Benjamin Franklin

Growing up as a child, I have always heard that our "Founding Fathers" were Christian and that our government was based upon Christian morals. God is mentioned in almost every document of our country, but did the writers really mean the Christian God?

In The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin he writes on page 232 of our anthology, "And now I speak of thanking God, I desire with all Humility to acknowledge, that I owe the mention'd Happiness of my past Life to his kind Providence, which led me to the means I us'd and gave them Success." In this passage he is thanking God for allowing himself to be successful. Later on in a letter to Franklin from Benjamin Vaghan, he writes , ..." will show that you are ashamed of no origin; a thing the more important, as you prove how little necessary all origin is to happiness, virtue, or greatness." Mr. Vaghan is saying that Benjamin Franklin does not believe in the Christian view of "the fall", or when sin entered into humanity and because of one person's sin, everyone else is born a sinner. That is why we need God. We depend on everything from him. What Benjamin Franklin wrote at the beginning of his autobiography just contradicted what his friend wrote to him. Was our country really founded on Christian values? I am not sure. What do you think?

Jonathan Edwards

I enjoyed reading the Personal Narrative of Jonathan Edwards. It really changed my perspective of him. In high school we had to read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". I remember my teacher kind of slandering him and saying how mean and heartless he was. I kind of agreed with her because I was not well informed. I only read one sermon of his and nothing else by him. I've been in college for almost two years now and one thing I have learned is to be well informed. Never be satisfied with one part of the story. This is a prime example of why this is true. Had I read his personal narrative along with his sermon my opinion of him would have been drastically different.

After reading his personal narrative I really have a lot more respect for the guy. I believe that he was filled with the Holy Spirit and that he was trying to help further God's kingdom. His writing sounded so humble to be not to have been from the Holy Spirit. As for his sermon, "Sinners in the hand of an angry God" sometimes people hate to hear the truth. There is going to be a judgment day and only the believers of God are going to live eternally with Him. We need to wake up and start living for God and stop sinning and hurting Him.

Mary Rowlandson

I really enjoyed reading about Mary Rowlandson. I felt that while what happened to her was terrible, what she went though can help others. Her writings inspired me to trust God because he knows what is best for me.

There are some that say that she was just expirincing "survivor's syndrome" which is what the article I read for today's class was about. I do not believe that theory. I believe that she was under a lot of stress and trauma, (she watched her niece, and her young child die), but that she was trusting God throughout it all. I believe that when she wrote her account after she was rescued that she did not just write God in as an afterthought to please her culutre, the Puritains.

I believe that this expirience did help her grow with her walk with God. In the begining of her narrative she talks about how she was starting to stray from her walk with God. She was not taking the act of devotion and worship that seriously. But through this horrible expirience her relationship with God grew stronger.

Carnival Post

The first few weeks of this class was a time of discovery. Not only were we reading about the new settlers to America who were also discovering things, the students in the class were discovering new things they did not know about these first Americans.
There was a discovery that these early American writers were not so hard to understand. It was possible to read and comprehend what they were talking about. The language was a little different and more beautiful than today's English but it was still very readable. It can be so enjoyable too. Hannah wrote how Bradstreet's word's were inspiring to her. She can relate to Bradstreet and her poems. I think it is wonderful how poetry so old can still be understood and can touch people's lives.

There was a heightened awareness that we, people living in the 21st century can relate to people in the 16th and 17th centuries. We still face the struggle with trying to do the right thing, with trying to make a living. In Aubri's blog she made the point of stem-cell research. Do we take away a unborn Babbie's life to save another person's life? We can save a diseased person's life by research done with stem cells. This is great. Someone can get a chance to extend their life. Who wouldn't want that? But then again, we are taking away a life that could have the cure to some of these diseases or someone who could be the next president. It is a hard question that does not have an easy answer to it. This is just like the colonists contemplating on moving to a new homeland to escape poverty. It is a good thing for the European settlers, but then again you take away land and a way of life of the Native Americans already living here. It is a hard choice to decide on to save one, and not the other.

Here is a link to Aubri's blog: http://aubrifrey.blogspot.com/

Cotton Mather

Today's reading was quite interesting. The Salem Witch Trials are usually something Americans try to forget happened. In school it is barely mentioned. I have never actually read any literature on it until now.
I found it quite interesting that in the beginning Cotton Mather said he was going to "report matters not as an advocate, but as an historian." His intention was to write an UN-biased account of the trials but I don't know if he stuck to his plan.
First of all, all of the evidence at the trial was here say. It was only "eyewitness" testimony, and it wasn't even like they actually saw her do any physical harm to anyone. They talked about how she would say something bad about them and then one of their cows, of they themselves got some kind of physical ailment. In the court system today, these witnesses would not "hold water". Now days, eyewitness testimony is not going to win you a case. Eyewitness testimony is not reliable in today's court. People forget things, or think they saw or heard something they didn't. Also just because something bad happens to an animal or person, doesn't mean that someone is responsible for that. Maybe it was just that cow's time to die.
Another thing that makes me think that Mr. Mather was not UN-biased was at the end. He called Martha carrier, a "rampant hag". If a person was truly sticking to the facts and not letting their emotions get into the way they would have just stated the person's name and that they were guilty and not slander them.

Anne Bradstreet

I am not much of a poetry person but I do enjoy reading Anne Bradstreet. I love the language that she uses. I love the Enlglish of this time period. It is so beautiful, especially the hymns. I love the way that she is so humble when she writes. She mentions many times that she is not worthy enough to even be writing, which is entirely false because we still study her writing 300 years later. I just love people who are humble and do not put themselves up on a pedistal.

One particular poem I love of hers is Poem 33. It just reminds us of how we are nothing compared to God. We have statues of "great" kings of old, but eventually those things will be no more. Erosion happens. But with God we have an everlasting hope. He is our true, only wise king. With him we can have life everlasting. If our names are "graved in the white stone" we will live forever.

John Smith

While I was reading this selection I couldn't help but notice how many times the word, "savage" kept reappearing. I counted 15 but I probably missed some. It is interesting that the writer of this narrative, which is probably not John smith, chooses to use such a word as "savage" instead of using their Native American name. By what the narrator is telling us the Native American people are being extremely civil. The Natives brought them so much food that, "no man wanted". Isn't giving and sharing what you have a good, civil thing to do? Granted they did attack and kill some of John Smith's men but they were just defeding their homeland and their people. They were doing what they had to do to survive.