Monday, November 07, 2005

Pleasure is Evil

Greetings Traditional Christian Friends!

A Hearty and Heartfelt Good Morning to All Traditional Christian Families with Good Christian Values!

If we wish to have any chance at receiving salvation, and going to heaven, we need to live lives strictly in accordance with God’s will. I place particular emphasis on the word strict. That is the way God wants all of us to be: Strict and severe, and utterly righteous. If we take a look back in time to the olden times we will see that society was far more harsh, strict, and severe, yet also, far more righteous. Back then life was a serious business and it was treated as such. People rarely laughed or smiled - there’s ample evidence of this by simply looking at the earliest photographs. If you foolish sinners think that people back in the good olden times ever experienced happiness or pleasure then I demand that you look at various ancient nineteenth century photographs! Did you ever see anyone smiling in those photographs??!! Well, I sure didn’t!!! Now, if we proceed further back in time to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, American society was even more strict and severe, and holier as well. If you laughed in church you spent a day in the stocks! If children laughed in the presence of adults they were severely whipped. Back in 1651, in colonial Massachusetts, denying the authority of the bible would bring a punishment of 40 lashes, and DEATH for repeated offences. This is the perfect example of a society that once had favor with God. There are many other examples given below. These are the kind of state-imposed penalties used to keep all the wicked sinners in line. And they would ultimately be grateful for it, because such penalties would put them on the righteous path toward their redemption and salvation!

1610 Virginia. Church attendance was mandatory twice each Sunday. Failure to comply could result in: First offence- having no provisions given out. Second offence- public flogging. Third offence- death. It should be pointed out that, at least in Virginia, the death penalty was merely a scare tactic and was never carried out, unlike the situation in Massachusetts. Therefore, back then, in the eyes the Good Lord, Virginia was inferior to Massachusetts in its devotion to the Lord, thus explaining why the South lost the Civil War. The opposite is true today, of course.

1630 Connecticut. Citizens could not vote on public matters unless a member of an approved church.

1646 Massachusetts. Quakers were ordered banished on pain of death. Catholic priests were given the same order a year later.

1649 The Maryland Acts of Toleration. Denying God or the Bible: First offence- being bored through the tongue with a red hot iron and fined 20 pounds Sterling, or 6 months in prison. Second offence- being branded in the forehead and fined 40 pounds or 1 year in prison. Third offence- Death. These punishments did not necessarily apply to freeholders or other "reputable persons" such as clergymen. The toleration the acts promised was extended only to church-going Christians.

1651 Massachusetts. Denying the authority of the Bible carried a punishment of up to 40 lashes, banishment, or death for repeated offences.

1659 Massachusetts. The Provincial Court of Records shows that 3 Quakers were hanged for repeated refusal to recant their beliefs.

1660 Massachusetts. Membership in an approved church became mandatory.

1661 Massachusetts. The General Court of Boston contains an account of Quakers being stripped to the waist and flogged through town while tied to and walking behind a cart. The punishment was carried out in two more towns before the offenders were banished into the wilderness.

1661 Virginia. Baptism of children became mandatory. Failure to comply resulted in a fine of 2,000 pounds of tobacco, half to go to the public and half to the informant.

1663 Virginia. Anyone found to be allowing Quakers to preach or teach, in or near their house, was to be fined 5,000 pounds of tobacco.

1671 Massachusetts. Traveling or sporting (hunting, fishing etc) on Sunday could be met with fines, whippings, or death for repeated offences.

1679 Rhode Island. Fines or 3 hours in the stocks could be handed out for exercise, sport, or labor on Sunday.

1683 New Jersey. Fines imposed for recreation, travel, or labor on Sunday.

1691 New York. Fines or 3 hours in the stocks for "prophaning the Lord’s Day". This included hunting, fishing, horse racing, travel, labor, drinking in a ‘tippling house’, or other exercises considered unlawful.

1692 Massachusetts. Blaspheming the name of God could result in up to 6 months in prison, public flogging, being bored through the tongue with a red hot iron, or be forced to sit on the gallows with a rope around the neck. In a gracious gesture, officials determined that no more than any 2 of these punishments should be meted out for the same offence.

1696 New Hampshire. Citizens failing to keep the Lord’s Day by applying themselves to the duty of religion were to be fined, imprisoned, or put in the stocks for up to 3 hours.

1700 Pennsylvania. Fines imposed for drinking on Sunday. Stocks for repeated offences. In a magnanimous move, Pennsylvania specifically refrained from legislating mandatory church membership and attendance, so long as you were a professing Christian. It seems that Pennsylvania fell a bit short in its devotion to the Good Lord.

1762 Georgia. Church Wardens and Constables were empowered to search the towns during both AM and PM church services to apprehend non-attendees. The guilty could be fined or put in the stocks up to 2 hours.

1789 New York. Sunday fines were imposed for sleeping excessively, loitering out of doors, or traveling to and from church in too much haste. President George Washington was stopped by an enforcer, known as the Tithingman, and had to explain why he was on horseback on a Sunday. He was able to talk his way out of a fine only by proving he had become lost coming through Connecticut the day before and was still several miles from town, where he promised he would lay up for the remainder of the day. If President Washington had to explain himself to Church officials than surely, all of us should have to as well!!

1797 Delaware. For willful and premeditated blasphemy, the offender was to be placed in the stocks for 2 hours, be branded in the forehead, and be publicly whipped with 39 lashes, well laid on.

Of all of the states back then, I would have to say that the holiest and most righteous was Massachusetts. There is clearly no place for tolerant Quakers in a good and proper God fearing Christian society. We must strive to bring our society back to simpler, more hearty and more wholesome times like these.


Blogger Gern Blanston said...

It's a breath of fresh air to hear at least 2 other people share my thirst for nourishing values back to the golden age of a church ruled state. Tonight is a sad night for my home state of Virginia. It seems the Abortionists, Homosexuals and their sypathetics have embraced Satan in their voting choices. God bless you in your mission to return our country to it's wholesome roots.

10:48 PM  
Blogger Nathaniel said...

dear gern blanston, while it is true people of faith were certainly damaged by last night's elections, take heart in the knowledge that more than half the country believes in a literal interpretation of the bible rather than evolution. last night's election was simply a result of the corruption infecting the republican party. they talk a good game, but what, truly, have they done for us? filth still rules the airwaves; abortions are still rampant; homosexuals are allowed to exist. they've practically ruled the country for the last 5 years, yet nothing has been done. all i've seen are tax cuts. i doubt jesus would support those, not with so much poverty in America. that is not to say we would be any better with democrats; in fact, we'd be far worse. just don't overestimate the value of republicans.

7:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> If you foolish sinners think that
> people back in the good olden times
> ever experienced happiness or
> pleasure then I demand that you look
> at various ancient nineteenth
> century photographs!

Due to the nature of photographic technology at the time, one had to remain absolutely still for significant periods of time. Holding a smile in place without moving was too difficult. So people did not smile as a matter of technological necessity and shouldn't be taken any further than that as evidence.

I'm not trying to to be combative. But accuracy is important if one wishes to make a cogent argument.

5:48 PM  
Blogger Nathaniel said...

"[P]eople did not smile as a matter of technological necessity," you say? Are you suggesting that people are robots, that because of the alleged time it took to take a picture, they were not technologically able to smile? It's this same kind of reasoning that permits abortion, homosexuality, death penalty, etc, the kind of reasoning that denies the preciousness of life. But besides that I highly distrust your argument for the simple fact I don't think you know how long it took to take a photograph in the olden times, nor the amount of suffering people back then would go through to do things right. If they wanted to smile, I'm sure they would have and held the smile for days on end, if need be. People would walk miles in the snow just to go to Church; they'd rise at first light to milk the cows and work on the fields until sunset. As you are obviously a member of this lazy, God-less generation, I am quite positive you could not identify with such sacrifice. Plus, I have pictures of various Church-going family members from the early 20th century, when photography was even more developed, and none of my ancestors smiled then, either.

6:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your words wound me deeply. I am a devout Christian with a knowledge of photography and its history. Being called a "member of this lazy, God-less generation" by a fellow Christian has hurt me deeply.

Perhaps my sin was pride for "showing off" my knowledge. I tried to make sure you knew that I meant no offense or was questioning your thoughts or love for Our Lord. But I failed. I ask your forgiveness. I meant no offense, but I have given it.

I do not ask your forgiveness, that is up to you to offer if you feel right in doing so.

I will ask, however, that you think of the words of Our Saviour who reminds us to treat all people as if they were the presence of Christ (Matthew 25:45). It is through our example of Christ that we show the Love of God to everyone we meet through our example of His tenderness.

I offer you this, should you care to look at it. The section on "Portraiture" explains what I was trying to say, only much better.

I leave you with my prayers.

11:30 PM  
Blogger Nathaniel said...

anonymous, you are clearly right on this isue, so i ask YOU for your forgiveness.

10:08 AM  
Blogger Nathaniel said...

anonymous -- on second thought, i will only concede that you are right about the issue of photography. you still have not addressed the fact that people of yesteryear were hardworking, God-fearing people and would be more than willing to smile for 30 minutes to get their photograph taken if they thought it appropriate. And while i would never question your Christian-faith (unless you believe in abortion, homosexuality, or evolution), the fact is that many, if not most, Christians and their children have become lazy. They do not go to Church on Sundays. They work 9-5 in heated or air conditioned rooms, as opposed to the good farmers in the days of yore. And they concede too much. There was a time where whores were cast out of the community, where children were punished, where afronts to the faith were fought and punished. Now Christians begrudgingly accept offense to God. They allow homosexuals in their schools, filth on television, etc. etc. That is what I mean by lazy. And while you may or may not be lazy yourself, you still have grown up in this generation of laziness, so would not be able to understand what the people from the olden times would go through to do things right, like smile for the camera (if they thought it was right).

10:18 AM  
Anonymous yrrah said...

close-mind·ed (klōs'mīn'dĭd, klōz'-) or closed-mind·ed (klōzd'-)

Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.
close'-mind'ed·ness n.

EXAMPLE: "If you do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you do not accept Him as your savior, you will go to Hell."

11:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home