Comments on: religious affections? http://brandoncozart.com/archives/2006/03/15/religious-affections/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:43:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: cozart http://brandoncozart.com/archives/2006/03/15/religious-affections/comment-page-1/#comment-325 cozart Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:29:42 +0000 http://rmfo-blogs.com/cozart/archives/2006/03/15/religious-affections/#comment-325 even at that, the parallel would be false and extremely reaching. the majority of modern evangelicals do not view homosexuals as "non-people" nor would they consider those that choose to perform same-sex marriages as "consorting with devils." and no, as far as i've read the Puritans (those in Edwards' day at least) did not view the Mohicans as less than people. uncivilized maybe, but still made in the image of God. those in Northampton and nearby Stockbridge had a pretty good relationship with the Indians and sent many missionaries to the Indians including Edwards, David Brainerd, and the infamous Williams family who set up a school for Indian children. people in Edwards' day and community probably would have considered the french more "devilish" than the Indians. :lol: even at that, the parallel would be false and extremely reaching. the majority of modern evangelicals do not view homosexuals as “non-people” nor would they consider those that choose to perform same-sex marriages as “consorting with devils.”

and no, as far as i’ve read the Puritans (those in Edwards’ day at least) did not view the Mohicans as less than people. uncivilized maybe, but still made in the image of God. those in Northampton and nearby Stockbridge had a pretty good relationship with the Indians and sent many missionaries to the Indians including Edwards, David Brainerd, and the infamous Williams family who set up a school for Indian children.

people in Edwards’ day and community probably would have considered the french more “devilish” than the Indians. :lol:

]]> By: _steve http://brandoncozart.com/archives/2006/03/15/religious-affections/comment-page-1/#comment-324 _steve Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:22:43 +0000 http://rmfo-blogs.com/cozart/archives/2006/03/15/religious-affections/#comment-324 I'm not so sure the parallel is completely off-base. Did the Puritans view the Mohicans as people? I honestly don't know; but if they viewed Native Americans in a manner similar to the way in which the Europeans viewed the Mongols five centuries before Edwards (as demons in human form, hence the term "Tartars" from <em>tartarus</em>), then Edwards might have been subject to contemporary criticism of consorting with devils. I’m not so sure the parallel is completely off-base. Did the Puritans view the Mohicans as people? I honestly don’t know; but if they viewed Native Americans in a manner similar to the way in which the Europeans viewed the Mongols five centuries before Edwards (as demons in human form, hence the term “Tartars” from tartarus), then Edwards might have been subject to contemporary criticism of consorting with devils.

]]> By: Geof F. Morris http://brandoncozart.com/archives/2006/03/15/religious-affections/comment-page-1/#comment-321 Geof F. Morris Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:34:36 +0000 http://rmfo-blogs.com/cozart/archives/2006/03/15/religious-affections/#comment-321 Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. Civilly, I have no beef with same-sex unions; inside the Church, though, I have <strong>huge issues</strong>. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. Civilly, I have no beef with same-sex unions; inside the Church, though, I have huge issues.

]]>