's a mark of the ignorant attacks directed against them. That being said, relative to other Christians they could appear that way as others were lukewarm compared to them. For instance, they banned Christmas because they saw it as an excuse to get drunk and fornicate (which it was and is).

The moralistic nature of Puritanism took several different courses, and though PC is properly ascribed to the Frankfurt School, I agree that this Puritan moralism drove things like abolitionism particularly. William Lloyd Garrison, Thoreau, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emerson, Sen. Charles Sumner, John Brown - all were descendants of Puritans, and it was these people who helped create the framework by which Reconstructionists could impose their vision on the South and whose spirit partially inspired the Civil Rights movement afterward.

[Joe McCarthy]

I'm really surprised how many people hate the Puritans.

And surprisingly, all the reasons given for disliking them are because they were too religious. What we know today about science that refutes religion for so many people largely wasn't known back then. I have great respect for people who followed so closely the traditions of their ancestors. If you're going to truly be Christian you might as well go all out and follow it as close as you can, no matter what sect you are, and they surely did this (I can understand this because of imperfect information for most people back in those days).

There is no doubt that they were a cut above the rest of American society; they had the highest morals in America, the lowest crime, the highest percentage of highly educated descendants being doctors engineers lawyers etc. (good genetics), they had huge families, they had the most successful American cities.

I only selected 'undecided' because Puritan ideals held by their ancestors haven't been successful transitioning into the 20th century. Multiculturalism killed them as a distinct group in the 18th century and today with the coming of non-Puritan ideas like culturally and ethnically egalitarian beliefs held by their descendants the situation to me looks suicidal when coupled with the old Puritan idea of excessive moral self critiquing.

Which ironically their ancestors are still doing on this thread towards the old Christians with imperfect information after they've discovered modern day 'science'. suddenly it becomes impossible for their ancestors to have been good people even though 99% of the group clearly was back then (especially compared to the rest of American society at the time).

You guys need to read this book...
http://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-British-Folkways-Cultural/dp/0195069056/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316528487&sr=8-1

Critics of Puritanism mostly fall into three categories:

1. Frivolous hedonists who have no self-restraint and don't like to be reminded that there are those who do. There is a reason why Mark Twain respected Muslims and Puritans among religious sects - it takes work and dedication, unlike, say, Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism.

2. Secularists who see them as enemy number one in terms of attacking Christianity generally. These types often also become role playing pagans out of their hatred for Christianity.

3. Catholic reactionaries. This needs little explanation. Papists did not fare well in conflict with Puritans, nor did anyone else, for that matter.

[Joe McCarthy]

Brief on Puritan idol Oliver Cromwell.

QUOTE]Over a career involving many dozens of battles, sieges, and skirmishes, Cromwell was beaten once: at Clonmel in May 1650, when he walked into a trap laid by Hugh O'Neill. The blunder cost him 1, 500 men. His masterpiece was Dunbar. There, in September 1650, he faced a well-equipped and trained Anglo-Scots force of 20, 000 under David Leslie. His own army of 16, 000 had been reduced by sickness and desertion to 11, 000 within a matter of weeks. Encamped with their back to the sea, it seemed that they were about to be rolled over by the Scots, who from their commanding position on Doon Hill controlled the road back to England. On the morning of 2 September Leslie confidently moved his army down the hill, preparatory to an attack on what he believed to be a demoralized English army.

But Cromwell had perceived a weakness in the Scots position. He saw how their left wing was crowded against the steep slope of Spott Burn Glen, thus unlikely to be able to deploy, and that the two wings of Leslie's army would not be able to support each other. He also saw a slight depression across the front of the enemy and under the cover of driving rain and darkness marched the bulk of his army along it, literally under Leslie's nose. As he launched the assault at daybreak, he shouted the words of the psalmist, ‘Now let God arise, and his enemies shall be scattered.’ Isolated from their comrades, the Scots right wing crumpled and the battle was over in barely an hour. Three thousand Scots were slaughtered and 10, 000 taken prisoner. Cromwell lost only twenty of his own men.

He was a courageous and charismatic leader, and the only English commoner ever to seize power in a coup d'état, which he did by expelling the unrepresentative Rump of the Long Parliament in 1653. He accepted the title of Lord Protector (some wanted him to become king) but was not able to establish a settlement which long survived his death. He was superbly successful in animating his men with his own burning conviction that they would accomplish great things as instruments of the Almighty. He was also a shrewd judge of men who chose good subordinates and trusted them to do their job well. He was a good battlefield tactician who could visualize the possibilities inherent in a piece of terrain and exploit them to devastating effect. Not least of all, he cared for his men, and was thrifty with their lives. He had the political ability to fight for and obtain the money and supplies he needed, often refusing to move forward until they were in place. Because his soldiers knew they were safe in his hands, they rewarded him with intense loyalty. He is among the greatest generals Britain has produced.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As lord protector, Cromwell raised his country's status once more to that of a leading European power and concluded the Anglo-Dutch War. Though a devout Calvinist, he pursued policies of religious toleration. He refused the title of king offered to him by Parliament in 1657.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The execution of the King settled nothing. Legally, the House of Commons, purged to such an extent that it was called the Rump, ruled. But the army, Scotland, and Ireland were soon in rebellion. The Scottish Presbyterians proclaimed Charles II (Charles I's son) their lawful monarch, and the Irish Catholics did likewise. In England the radicals were a rampant minority, the royalists a stunned majority, but neither had any respect for the Rump.

Cromwell suppressed the Levellers by force and then set about subduing first Ireland and then Scotland. In the former Cromwell fought a tough, bloody campaign in which the butchery of thousands of soldiers at Drogheda (Sept. 11, 1649) and hundreds of civilians at Wexford (Oct. 11) caused his name to be execrated in Ireland for centuries.

On June 26, 1650, Cromwell finally became commander in chief of the parliamentary armies. He moved against the Scots and got into grievous difficulties. At Dunbar in August 1650 he was pressed between the hills and the sea and was surrounded by an army of 20,000 men. But the folly of the Scottish commander, Leslie, enabled Cromwell to snatch a victory, he thought by divine help, on September 3. The next year Charles II and his Scottish army made a spirited dash into England, but Cromwell smashed them at Worcester on Sept. 3, 1651. At long last the war was over and Cromwell realized that God's humble instrument had been given, for better or worse, supreme power. [/QUOTE]

[Saturni]

Unsurprisingly Lovecraft was himself of Puritan stock.

On his Mother's side.

[Joe McCarthy]

On his Mother's side.

The connection between Lovecraft, Puritanism, and Gnosticism is intriguing. His work contains Gnostic themes and the Puritans were originally called the new Cathars by their foes. I've already mentioned Voegelin, but while the Gnostic-Puritan connection is rather dubious, I find it fascinating.

[SwordoftheVistula]

My experience is that there are many self-hating Puritan descendants like yourself in New England.

Some of us have good reason. My Puritan ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Nurse) got killed by the other Puritans, though luckily not until she had already had children and grandchildren.

[Joe McCarthy]

Some of us have good reason. My Puritan ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Nurse) got killed by the other Puritans, though luckily not until she had already had children and grandchildren.

The unfortunate business in Salem was apologized for not too long afterward and even at the time some Puritans signed petitions against the trials. Given the general witch craze that existed all over the Occident before the Enlightenment, particularly in Catholic Europe, the Puritans were mild. How can they be judged on modern scientific-materialist standards, anyway, given what was known (or better stated, not known) at the time?

[Odoacer]

I am a descendant (in part) of Puritans who also holds the complex of beliefs associated with orthodox Puritanism as described in the Westminster Confession & Catechisms. Hence my vote.


Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

;)

[Saturni]

Some of us have good reason. My Puritan ancestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Nurse) got killed by the other Puritans, though luckily not until she had already had children and grandchildren.

Lol, my Mother's ancestors started the Salem Witch Trials as a shady land grab.

[Saturni]

The connection between Lovecraft, Puritanism, and Gnosticism is intriguing. His work contains Gnostic themes and the Puritans were originally called the new Cathars by their foes. I've already mentioned Voegelin, but while the Gnostic-Puritan connection is rather dubious, I find it fascinating.

The Puritans were, for HPL, and endless sort of amusement because of their extreme morbidity.

As for Gnosticism, there's no connection to HPL there, either in his fiction or his mundane life.

[Magister Eckhart]

Heretics who fled like the cowardly rats they were after things started going south for the brutal dictatorship they established in England upon murdering the King.

How many lives could have been saved and how well our ancient religion preserved by sending the Puritans en masse to the stake?

[Electronic God-Man]

How many lives could have been saved and how well our ancient religion preserved by sending the Puritans en masse to the stake?

lol

[Odoacer]

Heretics who fled like the cowardly rats they were after things started going south for the brutal dictatorship they established in England upon murdering the King.

You've got your history muddled. The period of Puritan migration to America was primarily in the two decades prior to the first English Civil War, which began in 1642, at which time emigration virtually ceased until Cromwell came into power. Indeed, many returned to England from America to fight in the Civil Wars. Charles wasn't executed until the end of the second Civil War in 1649, & the Protectorate wasn't established until 1653. Emigration resumed in small numbers under Cromwell, but Puritan New England was already well-established by this time.


How many lives could have been saved and how well our ancient religion preserved by sending the Puritans en masse to the stake?

Not many & not well.

[Magister Eckhart]

lol

Admittedly, I'm more interested in the irreparable harm the Puritans did to Western Culture and to England in particular, but one cannot ignore their starting the English Civil War that led to the genocide of the Irish at the hands of Cromwell (a Puritan) and several other major atrocities. Better to have killed the Puritans prevented all subsequent destruction.

Then again, all the better to slap a few golden crosses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade#Revolts_and_reverses_1216_to_1 225) on their chests and force their repentance, but that's only if they submitted, which I doubt they would. As such, Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

[Magister Eckhart]

You've got your history muddled. The period of Puritan migration to America was primarily in the two decades prior to the first English Civil War, which began in 1642, at which time emigration virtually ceased until Cromwell came into power. Indeed, many returned to England from America to fight in the Civil Wars. Charles wasn't executed until the end of the second Civil War in 1649, & the Protectorate wasn't established until 1653. Emigration resumed in small numbers under Cromwell, but Puritan New England was already well-established by this time.

Right, there's egg on my face, then.

At any rate, my opinion of them as cowards, heretics, and generally a social evil stands.

[Joe McCarthy]

As for Gnosticism, there's no connection to HPL there, either in his fiction or his mundane life.

I disagree. For example:

http://manholemusic.blogspot.com/2009/03/brief-discourse-on-hp-lovecraft.html

[Joe McCarthy]

Heretics who fled like the cowardly rats they were after things started going south for the brutal dictatorship they established in England upon murdering the King.

The Protectorate was not brutal. It was austere. It was built on Cromwell's personality though, as it was the rule of a minority. Such a revolutionary exercise required several competent rulers in succession to last - a difficult challenge under any circumstances, and Richard Cromwell wasn't up to the task. The Royalists came back through no other workable alternative. It certainly wasn't from their desirability.


the genocide of the Irish at the hands of Cromwell (a Puritan)

The usual hobbyhorse, which ignores the fact that Ireland was in rebellion, had committed outrages on English settlers, was serving as a base for Royalists to engage in piracy on English ships and was the staging ground for a planned invasion. Moreover, the 17th century was a particularly violent era, as Hobbes noted, and Catholics were engaging in violence against Protestants at least as egregious on the Continent during the same period.

[Kataphraktoi]

John Calvin was the Osama bin Laden of Christianity and Oliver Cromwell was the Ayatollah Khomeini of England.

[Saturni]

I disagree. For example:

http://manholemusic.blogspot.com/2009/03/brief-discourse-on-hp-lovecraft.html

The author of that piece is not that well versed in Lovecraftian metaphysics or fiction


But Lovecraft won't let his protagonist win, for in escaping he encounters the horror at the center of the universe, a place where identity is obliterated.
The is not what happens to Randolf Carter at all in Through The Gates Of The Silver Key.



The gods of Lovecraft's cosmology, like those of gnosticism, are malignant beings
Wrong. Lovecraftian "gods" are neither good nor evil. In fact, they are completely beyond all human comprehension. That is what HPL stated repeatedly in his tales.


The "world," tangible reality, in Lovecraft's estimation, was something approaching evil, although he does not apply to it the same categorical condemnation that gnostics would apply to it.
Wrong. HPL's personal philosophy was Cosmic Indifference, not pessimism.


But neither was he a fan of science.
Geez! This guy really doesn't have a clue about HPL's interests. HPL, as a youth, wrote an Astronomy column for his local newspaper and almost lost a finger performing some chemical experiments. He also kept himself avidly aware of all scientific advancements throughout his life.


His father and mother both suffered from some form of mental illness, and all through his life H.P. suffered from night terrors, which were often the inspiration for stories.
HPL's father died from Syphils. His mother was later committed to a mental hospital.

[Joe McCarthy]

John Calvin was the Osama bin Laden of Christianity and Oliver Cromwell was the Ayatollah Khomeini of England.

The Ayatollah Khomeini destroyed the Iranian economy, military, and made Iran into a pariah state. Cromwell did the opposite on all fronts.

Comparing Calvin to Osama though is just silly. Calvin wasn't planning spectacular terrorist attacks on enemy states from The Consistory.

[Joe McCarthy]

The author of that piece is not that well versed in Lovecraftian metaphysics or fiction


Perhaps not, but then it isn't my point. It's just one of numerous references to Lovecraft and Gnosticism on the net.

[Osweo]

their starting the English Civil War

:rolleyes:

Unsurprising though, for one who thinks Gavrilo Princip started the Great War.

[Saturni]

Perhaps not, but then it isn't my point. It's just one of numerous references to Lovecraft and Gnosticism on the net.

Beware of people making ill-informed references about HPL and Gnosticism.

<
C:=
<

[Electronic God-Man]

Indeed, many returned to England from America to fight in the Civil Wars.

One of my Puritan ancestors, George Denison, did just that. His brother wrote a letter which included this:


My two brothers, Edward and George had all the estate of my father left between them, being both married long before my father's death: my Brother George buried his first Wife in the year 1643, went into England was a souldier there above a year, was at the Battle of York, or Marston Moor, where he did good service, was afterward taken Prisoner, but got free and having married a second Wife he returned to New England the year before our mother died, and not long afterward removed himself to New London near whereunto at Stonington he now liveth.

[Argyll]

Just so most of you all know, the Puritans were some of the most religously intollerant people in the Americas. They have negatively affected our culture in ways that non-americans can't quite understand.

[Joe McCarthy]

Just so most of you all know, the Puritans were some of the most religously intollerant people in the Americas. They have negatively affected our culture in ways that non-americans can't quite understand.

Yes, they have done America wrong with a legacy of thrift, hard work, and clearance of savage wilderness. Why, we have cities because of these people!

Anyway, they were among the most religiously tolerant of the day in Europe. They were even somewhat friendly to Jews. If you weren't a Catholic, and to a lesser extent an Anglican, you were tolerated, and in practice they looked the other way at Catholics. Meanwhile, Catholics in France were going house to house butchering Protestants.

It's unclear how their religious intolerance adversely affects the US today, though. We have religious freedom here.

[Brigantia]

Both Puritans and Catholics have been religiously intolerant, murderously so. The Puritans have their prime example in Ireland, Catholics in France.

[Argyll]

Yes, they have done America wrong with a legacy of thrift, hard work, and clearance of savage wilderness. Why, we have cities because of these people!

Anyway, they were among the most religiously tolerant of the day in Europe. They were even somewhat friendly to Jews. If you weren't a Catholic, and to a lesser extent an Anglican, you were tolerated, and in practice they looked the other way at Catholics. Meanwhile, Catholics in France were going house to house butchering Protestants.

It's unclear how their religious intolerance adversely affects the US today, though. We have religious freedom here.

They didn't call her Bloody Mary for nothing, miss Queen of England. But still, the Puritans did us too much wrong that I can't remember if there even was anything good they did.

[Odoacer]

I can't remember if there even was anything good they did.

Then perhaps you ought to read some history. :rolleyes:

[The Ripper]

Then perhaps you ought to read some history. :rolleyes:

If it doesn't portray the Puritans as homosexuals in denial, I don't think it will do. :D

[Argyll]

If it doesn't portray the Puritans as homosexuals in denial, I don't think it will do. :D

I really could care less. I hate the puritans, and that's about it. They didn't do anything good except for spreading their bull shit and their so-called amazing work ethic. I'm sorry, but I don't find anything redeeming about think of myself as comming from sinful, being sinful even if I didn't do anything wrong, being sinful if I like to have fun, and so on.

Why is everyone so obsessed with the homosexual thing? Get a life.

[Argyll]

Then perhaps you ought to read some history. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you ought to know who you're talking to. I've been fed information about the Puritans ever since third grade.

[The Ripper]

I really could care less.

Then stop taking part in discussions which you don't care about, it makes life easier for us who do care.


Why is everyone so obsessed with the homosexual thing? Get a life.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/files/original/Pot-calling-the-kettle-black-734818.jpg

[Argyll]

Then stop taking part in discussions which you don't care about, it makes life easier for us who do care.



http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/files/original/Pot-calling-the-kettle-black-734818.jpg

I do care, what I don't care for is the uneeded quips from people that is totally unnescecary.

[Odoacer]

Perhaps you ought to know who you're talking to. I've been fed information about the Puritans ever since third grade.

All hail the master of the history of Puritanism! :bowlol: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Giles_Corey_restored.jpg)

[Argyll]

All hail the master of the history of Puritanism! :bowlol: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Witch_Burning.jpg)

lol I'm even saying that, fool All hail the idiot of redundency :cool:

[Odoacer]

lol I'm even saying that, fool All hail the idiot of redundency :cool:

I'm quite a bit further out of primary & secondary education than you are, yet I seem to remember that the Puritans established the Massachussetts Bay & Connecticut colonies, founded the cities of Boston & Hartford (among many others), established three of America's great universities - Harvard, Yale, & Dartmouth -, & sired the entire class of New England Patriots who were instrumental in effecting American independence from Great Britain. Maybe they neglected to tell you about those things in all those years of being fed information about the Puritans? Or maybe you just forgot.

Yeah, them Puritans - ain't never done no good never. :tsk:

[Argyll]

I'm quite a bit further out of primary & secondary education than you are, yet I seem to remember that the Puritans established the Massachussetts Bay & Connecticut colonies, founded the cities of Boston & Hartford (among many others), established three of America's great universities - Harvard, Yale, & Dartmouth -, & sired the entire class of New England Patriots who were instrumental in effecting American independence from Great Britain. Maybe they neglected to tell you about those things in all those years of being fed information about the Puritans? Or maybe you just forgot.

Yeah, them Puritans - never done no good never. :tsk:

I know they did. I don't care what towns they established. In fact, most kids are taught that they were good people before we came to know who they really were. Have you happened to have read Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God or The Scarlet Letter or The Crucible?

[Odoacer]

I know they did. I don't care what towns they established.

Hey, you're the one who said you couldn't remember if they'd ever done anything good, even with all that wonderful education of yours. So I mention some good things they've done ... & your response is, "I don't care."


Have you happened to have read Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God or The Scarlet Letter or The Crucible?

Yes, I read all of these in high school.

"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is a great sermon, structurally & rhetorically masterful. But it is only one among the many excellent works of a Puritan who still stands as one of America's most brilliant minds: Jonathan Edwards.

The Scarlet Letter & The Crucible are ahistorical twaddle, although they have some literary & dramatic value.

[Magister Eckhart]

I know they did. I don't care what towns they established. In fact, most kids are taught that they were good people before we came to know who they really were. Have you happened to have read Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God or The Scarlet Letter or The Crucible?

Technically, that's not a Puritan sermon.

[Argyll]

Technically, that's not a Puritan sermon.

It was a Puritan sermon when puritanism was dying out and they wanted to draw people back into it.

[Magister Eckhart]

It was a Puritan sermon when puritanism was dying out and they wanted to draw people back into it.

Well if we're talking about Puritan influence, yes, but I would view the Congregationalist movement as offspring of Puritanism, not Puritanism itself.

[Argyll]

Well if we're talking about Puritan influence, yes, but I would view the Congregationalist movement as offspring of Puritanism, not Puritanism itself.

Well, nonetheless, they fired his ass because he was scaring people out of the church! :D

[Magister Eckhart]

Well, nonetheless, they fired his ass because he was scaring people out of the church! :D

That's not accurate, actually. Jonathan Edwards was then and remained for the duration of his life even into today one of the leading American-born theologians, and led a celebrated career.

[Argyll]

Well, then they taught us wrong! :D

[Magister Eckhart]

Well, then they taught us wrong! :D

This is neither impossible nor all that surprising.

[Argyll]

This is neither impossible nor all that surprising.

Meh, well you know the U.S. public school system :D

[Magister Eckhart]

Meh, well you know the U.S. public school system :D

Exactly; it's in a sad state of affairs. If you want any information on Edwards and his preaching, though, I have read a great deal on the subject and I work at a museum that deals with that time period and society. I'm always happy to share knowledge.

[Argyll]

Exactly; it's in a sad state of affairs. If you want any information on Edwards and his preaching, though, I have read a great deal on the subject and I work at a museum that deals with that time period and society. I'm always happy to share knowledge.

You can, if you want. I don't really like American History, though. I'm too into European, especially Celtic and British history :D

[Septentrion]

Puritans were the original WASPS. They brought Anglo-Saxon culture to North America.

[Kalibak]

What is the most common anthropological type of early Puritans in America?

[Kalibak]

What is the most common anthropological type of early Puritans in America?
So they have average english types?

[Hoihey]

Useless wankers who unsurprisingly ended up in the dust bin of history.
No need to waste any time on those losers, they can be dismissed you shouldn’t lose any sleep over them.