Why do people hate the Puritans? What is even remotely hate-able about them? Posted on May 21, 2023 by Anonymous Why do people hate the Puritans? What is even remotely hate-able about them?
>18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
They believed in the female "orgasm"
What are you talking about?
The Commonwealth of England was ruled by Puritans and it wasn't exactly pleasant.
You're not wrong. Even Parliament and Scottish Presbyterians got tired of Cromwell at the end.
Those who are dead in sin and are slaves to the flesh will not understand pious devotion to the Lord. They can only understand the carnal pleasures of the flesh, and will hate those who seek to glorify God.
>As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
The foundation of the Puritans – that is, the message of the cross – is nonsensical to those who haven't received God's saving grace. They can't understand why someone would deny their flesh and serve God, because the message of the cross has no meaning to them.
>For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18
That is the fundamental answer to your question. You'll find that people will give an array of reasons, but all will ultimately boil down to the fact that those who are slaves to sin cannot understand the value of the truth.
>The righteous detest the dishonest; the wicked detest the upright.
*Proceeds to overindulge in the sin of pride over their fanatical piety performance*
They are in hell
If you knew how ignorant your statement was, you’d feel ashamed
You are a sinner, this over exaggerated public pietism is a sin.
>anyone rebuking others is a self-righteous prideful poser
What causes this mentality?
coping mechanism, like saying "what do you mean I have to give up ice cream if I want to lose weight, 1 B&J isn't going to do any harm", they don't realize it's about the sinner not the sin
Degenerates hate them.
they didn't allow people to have a bit of banter with the boys down at the local pub
God can't handle it so they must defend m'lord.
It sounds like they were Calvinist. Which is equal to Satanism. They were just very deceived people. This doesn't automatically condemned them or anything, it just makes life harder for them. I pray for their souls. Especially ones that burned others to death for perceived wickedness.
You need to stop. You are literally damning yourself by continuing to speak in ignorance.
How can I damn myself? Under Calvinism, God predestined me for damnation or salvation. There's nothing I can do about it. This is one of the reasons Calvinism is so satanic. You guys try to have it both ways at all times. Instead of acknowledging this, you tell everybody that God's word is this contradictive mess.
You damn yourself by choosing to sin. The Bible and speakers of truth is God's method of helping us.
That's not a Calvinist principle. You have some new age religion but it's not Calvinism. I'm discussing Calvinism.
>That's not a Calvinist principle.
Yes it is
That is a Calvinist principle. The sins you commit are what damn you. You were just predestined to commit the sins
How intriguing that the Puritans in all their piety and holiness were conveniently not predestined to go to Hell but everyone else is/was? What a coinkydink!
That’s why they were so pious, loved God, and wanted to preach the word - because they knew how great their gift was, which came from God and not from their own efforts.
Anon your strawman of Calvinism only exists in your mind
Why does god tell me you're a false teacher?
He never did that and you know it.
>Especially ones that burned others to death for perceived wickedness.
>everything I don’t like is satanic
Why are Christians like this
Because they feel like they can write off everything and turn off their brains from working further and having to deal with difficult questions when they say stupid shit like this.
Because they took their religion seriously instead of being "fun" and conforming to modern standards.
t. not Puritan
You want the Short answer?
That they were self righteous puritans who got even the most basic parts of Christianity wrong, and did a bunch of horrible shit. Basically the parisees of their day.
There's rational critiques to be made about Puritan society and its batshit ideas about literally killing people or exiling them for minor disagreements with a council of random Englishmen who think they figured out God's truth and nobody else did.
That being said, 90% of Puritan hate these days stems from hedonists who think any level of self discipline is fascism, from butthurt American atheists who seek a simple explanation as to why they're not atheist like cool socialist Scandinavia (ironically 1600s Scandinavia was quite similar to Puritan society), and from the Trad Cath weirdos whose online identity is just seething about Prots.
I agree any hate coming at puritans by coomers is just cope. However, Catholics being upset is perfectly justified considered the widely acknowledged mistreatment at the hands of Puritians.
Also among other things their retarded church governance structure
Their shit theology and understanding of scripture that saw them die out.
And their murder of people that they had even minor issue with.
t. Catholic married to a Protestant.
>I agree any hate coming at puritans by coomers is just cope. However, Catholics being upset is perfectly justified considered the widely acknowledged mistreatment at the hands of Puritians.
What specifically are you referring to? Old England during the commonwealth?
>Also among other things their retarded church governance structure
It's the structure of the early church
>Their shit theology
I would say 90% of the love that puritans get is either from Christians who falsely identify Puritanism with piety and don’t know their deep theological issues, or people who just like them for their Warhammer Fantasy Inquisitor aesthetics.
Nah, Puritan admiration is literally non-existent kek.
I'm probably the only one who admires *some* of their qualities which I think have been good for the USA, namely: education ("Ye Olde Deceiver Satan" Laws made everyone in Massachusetts literate in an age when most of humanity was illiterate) and modesty (which unfortunately is now mostly gone in America).
Let's be real, New England is the least retarded part of the country. New Hampshire Republicans and Vermont Democrats are, somehow, simply more chilled out and less insane than their counterparts anywhere else in this Union. New England pride worldwide, baby.
The important part of 'self discipline' is 'self.' These joyless cunts want to impose their joyless lives on others.
LULZ is mostly firstoid white bois who will never live a fanatically religious society so they'll say its a good thing out of edginess.
This. The Puritans were hateful, backwards fanatics with massive sticks up their asses. People didn’t like them for a good reason.
>they'll say its a good thing out of edginess
No, it's undeniably better than what we have now.
>life under Sharia Law is better than life in a free society
>adultery, feminism, pornography, lack of morals and the state having power to steal your child for made up reasons is le good
You are evil, kill yourself.
Freedom can go to hell, I only want Christ.
I'm not an atheist, a Christian, or a Muslim but let me ask you: say you lived in a strictly Calvinistic, Biblical inerrancy + literalist community. You see that every week, a few kids, teens, or young adults are brought out, judged by the communal elders, and stoned to death for being disobedient, lazy, fat, or for drinking a lot of alcohol. At one point you hear that a single woman in the community was raped and was required by the elders to marry her rapist. And last month a local priest's daughter was found out to be a prostitute, so she was burned to death. For a few days, your teenage son's been a very bad mood, and just this morning he told you to go to hell. You're currently standing in front of the community elders and they've just proclaimed your son is to be publicly beaten to death with rocks.
Would you be absolutely okay with all of this, and would you consider it righteous, loving behavior?
>say you lived in a strictly Calvinistic, Biblical inerrancy + literalist community.
It sounds like I am very blessed.
>You see that every week, a few kids, teens, or young adults are brought out, judged by the communal elders, and stoned to death for being disobedient, lazy, fat, or for drinking a lot of alcohol.
If there is so much sin in the community it sounds like it will not be what it "is" for very long. Holiness is brought by a work of the Spirit of God, and men cannot manufacture it.
>At one point you hear that a single woman in the community was raped and was required by the elders to marry her rapist
This is not the application of biblical law.
>You're currently standing in front of the community elders and they've just proclaimed your son is to be publicly beaten to death with rocks.
No, I strike him with a rod. The law you're referencing explicitly is after all other measures have failed, the death penalty is not the first response to disobedience to parents.
>Would you be absolutely okay with all of this, and would you consider it righteous, loving behavior?
Who cares what I think? Am I God? If I thought murder was a great thing, would that make it so? Either society will be ruled by God, the creator of all things and the source of all life and goodness, or it will be based on the wicked whims of rebellious men. There is no other standard of judgement than the word of God. Christ, and not man, is King.
>Who cares what I think? Am I God?
No, but you're made in His image. Do you believe that even if you find what's going on morally repulsive, you should just accept it anyway? Not even voice your concern? Say that you accept it?
>This is not the application of biblical law.
Yes it is.
>No, I strike him with a rod.
You've tried that. It only made him more resentful of you. What do you do then?
>The law you're referencing explicitly is after all other measures have failed, the death penalty is not the first response to disobedience to parents.
And let's say that all other measures have failed. You couldn't convince your son to be happy or respect you, couldn't beat it into him, it only made things worse. Also, it should be clarified that the verse I'm referencing doesn't specify "if all else fails."
>For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
So your son cursed you, he said "Go to Hell, dad!" Do you believe he needs to be stoned to death?
>Either society will be ruled by God, the creator of all things and the source of all life and goodness, or it will be based on the wicked whims of rebellious men.
I agree that we need a moral standard, and I believe a God does decide it, but it isn't the God of the Old Testament. If we followed the commands of it, we would be imprisoned and viewed as crazed, bloodthirsty killers. Is a rule of "Obey me or die, no exceptions" any different from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Misc Pot?
>you're made in His image.
Which means He is greater than I.
>Do you believe that even if you find what's going on morally repulsive
If I find something to be "morally repulsive", and God does not, I am objectively in error.
>Yes it is.
No, it isn't. That law is for fornication. The penalty for rape is death.
>You've tried that. It only made him more resentful of you
If he is incorrigible then he deserves to die and his death is a blessing upon the community to whom he would have been a blight for his whole life.
>You couldn't convince your son to be happy or respect you, couldn't beat it into him, it only made things worse.
You are now describing someone who under secular laws would likely be imprisoned in a facility for life. The difference at that point is the biblical law is cheaper and more humane, since it brings a swift and dignified death, rather than a slow execution by cage.
>So your son cursed you, he said "Go to Hell, dad!"
A simple private personal outburst is not what the verse is talking about. The word could also be rendered as "despises", which is how the LXX has it. This is the besides the point of you ignoring parallel passages.
>Which means He is greater than I.
But did He not give you a mind to think? A heart to feel compassion?
>If I find something to be "morally repulsive", and God does not, I am objectively in error.
There are things we hold as morally repugnant that aren't mentioned in the Bible either way, what about those? What about in Exodus where it's commanded that the soldiers kill the adults of their enemies and take the young women (virgins only) as brides?
>If he is incorrigible then he deserves to die and his death is a blessing upon the community to whom he would have been a blight for his whole life.
How do you know that? What of rebellious children of abusive parents?
>You are now describing someone who under secular laws would likely be imprisoned in a facility for life.
Do you think that children of abusive parents end up in jail most of the time?
>since it brings a swift and dignified death
Stoning is swift and dignified?
>A simple private personal outburst is not what the verse is talking about. The word could also be rendered as "despises", which is how the LXX has it. This is the besides the point of you ignoring parallel passages.
What is the verse talking about then? Let's say he hates you. Or, let's say you know of a child who hates his father because he beats him senseless every day. He despises and curses him. No death penalty seems to be mandated for the father, but under literal law interpretation, the son would deserve stoning.
>What is it? Your feelings? That is the only standard you have appealed to to presume to judge your creator.
There are actions we know bring negative consequences on the self and others, demonstrably, and actions that bring positive consequences.
>But did He not give you a mind to think? A heart to feel compassion?
He did. It thinks correctly when it thinks His thoughts after Him. For example, by thinking logically, as He thinks logically. Which means I must dismiss the repetitive appeal to emotion which has been your sole argument thus far.
>There are things we hold as morally repugnant that aren't mentioned in the Bible either way, what about those?
If something is not prohibited in scripture we have no basis to say it is wrong.
>What about in Exodus where it's commanded that the soldiers kill the adults of their enemies and take the young women (virgins only) as brides?
That's in Numbers, and it was a particular command to a particular people at a particular time for a particular reason.
>How do you know that?
Because the bible says it.
>What of rebellious children of abusive parents?
I certainly feel for them, but this is hardly a normative scenario, so it is telling that is where you wanted to go.
>Do you think that children of abusive parents end up in jail most of the time?
I think it's irrelevant.
>Stoning is swift and dignified?
Not that stoning is the important part, but compared to locking someone in a cage and treating them like a rat for decades until they succumb to age? Absolutely.
Perhaps you're right or perhaps not. I won't say it means I'm correct but I feel like I need to be honest and say that I don't believe it and don't feel it's morally right rather than put that aside and lie.
I will say confidently though that "If something is not prohibited in scripture we have no basis to say it is wrong." is a very dangerous thing to believe. That's been the justification for many terrible things.
>Let's say he hates you. Or, let's say you know of a child who hates his father because he beats him senseless every day. He despises and curses him. No death penalty seems to be mandated for the father, but under literal law interpretation, the son would deserve stoning.
If we could throw the non-stop appeal to emotion into the garbage where it belongs for a moment, so that the issue is no longer obfuscated and confused, what we have here is a problem: "abusive father". This is not a morally neutral problem as it violates divine law at the very least the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. What is the solution to such a problem? Well, if you're a godless heathen with a grossly over-inflated opinion of your own wisdom and virtue your solution might be to swing the hammer of state power wildly in a doomed quest to create a worldly "paradise", a "paradise" that is really as nightmarish as the utopian's unredeemed spirit. But the biblical solution to the problem of the fallen world is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Wickedness is punished because it is our (or more properly, Caesar's) sacred duty to administer the justice of the Lord on the earth, but there is always forgiveness in Jesus, and He brings reconciliation and healing. This is the way to solve problems, and the law must not be viewed as a tool of social improvement.
>There are actions we know bring negative consequences on the self and others, demonstrably, and actions that bring positive consequences.
How do we "know" that, what makes a consequence negative and a consequence positive, and why are positive consequences good and negative consequences evil? If someone tries to murder another man but accidentally improves his life should he be rewarded and praised for his good deed since his actions resulted in positive consequences? And if someone tries to save another man's life but accidentally kills him and another in the process, should he be punished and condemned because his actions resulted in negative consequences? If a tyrant demanded absolute obedience and servitude or else he would murder a hundred innocents for every act of disobedience, would it be righteous and good to support the tyrant, since the alternative is the deaths of innocents?
>I agree that we need a moral standard
What is it? Your feelings? That is the only standard you have appealed to to presume to judge your creator.
>I believe a God does decide it
Really? You will contradict yourself then (or more likely the strange god which does not exist that you invent in your mind will be nothing more than a reflection of yourself) since you apparently think you have the right to sit in judgement of God. But if God is the authority (and He is), then we have absolutely no recourse to pretend to turn around and judge Him.
>If we followed the commands of it, we would be imprisoned and viewed as crazed
On this point you have my full agreement, for "All who seek to live righteously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted". Because of the enmity God put between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent the latter despises and wishes to destroy the former as part of its crusade against God. But there is no surer sign of regeneration than when you love those attributes of God the world hates the most.
>any different from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Misc Pot?
Well, by what standard do you claim to reprove them? If there is no God above the state the state becomes your god.
>On this point you have my full agreement, for "All who seek to live righteously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted". Because of the enmity God put between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent the latter despises and wishes to destroy the former as part of its crusade against God. But there is no surer sign of regeneration than when you love those attributes of God the world hates the most.
Are you saying that, let's say, a community of people is announced to have been arrested for murdering their children for constant disobedience or despising them (so they say). They'd killed 10 children in 5 months and hid the fact from others outside the community.
Would you read this and say
>"Those are honorable persecuted Christians."
Depending on your answer, let's say it's instead a community of Muslims beheaded two people for drawing a cartoon of Mohammad and eight others for laughing at it. What would you say?
>Would you read this and say
>"Those are honorable persecuted Christians."
>What would you say?
What do you think I would say, sir, and why do you think I would say it? Have you become so desperate to stoke the irrational feelings of the readers (bereft as you are of any legitimate point) that you've simply devolved into asking stupid questions?
"Naturally understood"? What does that mean? What kind of objective basis is that? Maybe Stalin "naturally understood" that there was nothing wrong with his atrocities. Why was he wrong?
>Anyone who is fine with it is proven to be a deeply disturbed psychopath
>I agree that we need a God above the state
But apparently you don't agree you need a God above yourself. By inventing a false god that just so happens to agree in every way with whatever personal opinion you happen to have at the moment you do nothing but make yourself God, just as Mao and Stalin did. Men such as you are the worst of tyrants.
>I'm sure you'll say the difference is "God is the Creator, Mao is not" but how can you possibly say Mao is a murderous tyrant and God is a loving father?
You're acting like it's cheating somehow to note the immense unbridgeable chasm between a mere man and the living God. What Mao and those like him did was evil precisely because he pretended to the throne of God (which is the very same thing you do). God is a loving father because all things work together for good for His children.
I can't bring myself to say I'd be okay with this. If I were sitting with a friend, and he said
>this government sucks, I wish we had a better one
and Mao came in and shot him in the head, I'd be terrified and angry. If he said
>this water from heaven sucks, I wish we had better water
and God came in and shot him with lightning, I'd be lying if I said my response would be to praise him and thank him for his loving affection.
>Well, by what standard do you claim to reprove them? If there is no God above the state the state becomes your god.
Because it is naturally understood that senseless murder is wrong. Anyone who is fine with it is proven to be a deeply disturbed psychopath. I agree that we need a God above the state, but tell me what the difference is between:
>Mao had tens of thousands of his own people imprisoned and executed for voicing their displeasure of his government (actually happened)
>God had tens of thousands of his own people killed for voicing their displeasure of his food/water (Exodus)
I'm sure you'll say the difference is "God is the Creator, Mao is not" but how can you possibly say Mao is a murderous tyrant and God is a loving father?
you have no idea what Calvinistic polity looks like do you
There is no Calvinistic polity.
t. Reformed Episcopalian
I'm referring to state polity not ecclesiastical
Your ecclesiastical polity is definitely outside of Calvinism though
they're pr*testants, and even worse, calvinoids
hate to break it to you but almost every church that wasn't Catholic or Lutheran was some form of Calvinist at the time. The 39 articles affirm every aspect of TULIP while also affirming the more liturgical aspects of Anglicanism and the Crown's sovergenty. The only real difference is the Puritans rejected the latter 2 parts and just went full on low church. Ironic how their ultimate successors became the United Churches of Christ who are so liberal people joke their acronym means Unitarians Considering Christ.
This is probably a major reason for it, although the migration to America happened earlier than the Cromwellian takeover. Mostly came down to not wanting to be under full state/church control and instead following the New Testament hyper literally. Not exactly as dour and stern as people paint it today, but definitely not a liberal (in the classical sense) paradise either.
They banned fun.
I love them
Based champions of
>freedom of conscience(levelers, Cromwell defending the quakers from the Presbyterians)
>democratic tendencies(town hall government in the colonies, also levelers and diggers)
>the virtue of reason and Republican government being the fruit of divine virtue(Milton)
The rabid dogs that hung witches (funnily enough related to a judge in those) were the last whimpers of a dead social movement more akin to modern liberals than anything else, seeking reform to a broken system, having some decent ideals, then absolutely dropping the ball with the execution making them seen forever as wretched sinners totally unworthy of gods love
Also the witch business was generations after the founding of Salem. It was a crazy blip in their history.
the witches deserved it
They have always been simps for the israelites and wanted to establish Israel hundreds of years before Herzl was born. Everything about them screams kosher.
>Retard confuses the 1600s Christian idea of Israel with the secular nationalism of the 1880s
Do you think the Christian conception of Jerusalem refers to the literal physical city too?
>Why do people hate the holier than tho moralhomosexuals
Truly a question for the ages
Because America was demographically overrun by Catholic/israeli (and to a much-lesser-extent Orthodox) Ellis Islanders forced to cope with the fact their ancestors left their shitty village in Ballymaclanan/Bregalavanza/Brzemize to live in a country founded by Protestants, and so naturally anything wrong with the US became intrinsically linked with the Puritans.
Puritans made usury acceptable in the Anglo world. If you're mad about israelites overruning things, it's because of WASPs. Catholics didn't overrun anything for years and mostly had their hub in Baltimore.
Google what the word "demographically" means, ESL (Hint: It doesn't involve finance)
>Puritans made usury acceptable in the Anglo world
Yes, yes, they should've just outsourced it to a religiously-alien minority like the israelites as is traditional in the Catholic world.
Oh right, usury never existed in Catholic Europe eh?
Fuggers and Medici, those names ring any bells to you?
Those were localized and only last resorts to desperate traders. It didn't become the backbone of civilization itself via British then American hegemomy. Mankind is truly fucked dude. And I don't know it's ever going to be unfucked now. Pardon my French, but I don't know a better word for it.
>Those were localized and only last resorts to desperate traders. I
If by "localized" you mean a part of the Spanish imperial economy, and by "last resort of desperate traders" you mean the bankers of the Habsburg dynasty and (in the case of the Medici) the Popes, uh sure okay lol.
Kingkillers and murderers of innocents. Be it Catholic or suspected "witches". Also, ingrates. At their request, James I gave them the most based bible up to that point and they turned around and did the same thing Gunpowder plot Catholics did. Also invited israelites back into England, opened up Anglos to Calvin's flexible laws on usury, and soon enough, got ruled by those very israelites in the Bank of England.
They were kicked out of Europe for being annoying. The outward apperence is being humble, meek, and quite but in practice they just power trip on the idea of telling people what to do. They were essentially the ancient version of a janny.
They weren’t kicked out. They left voluntarily, and did so because they wanted to establish a place of living where they could make everyone live by their Sharia-esque laws.
I wouldn't say they're really hated anymore. In fact quite a few Protestant churches have started to incorporate Puritan works into their study.
>why did people hate [abrahamics]
Because they always have to make their religious autism everyone elses problem
They are the cuck origin of Social Justice Warriors
They killed Charles I and invited Talmudists into England.
That's enough to hate them.
I'm not really well versed into the history of Anglo-Saxon christian sects, but from what I've heard of the Puritans, they just valued work, hated laziness, and were basically Salafists but Protestant
Why the hell did so many New England Puritans become Unitarians and how did they do it so fast?
The same reason once you try a drug once you're far more likely to do it again. Once you try Protestantism, you'll only keep chasing the dragon
Do you realize how small the classical unitarian movement is
It was fashionable. Elites like to be contrarian and cutting edge, and they eventually controlled Harvard.
Good morals = good
Murdering people who don't adhere to them = not good
If you must be Protestant, listen to Wesley. He didn't kill anyone. I mean, that's like the minimum requirements, but it's a good start.
What's with all the schizo "PURITANS ARE LE MURDERERS!" posts ITT?
It's called history... on a history board. No matter how different you are personally, these denominations can't live these things down once they make that leap. And Puritans made that leap quick. As did Calvin previously. They were just as bad as what they were supposedly Protesting.
What historical evidence do you have that the Puritans went around murdering people?
>many terrible things
By what standard?
By the standard of some parents who killed their kids because they thought God told them to, and used cases like Moses and his son or the Leviticus verse to justify it. Abusive spouses who beat, psychologically controlled, or raped their spouse on the idea that the Bible states a wife should submit to her husband. Or paedophilia on the basis that the Bible never establishes an age of consent. Or slavery being defended for a long time on its Biblical basis, to the point some evangelical preachers in the 60s and 70s are on record saying that slavery is unfairly maligned since the Bible condones it (they later retracted the statements).
Can't forget either that the story of Ham for many people served as an argument that certain races were inferior and accursed in the eyes of God.
I'm not saying that any of these are necessarily accurate interpretations of scripture, or that the perpetrator is less to blame than the Bible, but nevertheless the concept of "If the Bible doesn't say not to do it, we can do it", or worse, "X happens or is allowed in the Bible, therefore it's allowed in this case" are dangerous things to believe.
>I'm not saying that any of these are necessarily accurate interpretations of scripture
If they are a misuse of scripture, then they are not actually relevant.
>dangerous things to believe
I'd rather be "dangerous" than wrong or sinful. It remains the case that the word of God is the only standard, and to call immoral that which God has not is itself a sin.
Their claim was false though, wasn't it?
What is your response to the paedophilia issue?
>Their claim was false though, wasn't it?
True, but it was justified for centuries based on your exact same argument: well, what they're saying is Biblical, so therefore it must be right! Most of the people also didn't know of all the wicked shit going on behind the scenes or the HRE or Vatican, and even the Reformation didn't expose all of it. For a good 1200 or 1300 years, most people sincerely believed everything the Vatican and HRE were doing was warranted because the Bible permitted or didn't explicitly forbid it.
And that's not even mentioning the canonicity debate, and how parts of the Apocryphon justify things the Reformation called unbiblical.
>What is your response to the paedophilia issue?
What pedophilia issue? You mean priests touching little boys? The state's response should be a rope and a short drop.
>well, what they're saying is Biblical, so therefore it must be right!
You can say anything to justify your own actions, you could say that burning people alive actually makes them feel really good and justify it on the basis of hedonism. It doesn't matter what claims someone makes if the claim is untrue.
>most people sincerely believed everything the Vatican and HRE were doing was warranted because the Bible permitted or didn't explicitly forbid it.
No, they believed it because their parish priest told them it was ok. What you had in the middle ages was a grossly unbiblical perspective that the scriptures were dangerous and laymen (even nobles) were to be kept from them. What you had in the middle ages was the opposite of basing law on God's word, and most of canon law was an open invention of the pope, which was one of the things objected to in Martin Luther's 95 theses. This is why what you're talking about collapsed when the Reformation made the scriptures available. You must understand, the Reformation was no forerunner of the so-called Enlightenment; the Enlightenment was a repudiation of the Reformation. The whole point was to restore God's revelation to supremacy both in the Church and society at large, and to re-dedicate culture itself to the Lord. It was a Christian revival, not in any way a secular or secularizing movement; one of their biggest criticisms of medieval society was that it wasn't religious enough.
>What do you think killing 200,000 Irish people is?
>And do you think they got the power in England by asking nicely?
No, they got it by being elected to parliament.
>What pedophilia issue?
>you could say that burning people alive actually makes them feel really good and justify it on the basis of hedonism
You've said that stoning people to death is justified as God's will. I imagine you'll say there's a difference, but surely you can see my point.
>No, they believed it because their parish priest told them it was ok. What you had in the middle ages was a grossly unbiblical perspective that the scriptures were dangerous and laymen (even nobles) were to be kept from them. What you had in the middle ages was the opposite of basing law on God's word
"God and my right" was based on direct scripture, where verses say that Christians must submit to all governing authorities, that all governing authorities are ordained by God for the good of all people. Even if it was used to do evil things, that part of scripture was taken literally, which seems to be what you want it to be. That all government is set in place by God, and that all government authority must be obeyed.
Yes, there are verses where characters disobey governments and aren't punished. However, if we're speaking of the law, that is part of the law. I say this without emotion, purely on logic, but the law also commands killing a child who curses their parents, a priest's daughter being burnt if she becomes a prostitute, that slavery is acceptable, and that homosexuals should be put to death.
I believe prostitution and homosexuality are wrong, but I don't believe the people engaging in them should be killed, for the record.
I'm still not sure what you're asking me.
>I imagine you'll say there's a difference, but surely you can see my point.
I see your point, I think I just explained why it is in error.
>"God and my right" was based on direct scripture, where verses say that Christians must submit to all governing authorities, that all governing authorities are ordained by God for the good of all people.
I would say that is a misuse of scripture.
>that part of scripture was taken literally
What does "literal" mean? Ironically this word that was supposed to say something about the meanings of words has become meaningless. The way I say scripture should be taken is seriously. The only interpretation of the text that matters is the author's, because the purpose of words is to communicate, which means biblical exegesis is to aim at deriving the intention of the author and whatever is determined to be the text's actual meaning is to be received absolutely. This is the very same way anything is interpreted (it's the way you are interpreting my words right now) but with the added caveat that the author thereof is God. It can be literal, it can be metaphorical, but whatever it means it means and what it means is to be taken seriously.
>However, if we're speaking of the law, that is part of the law.
No it is not. The law says "You shall not follow the masses in doing evil" and "Fear not he who is able to destroy the body but He who is able to destroy body and soul in hell" and "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but unto God that which is God's". The state has a particular purpose which is not its own power. It was not granted an arbitrary power, nor is it permissible to obey it against God's authority, nor was it ever.
>I don't believe the people engaging in them should be killed
200,000 CIVILIANS. It's not even counting soldiers, which were much less.
Besides that, it was viewed as atrocious even in his day. European wars could be bad, but they were still strategic in nature and didn't focus so much attention on terrorizing the populace.
You're not going to change your mind though. You'll suck Puritan cock even if it sends you to hell.
The point I'm getting at is that a literalist interpretation isn't sustainable. Sure, it'd be a totally perfect world if no kids ever argued with their parents, no one was a prostitute, no one was gay, everyone was abstinent, spouses always got along, and everyone devoted themselves 100% to God. But we're told that's impossible. People will sin and will fall short, always. If the law is to be upheld, many of those sins command a death penalty. That wouldn't and couldn't make for a sustainable society. Even the Pharisees and israeli society at large stopped following them. You end up with a population that isn't motivated by love, but motivated by complete terror that if they step out of line, they will face an unwavering, indisputable death sentence for it.
You can say that this is acceptable, because God is our Creator, so if He ordains it we must do it without complaint and assume it's good, and that physical death is meaningless, but if God doesn't value human life, why should anyone else? If we should want to serve God because He is loving and gracious, why do we insist the best way to do it is through terror? And are we simply to cast aside any emotion, any reason, any accepted moral standards and say "Yes, this is perfectly righteous, and I can't complain (otherwise I'm dead too, like the command of Aaron I believe to not mourn his sons, lest he also die)"?
Like I said, maybe you're right and maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like if you had a child and were told that he must be stoned to death for disobedience of a Levitical law, you wouldn't be gung ho for it. It's like how many soldiers go into war fresh, believing they can easily pull the trigger and take lives and enjoy it, until it comes time for them to do it.
Anything is simple to do if you've never had to do it.
>But we're told that's impossible
With men such things are impossible, but with God all things are possible. I said earlier, the law must not be seen as a tool for social improvement. We anticipate a day when the knowledge of God covers the earth as the waters cover the seas, when men beat their swords into plowshares. Moral evils are removed through the preaching of the gospel by which the whole world will be reconciled to God, at which point the Lord will return to inherit His kingdom. Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, sodomites, slavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. A godly society is accomplished by a powerful work of the Holy Spirit, and a godly society is not filled with sinners. Outward obedience to the law without a changed heart produces hypocrites like the pharisees, as you mention, and it's only a matter of time before the outward reflects the inward. The purpose of the law as an institution is not to improve society but bestow justice on wrongdoing.
>if God doesn't value human life
God's penalties are meaningful precisely because human life is valuable.
>If we should want to serve God because He is loving and gracious, why do we insist the best way to do it is through terror?
It isn't. The best way is through the ministry of reconciliation.
>any accepted moral standards
Accepted moral standards are immoral standards. Ezekiel 18:25 "Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?" Accepted moral standards look at sexual abomination, bodily mutilation, and the murder of children and gives it a round of applause. The autonomous opinions of wicked men are raised up against the righteousness of God. The culture is immoral and profane, it is the Lord that is righteous and just.
What do the preceding verses say this is talking about? Is it a sermon? And again what I'm comfortable with doesn't matter.
>sexual abomination, bodily mutilation, and the murder of children
All of these things appear in the Bible: sanctioned rape or forced wife-taking (sexual abomination), forced circumcision (bodily mutilation), the murder of children and infants, and all three are ordered by or directly enacted by God.
>And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
Don't reckon this had anything to do with it, do you? And even if it only applied to Israel, would you feel comfortable going to Israel, not attending a nearby rabbi's sermon, and then being killed?
Also can't forget the Holy Roman Empire and all its corruption and excesses, or that of the Vatican, on the basis that "We are God's appointed authority, therefore good."
>What historical evidence do you have that the Puritans went around murdering people?
What do you think killing 200,000 Irish people is? And do you think they got the power in England by asking nicely? Why do you think Trotsky even praised Cromwell as a progenitor of revolutionaries and compared him to Lenin?
Puritans and their modern fetishists gravitate towards politics and worldly power and dominionist forms of religion - but not a thing of what Christ actually commanded (if they even want to admit he made commands. They seem to just like discussing theology instead). I respect Trotsky more since at least he's honest in his brutality and kikey nature. I'm more repulsed by someone who did the same exact thing, but adorns it with piety.
The thing that rubs me the wrong way about historical Puritans is their fake humility which is really just extreme narcissism. You see the same thing in islamic fundamentalists and white progressive activists, their submission to god/ideology is just a vehicle for their own power over others. Then they accuse others of being arrogant for not submitting to their ideology as a power move to dominate and control them. They also play the victim if you resist and refuse to put up with their shit. I'm not saying they were all bad, there were some admirable things too. I just can't stand when people try to profess humility while their face, body language is smug and arrogant.
They hated Irish people and saw them as pagans to be killed, if they kept to themselves and did not have Cromwell I'd probably seem them the same way I see nondemoninational Christians.
Also, while their piety is respectable, they were way too hardcore and too many of their own family lapsed into irreligion over generations.
Since there is so much baggage with them as well, most people can't really rationally articulate this either, you either have ancestors who were one of them or were oppressed by them, so you see emotional blow ups instead which entrench the opinions on all sides.