Oxford or Cambridge Distance Learning

I know that this is off topic, but Steve made a comment that I think should be addressed.
--------------------------

In ironic choice, considering that General Washington was nicknamed "Town Burner" by the Iroquois because of his ethnic cleansing campaign against them during the American Revolution.

-=Steve=-
----------------------------------

Here is a biography of Joseph Brant, Mohawk Chief of the Iroquois nation.

http://www.indians.org/welker/brant.htm

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

Here is a photo from the Orangemen site of Mohawk Orangemen.

http://orangeroots.tripod.com/photo1.htm

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

Here is an older version of an Orangemen's obligation.

Obligation of an Orangeman, 1869
Below is the Obligation recited by all new candidates to the Orange Association in Canada in 1869. Source: "The Sash Canada Wore" by Cecil J. Houston and William J. Smyth, University of Toronto Press, 1980.


I, A.B., do solemnly and voluntarily swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and to her lawful heirs and successors, in the Sovereignty of Great Britain and Ireland, and of these Provinces dependant on, and belonging to, the said Kingdom, so long as she or they shall maintain the Protestant Religion and the laws of the country: that I will, to the utmost of my power, defend them against her or any of them; that I will steadily maintain the connection between the Colonies of British America and the Mother Country, and be ever ready to resist all attempts to weaken British influence, or dismember the British Empire; that I will be true and faithful to every brother Orangeman in all just actions, neither wronging him nor knowing him to be wronged or injured, without giving him due notice thereof, and preventing it, if in my power. I swear that I will ever hold sacred the name of our Glorious Deliverer, King William the Third, Prince of Orange; in grateful remembrance of whom, I solemnly promise (if in my power) to celebrate his victory over James at the Boyne, in Ireland, by assembling with my brethren, in their Lodge Room, on the 12th day of July, in every year; I swear that I am not, nor ever will be, a Roman Catholic or Papist; nor will I marry a Roman Catholic or Papist, nor educate my children, nor suffer them to be educated in the Roman Catholic Faith; nor am I now, or ever will be, a member of any society or body of men that are enemies to Her Majesty and our Glorious Constitution; that I never was, to my knowledge or belief, rejected in, or expelled from, any Orange lodge; I further declare, that I will do my utmost to support and maintain the Loyal Orange Institution: obey all regular summonses, and pay all just dues (if in my power) and observe and obey the Constitution and Laws of the same; and lastly, I swear that I will always conceal, and never in any way whatsoever, disclose or reveal, the whole or any part of the signs, words, or tokens, that are now about to be privately communicated to me, unless I shall be duly authorized so to do by the proper authorities of the Orange Institution, of which I am now about to become a member. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in this my Orangeman's Obligation.

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

Steve,

Sometimes what you've been told is not what reality is. There was no mass extermination of Indians in North America as what took place in South America.

Marty

 

I know of no "ethnic cleansing" done by Washington during the Revolutionary War. Perhaps you're referring to the French and Indian War in the pre-revolutionary period in which Washington is now known more for his youthful incompetence and rashness in fighting the indians and for killing a French diplomat in a battle and creating an international incident.

Washington was actually known to be rather progressive in his views on the races--he set his slaves free, for example, a shocking thing to do in 18th century Virginia--and while certainly he fought against some indian fighters who had alligned themselves with the British during the war, I really question your "cleansing" characterization--what he did, at most, was no different than Sherman would do as a military strategy against the South or what the Allies did against Dresden and other German cities to gain strategic advantage.

 

Give me a break. Most historians would agree that they were exterminated both in South and North America with identical purpose.

 

No, we are a LOT off topic.

But incidently, you haven't given me a good reason WHY you utterly reject such a defense. I didn't say that God required such horrors to be, I only implied that by allowing us the free will to rebel, God allows for us to choose to create beauty or horror. The hand that can be used to stroke can also be used to strike--but to blame God for that? Nonsense!

You being a Jew, and me, being a quasi-Jew (I'm Messianic), should certainly know about rebellion, being that the Torah, the Law and the prophets and the whole thing essentially records 1,500 years of almost nonstop rebellion, yet always met, in the end, with God's patience and kindness, even after He has delivered His punishment.

Don't be so quick to reject the One who spoke to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

Take a look at this link. where it shows that extermination took place by Spaniards, British and Americans. Let me quote the following

 

No doubt that exterminations of indians occurred in North America, but the original poster took a shot at our first president that was unfounded. Washington was not involved in mass exterminations or any ethnic cleansing of which I know or have ever read, Ward Churchill's absurd fantasies notwithstanding.

 

To put it crisply, your source--that website--sucks, and is not reliable.

 

And your source to claim the opposite? Divine inspiration?


This is the one who made those claims about George Washington that I underlined earlier.


David E. Stannard, "American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World," Oxford University Press, (1992). Read reviews or order this book. (Cited in Ref. 1)

 

No, just that it runs counter to reliable books I have read on the subject and the site is pretty much, from top-to-bottom, reeking of lunatic fringe. Were I to reference far far right wing sites on this forum as "evidence" (and BTW, I would not, I think they tend to be every bit as conspiratorial and loose with facts as the far left), you would not give my citations much credence either.

Mr. Stannard belongs firmly in the Ward Churchill lunatic fringe camp, and I will not apologize for saying it.

This is way off topic, as Nosborne has pointed out. This turn in the discussion is continued elsewhere on a more appropriate thread, see you there.

Best to you,

Mike

 

I was mistaken, I'll go back on my word and apologize: Stannard is not part of the lunatic fringe, he ranks several steps above Churchill. I was wrong to paint him with that same brush.

There, I feel better.

 

Yes, you´re right, Mike, and I apologize for my contribution to it. Thanks for reading my posts, and reacting to them. I truly thank you for that.

 

little fauss,

I won't discuss this matter. There is no point.

If you really have any wish to understand, as opposed to debate, my point, go into your private place and consider what your thesis says about the God you worship.

If you do this without being blinded by your intense desire to believe, you will understand and nothing further need be said. If you refuse to do this, no argumant I could ever make will convince you.

As to the false distinction between willing and allowing, I refer you to the real scholars on this board for the philosophical proof.

Do not take this post in any way derogating you or your chosen religious opinions. You are no fool and well educated. I suggest, however, that I perceive, perhaps wrongly, a certain reluctance to subject your religious opinions to the careful, objective, non-faith-based scrutiny that I have seen you employ in other contexts.

That is why I say that there is no point in further debate.

 

I don't think there's much purpose in further debate either.

And perhaps I'm wrong to try to employ human--hence, fallible--logic on this forum in the pursuit of understanding God. But of course, so are those who use it in an attempt to deny His existence or pronounce judgments on His justice. E.G.: evil exists, ergo if there's an all-knowing, omnipotent God, he must simultaneously have known, when creating the universe, that the existence of evil would one day lead to atrocities, and at the same time had, but held back, the power to stop it.

Possessing the power to stop evil yet refusing to so do is evil. Ipso facto, if there is a God, he is evil. Voila! It's so simple, why didn't I see it before?

I take it that's pretty much the position of those who haven't been "blinded" to the truth as have I. What truth? Why of course, that there is no truth and no God--hey, it's been philosophically proven right here on this board by "real scholars" who are willing--unlike me--to subject their opinions to "careful, objective, non-faith-based scrutiny".

Course, those "real scholars" rely on nothing more than simple little human logic which is, at bottom, little more than word plays; those "real scholars" are but tiny little organisms inhabiting a speck in a solar system that's just a little wisp in a galaxy that's alltogether ordinary and itself tiny in a universe over 10 billion light YEARS from end-to-end; those "real scholars"probably couldn't even tell you the complete content of their closets, much less understand the complexity and vastness and incredible mystery of the universe or what might be beyond; those "real scholars" are just men, like me: fallible, fragile, soon to turn to dust, the collection of the greatest among them--the most scientifically advanced--unable to account for more than 10% of the matter of the universe in their most advanced theories, the rest falling under the convenient grab bag "black matter".

Those "real scholars" are damned fools--sadly, I mean that literally-- if they even pretend that they can reason away God with a rhetorical flourish or clever logic or human reason or any such claptrap. Those "real scholars" need to understand their place, their position, their insignificance, their vanity; they need to understand the limits of their puny minds--and then, perhaps with a shred of humility, they might one day see the One behind it all, the One who so mystified Abram.

Brother--I say that in faith of that to come--you know the Law, the Scriptures, the Torah. Go back and read the last five chapters of Job--there's your wisdom.

 

I refuse to be drawn into this. I've said all I have to say. If you see no difficulty, then there is no difficulty for you.

I would mention as a matter of general interest that there is a minority rabbinic tradition that those last, SO unsatisfactory chapters of Job were added by a later author because without them, God doesn't come off looking too good.

Think, please, about the fate of Job's CHILDREN, okay? And remember, while you do, that the idea of a life in the world to come is not an ancient part of Jewish belief.

 

Difficulty? Of course, I see difficulties as Job saw difficulties, I struggle with everything, I sometimes feel like Jacob wrestling with God. You kidding? I got your difficulties right here. But I am not so arrogant--or maybe I am and I'm just fooling myself--as to believe that with my infinitesimal brain and paltry reasoning, that a little difficulty that I have rules the existence of God out of hand. That's where I have the big problem with the high-minded intellectuals who play mind games and think they've disporven God or His righteousness. I think that based on what I've seen in the world, the filth, the selfichness, the avarice, the hate--and surely you of all people in your chosen profession can relate--that it's a wonder that in His mercy He doesn't wipe the slate clean of His creation. If He did, we'd deserve every bit of it--what do you think of that?

As for your other points, I'm not real big on every little ancient rabbinic tradition, as you might have guessed based on my belief system; I believe a few of those traditions blinded His people to their messiah, Jeshua. I am real big on the Law and the Torah and the Prophets, however. Those last chapters of Job are anything but "unsatisfactory"; they are perfect and utter wisdom, because they cast the vanity of the intellectuals who would pretend to know the mind of God--or the lack thereof--is such stark and revealing light.

As for the want of an afterlife as a part of ancient jewish belief, that too, is part of an ancient rabbinic tradition that I would not have too much time for, as no one who reads the Law and the Torah and the Prophets, the Psalms altogether can possibly hold such an agnostic view.

I believe YHWH would hold those children of Job in His hands for an eternity in paradise, and you know as well as I that there is more than one reference to an afterlife in the Hebrew scriptures, I shouldn't have to quote them for you, you likely know them better than me.