Slavery and the Bible

[Stormy]

But I thought that Islam was the evil religion? I'm confused.

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

SLAVERY and the BIBLE

There is no morality outside of the Holy Bible! We hear this cliché repeated ad nauseam by Bible believers. But is the Bible itself morally flawed? Take for example the institution of human slavery perhaps the most degrading form of social subordination. Could anything be more immoral than the buying and selling of fellow human beings into a hopeless life of involuntary servitude? What does the Bible have to say about it? Well, we'll see. But first, let us briefly review the history of slavery in the United States of America...

'...In the final analysis it is the liberal secular state, not the Bible, which we have to thank for ending slavery. Also, it is the liberal secular state, not the church, which stands as the guarantor of freedom and human rights. The truth is that human rights were (and are being) achieved today not because of the Bible but in spite of it.'

http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html

[Chit2001]

Stormy, the longer you've been here, the more and more I think you're becoming a lefty loon. I don't follow what your goal here is. By bringing up Islam, my first reaction is to tell you to go live in the Islamic world if Christianity is so evil (or too evil for you).

Your bolded text above suggests to me that you don't realize that the Liberals of the late 1800s and even of the 1960s were so completely different from the Liberals of today. The Libs today try to take credit for everything that "Liberals" have done in history. Even *I* would have been a Liberal back in those days for what they were fighting for!

Secondly, I'm not a Bible scholar, but to my knowledge, there is no mention of slavery being "right" in the New Testament. Even if there is, does it not say a lot about our society today that we DO NOT practice slavery anymore? What can you say about Islam and how they do things differently today?

Conquer the world and rule it under Islam? CHECK.
Convert or become a slave? CHECK.
Convert or die? CHECK.
Treat women like dogs? CHECK!
Kill women for being raped? CHECK!
Kill men and women for adultery? CHECK.

Does Christianity tell it's followers to do that? And if there is something even remotely similar to that in the Bible, do we still practice it?

So again.... just what the hell are you getting at here?

[Columbus]

Stormy... what the hell are you talking about?

[ray8285]

Read the passages with an open mind and don't do like most on here, quote out of context. I can take quotes and put them on here and it will make it seem like the Bible supports murder and rape.

Slavery then and our version of it are quite differnet. What Jesus spoke of was closer to indentured servitude.

[DaLAW]

I'm honestly confused on Islam and religion in general. Christianity was twisted and used to defend all kinds of crap throughout history. It still is. A lot of people use it is a shield to hold their own bigoted, loony views. I've seen some perpetrators preaching hate and division (Reverend Wright) and I've seen others who refer to other living human-beings as "non-humans". All the while, they say hateful trash like that out of one side of their evil mouthes, then they try and teach others about "Christian Values" out of the other side. So to me, nobody should ever throw rocks in a glass house. There are people who will twist and destroy religion for their own selfish reasons in EVERY sect and following and cult...

However, with Islam, I am geniunely confused. We always hear how they are crazed people. How they mistreat women and want to do this or that to people with different views. My thing is, is that ISLAM, or is that the same type of sick, twisted mentality having people that are responsible for similar infiltration of Christianity and other Western religions? Because if it is, I don't see why Islam gets the bad name that it does. Once again, why throw rocks in a glass house...

[Chit2001]

My thing is, is that ISLAM, or is that the same type of sick, twisted mentality having people that are responsible for similar infiltration of Christianity and other Western religions? Because if it is, I don't see why Islam gets the bad name that it does. Once again, why throw rocks in a glass house...

Travel to some Islamic nations, DaLaw. Your confusion will become clear. Just like with all religions, there are certain groups within those religions who give the whole thing a bad name. However, Islam still ACTIVELY PRACTICES Sharia law as well as the "convert or else" ideals. Do all of them go around saying "convert or die?" No, of course not.... but the whole of the religion outside of the United States still believes in this practice. Capiche?

[PB3021]

Read the passages with an open mind and don't do like most on here, quote out of context. I can take quotes and put them on here and it will make it seem like the Bible supports murder and rape.

Slavery then and our version of it are quite differnet. What Jesus spoke of was closer to indentured servitude.


Exactly. In addition, one could only keep a slave until their debt was paid or 7years. There is no comparison of Christianity and Islam.

[mjhoyt27]

I'm honestly confused on Islam and religion in general. Christianity was twisted and used to defend all kinds of crap throughout history. It still is. A lot of people use it is a shield to hold their own bigoted, loony views. I've seen some perpetrators preaching hate and division (Reverend Wright) and I've seen others who refer to other living human-beings as "non-humans". All the while, they say hateful trash like that out of one side of their evil mouthes, then they try and teach others about "Christian Values" out of the other side. So to me, nobody should ever throw rocks in a glass house. There are people who will twist and destroy religion for their own selfish reasons in EVERY sect and following and cult...

However, with Islam, I am geniunely confused. We always hear how they are crazed people. How they mistreat women and want to do this or that to people with different views. My thing is, is that ISLAM, or is that the same type of sick, twisted mentality having people that are responsible for similar infiltration of Christianity and other Western religions? Because if it is, I don't see why Islam gets the bad name that it does. Once again, why throw rocks in a glass house...


Islam is a peaceful religion, but has been twisted by some individuals, like UBL. Christianity has been twisted by people like the KKK or the God hates fags people. UBL is a religious extremist, the same way that Rev Fred Phelps is. Both men are vile human beings in their own ways. (Fred Phelps is the first Christian nutjob that came to mind).

[PB3021]

As a Christian I will say this. With the possible exception of Bhuddism, there are truly no "peaceful religions". All have taught, at one point or another, to battle, conquer and convert those different from them. The Jews did this when they entered Cannan (sp?) in the Old Testament and the Koran has taught it also. If a relgion, nation, or any other group of people are to survive, they must defend themselves (against "percieved" threats), in whatever manner they deem fit. I immediatly discount anyone who attempts to sell me on the "peacefullness" of their religion. All beliefs can be perverted and used to ones' or a groups advantage. Hitler invented a godless church for the Nazis (it's always easier to rally people when motivated by spiritual goodness). Even Stalin, who outlawed relgion, not state sanctioned, brought back the Russian Orthodox Church for morale purposes during WWII. The fact is there are people out there using religion to perform criminal acts, and unspeakable crimes. They must come about these beliefs, however misconstrued, somehow.

[Stormy]

First they criticize me. Then, maybe, they read the article. Sounds right?

http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html

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

SLAVERY and the BIBLE

Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation - - Jefferson Davis1

Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty - - 2 Corinthians 3:17

by Louis W. Cable

There is no morality outside of the Holy Bible! We hear this cliché repeated ad nauseam by Bible believers. But is the Bible itself morally flawed? Take for example the institution of human slavery perhaps the most degrading form of social subordination. Could anything be more immoral than the buying and selling of fellow human beings into a hopeless life of involuntary servitude? What does the Bible have to say about it? Well, we'll see. But first, let us briefly review the history of slavery in the United States of America.

The importation of African slaves into the New World began shortly after Columbus’ famous “discovery” in 1492. In 1517 the Bishop of Las Casas, a high official in the Roman Catholic Church, encouraged immigration to the New World by permitting Spaniards to import twelve Negroes each2. So Christianity and African slaves were introduced into the New World at about the same time. In what was later to become the United States of America it begin in 1619 when twenty Africans were off loaded from a Dutch ship at Jamestown, Virginia and sold into slavery3. From these humble beginnings the slave trade blossomed into a hugely profitable venture for the slave traders.

Many of our revered founding fathers were slave owners. George Washington, the father of our country, owned slaves as did the great Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. Patrick Henry, the great orator who coined the famous slogan, “Give me liberty or give me death,” was, ironically enough, a slave owner. The slaver trade was recognized as a legitimate commercial enterprise, and slave markets operated openly. The rights of slave owners were protected by law while the slave, of course, had no rights. Although President Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation became effective on January 1,1863, slavery did not officially end in this country until the thirteenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution was finally ratified on December 6,1865.

Slavery was legal in the United States for almost two hundred and fifty years. Why so long? Isn’t this a Christian nation founded on God’s word, the Holy Bible? That’s what many Christians tell me. Well, if that’s so, maybe that’s where the rub comes in because the Bible not only condones slavery, it actually encourages that cruel institution and has, in fact, been effectively used to promote and preserve it. Here, for example, is a quote from Jefferson Davis, the first and only president of the Confederacy, "It (slavery) was established by decree of Almighty God and is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments from Genesis to Revelation4."

President Davis was right. God approves of slavery. In Exodus 21 the guidelines for the buying, selling and treatment of slaves is given. God says in verse 4 that if a male slave marries, his wife and children shall remain with the master when the slave departs because technically speaking they belong to the master. How's that for family values? Now if the slave is imprudent enough to protests because he loves his wife and children and wants to stay on, the consequences can be pretty drastic. In verse 6 the master is directed to "Bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever". This is all repeated with some minor alteration in Deuteronomy 15:16-17. Here the master is told to "Do likewise to your maid slaves." In Exodus 21:7-9 God even instructs men how they are to go about selling their own daughters into slavery. Here it is worth noting that many church officials including popes have owned slaves5.

Concerning family values, in Joel 3:8 God warns that, “I will sell your sons and your daughters to the Judians, and they shall in turn sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off.” In case you are still unconvinced, try 1 Tim. 6:1-2; “Let slaves regard their masters as worthy of all honor." Matthew 10:24 and John 13:16 remind us that slaves are never better than their masters. Women take note that in Titus 2:9-10 slaves are ordered to, “Be submissive to your master and give satisfaction in every respect." Also check Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 3:22 which say, “Slaves obey your master." Of the venerated Ten Commandments, numbers four and ten recognize and therefore give tacit approval to slavery. In fact, neither the Old or New Testament contains an outright condemnation of this infamous institution.

In Genesis 3:16 God decrees that as a result of the “fall” the wife will henceforth be ruled over by her husband thereby relegating women to the status of a slave. This second class status for women is reinforced throughout the Bible. Although somewhat offset in Ephesians 5:25 where husbands are told to love their wives, there is an unresolved contradiction here. The question remains: How can a master truly love his slave - and just as important - how can a slave truly love her master? The biblically mandated husband/wife relationship breads nothing but resentment, contempt and hatred.

The Church, particularly in Central and South America, supported the enslavement of native inhabitants. Based on a 1493 papal Bull, Spanish jurist Encisco claimed in 15096, “The king has every right to send his men to the Indians to demand the territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally enslave them, just a Joshua enslaved the Canaanites.” As justification for this action, Leviticus 25:44-46 is cited. It reads: “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.”

What did Jesus have to say about slavery? Well, in the cherished Sermon of the Mount, allegedly given by him and recognized as a prescription for Christian living, the institution of slavery, so prevalent at the time, is never mentioned. However, in Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus heals the Roman centurion's slave while praising the centurion for his exemplary faithfulness. Why didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it? In Luke 12:47, the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, Jesus even recommends the beating of slaves. But the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by Jesus himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here Jesus not only reminds slaves that they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like him.

Throughout the gospels Jesus ignores countless opportunities to condemn slavery. Another good example is the parable of the ten pound (Luke 19:11-27). Here we read how while visiting at the house of Zacchaeus, the rich tax collector, Jesus ceases upon the opportunity to lecture us on the proper technique of profitable money investment. In verse 27 the greedy, wicked nobleman tells his slaves, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Instead of condemning such a display of wanton cruelty and intolerance as he should have Jesus simply ignores it and goes on with his money-saving lecture thereby passing up another opportunity to register his condemnation of slavery.

Paul, the earliest Christian evangelist and a contemporary of Jesus, expresses his unqualified support of the institution of human slavery by instructing slaves to obey their masters in several passages, Ephesians 6:5, I Timothy 6:1 and again in Titus 2:9-10.

What are some other Bible commentaries concerning slavery? Peter, Jesus' favorite disciple, directs slaves to obey and fear their master without question, even though he may be cruel and unjust (1 Peter 2:18). This directive is repeated in Ephesians 6:5. In Exodus 21:26-27 and Proverbs 29:19 God tells the masters how to punish their slaves. In Leviticus 25:44-46 God instructs his chosen people on how to treat their slaves. Here he sets a more lenient standard for the Israelite slaves than for those who are not Israelites. But, God is not totally without a sense of justice because in Exodus 21:20-21 he says that if the master beats a slave to death, the master shall be punished. If, however, the severely beaten slave lingers on for a day or two, the master is off the hook. God says in Exodus 21:28-32 that if an ox gores a slave, the ox's owner shall give the slave master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned to death. In Deuteronomy 20:13-14 God tells the Israelites what they should do with the inhabitants of a conquered city, "Whereas the men must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as the spoils of war." Presumably that gives the Israelites the green light to sell them into slavery.

Those among us who remain dedicated to the Bible, especially African Americans, should realize that while it may be morally correct in some cases, the Bible's unrelenting endorsement of slavery is certainly immoral. Now, some Bible apologists have been quick to point out to me those verses such as Colossians 4:1directing the slave owner to be kind to his slaves. I would just remind them that regardless of whether the master is sweet and gentle or mean and cruel the slave is still a slave and therefore is bereft of freedom and stripped of human dignity. In the final analysis it is the liberal secular state, not the Bible, which we have to thank for ending slavery. Also, it is the liberal secular state, not the church, which stands as the guarantor of freedom and human rights. The truth is that human rights were (and are being) achieved today not because of the Bible but in spite of it.
_______________________________________________

1 Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederate States of America, Montgomery, AL, Feb. 18, 1861.

2 Franklin, John H., From Slavery to Freedom - A History of Negro Americans, Vintage Books, 1969, page 49.

3 Ibid, page 71.

4 Rowland, Dunbar; Jefferson Davis, vol. 1, page 286.

5 Spong, John S., The Sins of Scripture, Harper San Francisco, 2--5, pg.155.

6 Ellerbe, Helen, The Dark Side of Christian History, Morningstar Books, page 90.

[TorontoCopper]

I have a position on Islam. I will not post it for fear of offending those with leftist views.

Instead, please consider my sig.

[DaLAW]

I have a position on Islam. I will not post it for fear of offending those with leftist views.

Instead, please consider my sig.

Lmao. Leftist views? Don't use Leftist view-holders are the scape-goat. If you've got an opinion that may be offensive to practicioners of Islam, you can say it. There's nothing wrong with having a controversial opinion as long as it is logically and factually accurate...

[Stormy]

Stormy, the longer you've been here, the more and more I think you're becoming a lefty loon. I don't follow what your goal here is. By bringing up Islam, my first reaction is to tell you to go live in the Islamic world if Christianity is so evil (or too evil for you).

Yes, I see. It's important for you to label someone, to place them into a compartment so that they are easily identifiable. Why can't a post be accepted for what it is; an article written by a person with a fresh thought other than a rehash of old thinking. Why must I be labeled? And, why must all conservatives circle their wagons in defense of their beliefs as though [conservatism] were under attack?

Your bolded text above suggests to me that you don't realize that the Liberals of the late 1800s and even of the 1960s were so completely different from the Liberals of today. The Libs today try to take credit for everything that "Liberals" have done in history. Even *I* would have been a Liberal back in those days for what they were fighting for!

Interesting. I always thought a liberal, is a liberal, is a liberal? Now, you've just split them into pieces. Tell me. I'm a liberal of the 60's. What were we fighting for?

Secondly, I'm not a Bible scholar, but to my knowledge, there is no mention of slavery being "right" in the New Testament. Even if there is, does it not say a lot about our society today that we DO NOT practice slavery anymore? What can you say about Islam and how they do things differently today?

I'd like for you to define exactly what the word 'slavery' means to you.

Conquer the world and rule it under Islam? CHECK.
Convert or become a slave? CHECK.
Convert or die? CHECK.
Treat women like dogs? CHECK!
Kill women for being raped? CHECK!
Kill men and women for adultery? CHECK.

Does Christianity tell it's followers to do that? And if there is something even remotely similar to that in the Bible, do we still practice it?

So again.... just what the hell are you getting at here?

Well....for sure, I'm not trying to convert anyone. You can feel safer knowing that. I'm happy for all who feel strongly in their Christian beliefs.

[TorontoCopper]

Lmao. Leftist views? Don't use Leftist view-holders are the scape-goat. If you've got an opinion that may be offensive to practicioners of Islam, you can say it. There's nothing wrong with having a controversial opinion as long as it is logically and factually accurate...

My community where I live currently has a number of Islamic Extremists on trial for terrorism which will make or break our criminal justice system here.

Ive a lot to say but would rather not. On another forum we just had a huge debate on this, specifically abou the treatment of women. Totally tired me out.

And, why must all conservatives circle their wagons in defense of their beliefs as though [conservatism] were under attack?


Because we are under attack. Face it. The world as a whole not everyone is going to get along. Creed and faith are the main things that people "compartmentalize" on nowadays. The Christian Identity is faced with with change in regards to accepting Islam within the community. Doesn't mean I have to like it or accept it myself.

Mind you, these view are more towards the extremism of Islam.

[PB3021]

Stormy,

I'm curious, not being smart, just curious. My father in law is a Vietnam veteran and someone I hold in high regard not just for his service but also how he, most certainly (like yourself) witnessed horrible events, yet returned home and raised a family and became successfull. Not to say that any veteran could not do that but so many of the Vietnam era seem to succumb to the disdainful views of the country at that time. Anyway, my question is how, why or what was/is it like to have been a 60's liberal and serve in Vietnam? Was the 60's liberal label before or after? Thanks, PB.

[Stormy]

Stormy,

I'm curious, not being smart, just curious. My father in law is a Vietnam veteran and someone I hold in high regard not just for his service but also how he, most certainly (like yourself) witnessed horrible events, yet returned home and raised a family and became successfull. Not to say that any veteran could not do that but so many of the Vietnam era seem to succumb to the disdainful views of the country at that time. Anyway, my question is how, why or what was/is it like to have been a 60's liberal and serve in Vietnam? Was the 60's liberal label before or after? Thanks, PB.

Tell your father-in-law, 'Welcome home, Bro', and give him a hug from me.

Thank you for phrasing your question in the way you did. It may not do justice to your question if I didn't take the time to gather up my thoughts, and go back in time to recollect my feelings, so that I can write them in a way that will make sense to both you and me.

[tony.o]

Everytime I read a post from Stormy for some reason I imagine him saying those words in a low whispering voice like a talking Teddy Bear or something like that.:D

[JMTX]

As a Christian I will say this. With the possible exception of Bhuddism, there are truly no "peaceful religions". All have taught, at one point or another, to battle, conquer and convert those different from them.
What about Shinto, Taoism, Native american shamanism, Wicca, Neo-Druidism. Vodun, Candomble, Neo-paganism, Unitarian Universalism, etc? I don't remember there being any examples of those religion teaching conversion of those of different faith.

I can only personally speak for neo-paganism...but I have never ever ever been taught in my faith that we are supposed to convert others. Ever.

[Bearcat357]

What about Shinto, Taoism, Native american shamanism, Wicca, Neo-Druidism. Vodun, Candomble, Neo-paganism, Unitarian Universalism, etc? I don't remember there being any examples of those religion teaching conversion of those of different faith.

I can only personally speak for neo-paganism...but I have never ever ever been taught in my faith that we are supposed to convert others. Ever.

Errr.....I thought you were into slavery......at least for yourself....?? :eek:


:D

[JMTX]

Errr.....I thought you were into slavery......at least for yourself....??

Naughty Naughty, Bearcat! Behave yourself! (Yes, I know it's hard for you.)

[Bearcat357]

Naughty Naughty, Bearcat! Behave yourself! (Yes, I know it's hard for you.)

:p

[JasperST4]

There is no morality outside of the Holy Bible! We hear this cliché repeated ad nauseam by Bible believers.
T R O L L M E T E R
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^

[damode]

ALL religions have been used for evil things. One verse in the bible can have 100 different meanings to it, depending on the person.

The problem with Islam, is not the religion. The problem is that those countries that are predominately islamic dont have enough Science, Technology, and the Questioning to keep their religion in check.

We are where we are today with Christianity and Western religions because Christianity has been questioned and bashed for hundreds of years.

In order to survive, Christianity had to "evolve" and change their stance on certain issues, because when people are more questioning, educated, and open-minded, they will naturally get sick of all the stupidity of any religion.

It went from truly believing the world was made in 7 days, to now believing what God actually meant to say that one day could have meant 1283289 years.

See, its called evolving :)

[nuthead]

So what does all this have to do with the price of beans in Bosnia?

Slavery is bad, that's why we don't have it anymore. Or is that too simple?

[Stormy]

Stormy,

I'm curious, not being smart, just curious. My father in law is a Vietnam veteran and someone I hold in high regard not just for his service but also how he, most certainly (like yourself) witnessed horrible events, yet returned home and raised a family and became successfull. Not to say that any veteran could not do that but so many of the Vietnam era seem to succumb to the disdainful views of the country at that time. Anyway, my question is how, why or what was/is it like to have been a 60's liberal and serve in Vietnam? Was the 60's liberal label before or after? Thanks, PB.

I was gung-ho military from the day I graduated high school. I always wanted to be a military man. I enlisted. I'm a 'RA' trooper. It wasn't until I returned home from Vietnam that I realized that not only did the civilians not give one sh*t about us, but the VFW, and the American Legion, ex-military no less, looked at us with a tongue-in-cheek, and a one-eye-wink when we wanted to join. We weren't members of their club. We hadn't earned the ribbons required to qualify. The war was too new for returning troops to have received their honors. I kind of knew at that point something didn't fit right. What happened to America, I asked?

I'd walk into a pool hall, and having long hair, would be accused by crew-cut iron workers of being a hippie bastard, and draft dodger. There were times when swinging a pool stick was the only way out of the mess. There was no way to explain my past military duty to these so-called 'patriots', who would've kicked my freakin' *** twice around the block just because I didn't look 'right'.

These were the moments that made me begin my awareness of politics, and the reasons why America went to war, and why Americans would beat up on a Vietnam veteran because he looked like a hippie. What was wrong with this country, I asked? What was it I was missing?

I didn't love my country any less, even with my long hair. So, what was their problem?

My education into politics was a long process. There were many, many years of readings. There were many, many years of schooling to get to where I am. What I've learned is that I'm still confused as to why some Americans hate one another. They love to categorize, pidgeon hole, compartmentalize, and form clubs in order to divide this country. I try not doing that. I take a man's word and thoughts for what they are. I have no political loyalty nor allegiance to any political party. My allegiance is to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't hold a commander-in-chief as supreme ruler of the Land. I believe his power comes from the authority of the people. The people give him direction, and the people can take it away. You might say I'm a Constitutionalist. So be it. I dislike being labeled 'liberal' or 'conservative', because these labels are meaningless.

I listen to everyone here on this forum, regardless of liberal or conservative, because they all have an important thought that must be heard. This is what makes the Republic work. Without this process we are nothing more than a 'banana' republic.

I can go on, but my time is spent. Thank you for asking your question.

[Stormy]

So what does all this have to do with the price of beans in Bosnia?

Slavery is bad, that's why we don't have it anymore. Or is that too simple?

Not so simple. What's your definition of slavery?

[PB3021]

I was gung-ho military from the day I graduated high school. I always wanted to be a military man. I enlisted. I'm a 'RA' trooper. It wasn't until I returned home from Vietnam that I realized that not only did the civilians not give one sh*t about us, but the VFW, and the American Legion, ex-military no less, looked at us with a tongue-in-cheek, and a one-eye-wink when we wanted to join. We weren't members of their club. We hadn't earned the ribbons required to qualify. The war was too new for returning troops to have received their honors. I kind of knew at that point something didn't fit right. What happened to America, I asked?

I'd walk into a pool hall, and having long hair, would be accused by crew-cut iron workers of being a hippie bastard, and draft dodger. There were times when swinging a pool stick was the only way out of the mess. There was no way to explain my past military duty to these so-called 'patriots', who would've kicked my freakin' *** twice around the block just because I didn't look 'right'.

These were the moments that made me begin my awareness of politics, and the reasons why America went to war, and why Americans would beat up on a Vietnam veteran because he looked like a hippie. What was wrong with this country, I asked? What was it I was missing?

I didn't love my country any less, even with my long hair. So, what was their problem?

My education into politics was a long process. There were many, many years of readings. There were many, many years of schooling to get to where I am. What I've learned is that I'm still confused as to why some Americans hate one another. They love to categorize, pidgeon hole, compartmentalize, and form clubs in order to divide this country. I try not doing that. I take a man's word and thoughts for what they are. I have no political loyalty nor allegiance to any political party. My allegiance is to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't hold a commander-in-chief as supreme ruler of the Land. I believe his power comes from the authority of the people. The people give him direction, and the people can take it away. You might say I'm a Constitutionalist. So be it. I dislike being labeled 'liberal' or 'conservative', because these labels are meaningless.

I listen to everyone here on this forum, regardless of liberal or conservative, because they all have an important thought that must be heard. This is what makes the Republic work. Without this process we are nothing more than a 'banana' republic.

I can go on, but my time is spent. Thank you for asking your question.

My father in law shared a letter with me he sent to an uncle who was a veteran of WWII. It was a glowing and appreciative letter to and about the greatest generation who rose up and saved the world. He compared the "Greatest Generation" and it's cause to his, unfavorably so. It prompted me to send a letter to him. I'll spare you the details, however, if I remember correctly, there were more Vietnam era soldiers awarded, forgive me if I get the honor incorrect, the Medal of Valor than in WWII. There were also many other examples of the honor and bravery exlempified in that conflict that space does not allow the postings. I think many of us can agree that today's soldiers, regardless of a persons view of our current situation and for the most part, get the homecoming they and you deserve(d). I agree with the dedication to and description of "Constitutionalist". I find myself more conservative than republican due to both parties increasing pandering to undecided voters.

I just wish when posters attacked members of our Supreme Court and their desicions understood the Constitution.

[PB3021]

What about Shinto, Taoism, Native american shamanism, Wicca, Neo-Druidism. Vodun, Candomble, Neo-paganism, Unitarian Universalism, etc? I don't remember there being any examples of those religion teaching conversion of those of different faith.

I can only personally speak for neo-paganism...but I have never ever ever been taught in my faith that we are supposed to convert others. Ever.

I did say "possible exception". I suppose Christian Science would qualify too, what with all the frozen souls from the universe deposited here before cavemen and such...

[JMTX]

I did say "possible exception". I suppose Christian Science would qualify too, what with all the frozen souls from the universe deposited here before cavemen and such...


You mentioned only Buddhism...I was making the point that there are many, many faiths (especially Eastern ones) that don't have converting others as a tenant.

[PB3021]

[QUOTE=PB3021;1334978]As a Christian I will say this. With the possible exception of Bhuddism, there are truly no "peaceful religions".

The phrase "possible exception" means there's the possibility of more than the one mentioned. Perhaps the use of "Eastern Religions" would have been a better choice...

[Lawless One]

Don't go down this road, Stormy, it leads you to knowhere rational. "Lefty loon" is the correct terminology, eventually you'll begin to apply flawed logic like this to all aspects of any religion you don't personally ascribe too and then things will get really silly.

America is, on paper, a secular nation due to it's separation of church and state. It is also vastly dominated by Christianity, and Abraham Lincoln himself was an agnostic. It's effectively a Christian nation that's secular on paper in order to be fair.

I had a debate with a guy at work who insisted that God was a tyrant due to the fact that he told all the Jews to not eat certain foods such as pigs. "Bacon!" he touted. "Is the greatest food ever!" When I pointed out that bacon is also horrible for you and he was probably just trying to keep the primitive people healthy he shouted. "Then he should have made bacon healthy!"

That's where that road loads, Stormy. Don't go the tinfoil hat route and just accept that you believe something that other people don't.

[nuthead]

Not so simple. What's your definition of slavery?

It is that simple until you start getting all metaphysical about it. I'm quite sure any intelligent person could come up with a "slavery" that fits a circumstance if they so desire, but then where do you stop?

[JasperST4]

What I've learned is that I'm still confused as to why some Americans hate one another. They love to categorize, pidgeon hole, compartmentalize, and form clubs in order to divide this country.It's called human nature. People like their own kind, regardless of which country or civilization you want to look at.

But I do believe you are overstating matters somewhat. Most people are not as riled up as the talking heads on TV, they air that stuff because it makes for good TV.
My allegiance is to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't hold a commander-in-chief as supreme ruler of the Land. I believe his power comes from the authority of the people. The people give him direction, and the people can take it away. You might say I'm a Constitutionalist. So be it. I dislike being labeled 'liberal' or 'conservative', because these labels are meaningless.Almost all of that was wrong. The president isn't a ruler, his power does come from the people as a democratic republic but he is or should be a leader. That's a big distinction. As a leader, he offers the people guidance, not rules, and not the other way around.

The labels liberal and conservative very definitely have meaning, one can subscribe to either philosophy on a range of issues but most people fall one way or the other for the most part. If someone says that they are liberal or conservative or fiscally conservative but socially liberal we know pretty much where he stands on the issues of the day.

[Stormy]

Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
What I've learned is that I'm still confused as to why some Americans hate one another. They love to categorize, pidgeon hole, compartmentalize, and form clubs in order to divide this country.

Jasper

It's called human nature. People like their own kind, regardless of which country or civilization you want to look at.

But I do believe you are overstating matters somewhat. Most people are not as riled up as the talking heads on TV, they air that stuff because it makes for good TV.

It's also human nature to kick someones butt, if you disagree with them. But in a civilized society, one controls his human nature. That's why we are 'gentlemen and ladies'. In a farm yard, the ducks like to hang with other ducks, and the chickens hang with other chickens. Humanity is more sophisticated. Or so I think. Some of us ducks like to hang with the chickens, but dislike being called chickens. if you know what I mean? I, personally, have spent many nights drinking at my friends niteclub. I was the only 'white guy' there. I had a much better time there, than at any 'white' joint. Why? Because this 'black' joint, gave me more respect, from the patrons, than I'd ever received from any 'white' mans bar. Maybe, it was the Vietnam thing. I don't know. Black people knew who were the elitist 'whites' and who weren't. So, should I leave because we're not alike in appearance?

origianlly posted by Stormy
My allegiance is to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I don't hold a commander-in-chief as supreme ruler of the Land. I believe his power comes from the authority of the people. The people give him direction, and the people can take it away. You might say I'm a Constitutionalist. So be it. I dislike being labeled 'liberal' or 'conservative', because these labels are meaningless.

Jasper
Almost all of that was wrong. The president isn't a ruler, his power does come from the people as a democratic republic but he is or should be a leader. That's a big distinction. As a leader, he offers the people guidance, not rules, and not the other way around.

The labels liberal and conservative very definitely have meaning, one can subscribe to either philosophy on a range of issues but most people fall one way or the other for the most part. If someone says that they are liberal or conservative or fiscally conservative but socially liberal we know pretty much where he stands on the issues of the day.

No, Jasper. According to the Constitution, The Commander-In-Chief is to the military as the Queen of England is to her military. It is an honorable position in name only. All military matters are at the level of the Joint Chief's of Staff, which receive their orders from Congress, which receive their orders from the people.

As for leader vs ruler..'...As a leader, he offers the people guidance....', I'd reply that the Executive Orders, used by many presidents, past and present, give the office of president, the power of 'ruler', which is beyond the scope of 'leader', because it bypasses the people's wishes.

[Chit2001]

Congress, which receive their orders from the people.

We all know that's how it's INTENDED, Stormy..... but I know that YOU know it doesn't work that way these days...

[Stormy]

We all know that's how it's INTENDED, Stormy..... but I know that YOU know it doesn't work that way these days...

Yes, chit. I know. This is the reason we are in the mess we're in. The people have lost control over politicians, and the political process. It's the people's fault for not taking interest in the day to day politics; from the grassroots local level, all the way up to the WH, people became more interested in making money, and less interested in politics. They left politics for the other guy to worry about.

[Chit2001]

^That is why we must make it a point to EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN in the ways most similar to that of our Founding Fathers. Somewhere after WWII (the exact time is obviously debatable), we lost touch of what is important. We stopped teaching our children about true success and failure and replaced it with this sensation-filled, touchy/feely "you can do no wrong" mentality..... and the politicians in Washington began salivating at the mouth over the notion that they would have power over us.

VERY MUCH like what the government just told us about the major banks it just bailed out.... "you're too big to fail." They sweeped in and didn't let a company FAIL. If you don't let your kids FAIL, they will never ever develope character.... and therefore, be turned into what so many of our future generations already are...

United we Stand... Divided we Fall. (The latter of which is what Washington wants us to be).

[Stormy]

^That is why we must make it a point to EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN in the ways most similar to that of our Founding Fathers. Somewhere after WWII (the exact time is obviously debatable), we lost touch of what is important. We stopped teaching our children about true success and failure and replaced it with this sensation-filled, touchy/feely "you can do no wrong" mentality..... and the politicians in Washington began salivating at the mouth over the notion that they would have power over us.

VERY MUCH like what the government just told us about the major banks it just bailed out.... "you're too big to fail." They sweeped in and didn't let a company FAIL. If you don't let your kids FAIL, they will never ever develope character.... and therefore, be turned into what so many of our future generations already are...

United we Stand... Divided we Fall. (The latter of which is what Washington wants us to be).

[bold highlite mine]

What the government is doing is taking control of the 'free' market. And the poor sap who stands to lose his life-time savings, will go along with the program, not realizing the consequences. It's a welfare system, 'have no fear' the government will take care of us mentality.

[Chit2001]

[bold highlite mine]

What the government is doing is taking control of the 'free' market. And the poor sap who stands to lose his life-time savings, will go along with the program, not realizing the consequences. It's a welfare system, 'have no fear' the government will take care of us mentality.

YES! That is exactly what it is!

The "new" government (gov of today) is all about taking the personal responsibility aspect OUT of the picture. The more they can get you and I to rely upon them, the more power they have over us.

This COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY contradicts what this country was founded on!!!

God, when are more people going to wake up and smell the roses?!
When are people going to realize that we are VERY CLOSE to becoming a socialist country... the likes of which have been seen in Europe, China, and the Soviet Union! Scary thing is, there are plenty of Americans who WANT this for MY country..... sorry, but we ARE NOT those countries! We are the United States! The greatest country in the world! We invented the microwave oven and cotton candy for God's sake!

I fear it's going to take something extremely tragic and to knock us on our a*ses before the country as a whole realizes where it's at, gets up together, and fights back together for what is right and what is American.

[DOAcop38]

Stormy, the longer you've been here, the more and more I think you're becoming a lefty loon. I don't follow what your goal here is. By bringing up Islam, my first reaction is to tell you to go live in the Islamic world if Christianity is so evil (or too evil for you).

Your bolded text above suggests to me that you don't realize that the Liberals of the late 1800s and even of the 1960s were so completely different from the Liberals of today. The Libs today try to take credit for everything that "Liberals" have done in history. Even *I* would have been a Liberal back in those days for what they were fighting for!

Secondly, I'm not a Bible scholar, but to my knowledge, there is no mention of slavery being "right" in the New Testament. Even if there is, does it not say a lot about our society today that we DO NOT practice slavery anymore? What can you say about Islam and how they do things differently today?

Conquer the world and rule it under Islam? CHECK.
Convert or become a slave? CHECK.
Convert or die? CHECK.
Treat women like dogs? CHECK!
Kill women for being raped? CHECK!
Kill men and women for adultery? CHECK.

Does Christianity tell it's followers to do that? And if there is something even remotely similar to that in the Bible, do we still practice it?

So again.... just what the hell are you getting at here?


HEY,DAMMIT !! "Easy" on that lefty loon crack - THATS "MY" TITLE !!!!:D:D:D:D

while I'll support Stormy's freedom of opinion,even the western culture influenced "right" to question gov't and religion, as a "Christian", I'll say that we are looking at the idea of slavery as related to in Judiasm and Judeo christianity in the wrong context- modern examples of slavery,from indentured servitude of white europeans in the 1600- 1800s, forced slavery of Native indigenous americans and Africans ,from the 1700-mid 1800s, is NOT the same as what the bible talks about . Pronouncements against cruel and evil treatment of "slaves"( the term is interchangeble with both FREE and bond servants,as well as anyone who had a king,leader,boss,or even teacher/rabbi) ,as well as other ethical ideas of treating them( giving rewards of land ,wealth, releasing them from servitude) were oft quoted and expected in the bible.Local leaders could PUNISH a "master" for mistreatment of slaves, men could sell themselves into slavery,and slaves could end up masters and masers ,slaves! IT was a way to survive for both prior to the creation of a solely mercantile/capitalist society.Even when we look at the horrible institution of American slavery,it is often agreed upon that slavery would have ended anyway,becuase the system could NOT have withstood the immigrant growth in this nation,nor the advance toward major capitalism(benn better to free blacks to become wage earners/laborers,trades men ,skilled technicians,consumers and tax payers)

Even when we look down on the tenets of Islam- the history and context of slavery is still based on archaic beliefs routed in old biblical and culutral ties to that region of the world.Islam was "stagnant" from the 1500s to the 1900s, and didn't grow like Judiasm and Judeo-christianity did with modern culture.First off- there is no true "universal islamic" belief-they too have differing views.Many Islamic nations are beginnning to see that subjugation of women, and strict moral codes and traditions are hurting their ability to interact with the rest of the world,as well as their ability to actually sustain their cultures,economies,and communities. In the islamic world,and most of the middle east, nearly 1/2 the population is younger than 25 ,and many live in poverty- created by their cultural restrictions .It may become the dominant religion in the future(in terms of believers),but Islam will ALSO have to go thru "modernization" to adapt and survive as a viable relibious and moral code.(one of things that bothers me about it is the insistance that one must read and pray in arabic in order for the believer to be truly devout or correct- roman catholics don't have to speak latin,nor do Jews need to fully understand hebrew to worship!)

also,there is debate and issue in islam about following Sha'ria law- alot of the most harsh pronouncements are from that,and not the Ko'ran itself(the Ko'ran draws heavily from the bible and torah in terms of most of its mandates).Much of the stuff Islam gets knocked for are historical "decisions" made by some muslim philosophers and clerics-people who may have had very radical "opinions" and even biases against people who were not followers of Islam.Its these religious pronouncements that the knucklehead terrorists and fanatics use as their excuse hurt and kill innocent people who happen to be Christians ,Jews,and non believers-sick bastards who also KILL other innocent muslims( so go figure- these people are little more than criminals )

Thats why you find only slavery in the rugged areas of the sudan,where muslim extremists are busy as all heck conducting GENOCIDE against Christians,muslims who resist them,and non believers....

[Stormy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chit2001 View Post
Stormy, the longer you've been here, the more and more I think you're becoming a lefty loon. I don't follow what your goal here is. By bringing up Islam, my first reaction is to tell you to go live in the Islamic world if Christianity is so evil (or too evil for you).

Your bolded text above suggests to me that you don't realize that the Liberals of the late 1800s and even of the 1960s were so completely different from the Liberals of today. The Libs today try to take credit for everything that "Liberals" have done in history. Even *I* would have been a Liberal back in those days for what they were fighting for!

Secondly, I'm not a Bible scholar, but to my knowledge, there is no mention of slavery being "right" in the New Testament. Even if there is, does it not say a lot about our society today that we DO NOT practice slavery anymore? What can you say about Islam and how they do things differently today?

Conquer the world and rule it under Islam? CHECK.
Convert or become a slave? CHECK.
Convert or die? CHECK.
Treat women like dogs? CHECK!
Kill women for being raped? CHECK!
Kill men and women for adultery? CHECK.

Does Christianity tell it's followers to do that? And if there is something even remotely similar to that in the Bible, do we still practice it?

So again.... just what the hell are you getting at here?


HEY,DAMMIT !! "Easy" on that lefty loon crack - THATS "MY" TITLE !!!!:D:D:D:D

while I'll support Stormy's freedom of opinion,even the western culture influenced "right" to question gov't and religion, as a "Christian", I'll say that we are looking at the idea of slavery as related to in Judiasm and Judeo christianity in the wrong context- modern examples of slavery,from indentured servitude of white europeans in the 1600- 1800s, forced slavery of Native indigenous americans and Africans ,from the 1700-mid 1800s, is NOT the same as what the bible talks about . Pronouncements against cruel and evil treatment of "slaves"( the term is interchangeble with both FREE and bond servants,as well as anyone who had a king,leader,boss,or even teacher/rabbi) ,as well as other ethical ideas of treating them( giving rewards of land ,wealth, releasing them from servitude) were oft quoted and expected in the bible.Local leaders could PUNISH a "master" for mistreatment of slaves, men could sell themselves into slavery,and slaves could end up masters and masers ,slaves! IT was a way to survive for both prior to the creation of a solely mercantile/capitalist society.Even when we look at the horrible institution of American slavery,it is often agreed upon that slavery would have ended anyway,becuase the system could NOT have withstood the immigrant growth in this nation,nor the advance toward major capitalism(benn better to free blacks to become wage earners/laborers,trades men ,skilled technicians,consumers and tax payers)

Even when we look down on the tenets of Islam- the history and context of slavery is still based on archaic beliefs routed in old biblical and culutral ties to that region of the world.Islam was "stagnant" from the 1500s to the 1900s, and didn't grow like Judiasm and Judeo-christianity did with modern culture.First off- there is no true "universal islamic" belief-they too have differing views.Many Islamic nations are beginnning to see that subjugation of women, and strict moral codes and traditions are hurting their ability to interact with the rest of the world,as well as their ability to actually sustain their cultures,economies,and communities. In the islamic world,and most of the middle east, nearly 1/2 the population is younger than 25 ,and many live in poverty- created by their cultural restrictions .It may become the dominant religion in the future(in terms of believers),but Islam will ALSO have to go thru "modernization" to adapt and survive as a viable relibious and moral code.(one of things that bothers me about it is the insistance that one must read and pray in arabic in order for the believer to be truly devout or correct- roman catholics don't have to speak latin,nor do Jews need to fully understand hebrew to worship!)

also,there is debate and issue in islam about following Sha'ria law- alot of the most harsh pronouncements are from that,and not the Ko'ran itself(the Ko'ran draws heavily from the bible and torah in terms of most of its mandates).Much of the stuff Islam gets knocked for are historical "decisions" made by some muslim philosophers and clerics-people who may have had very radical "opinions" and even biases against people who were not followers of Islam.Its these religious pronouncements that the knucklehead terrorists and fanatics use as their excuse hurt and kill innocent people who happen to be Christians ,Jews,and non believers-sick bastards who also KILL other innocent muslims( so go figure- these people are little more than criminals )

Thats why you find only slavery in the rugged areas of the sudan,where muslim extremists are busy as all heck conducting GENOCIDE against Christians,muslims who resist them,and non believers....

PHEW! You can cover my back any time, and thank you for respecting my freedom of opinion.

[JasperST4]

So, should I leave because we're not alike in appearance?I didn't suggest that, just pointed out that some things are human nature. That doesn't make it right. I'm well aware of pigeon holing but I don't have the power to change human nature.
No, Jasper. According to the Constitution, The Commander-In-Chief is to the military as the Queen of England is to her military. It is an honorable position in name only. All military matters are at the level of the Joint Chief's of Staff, which receive their orders from Congress, which receive their orders from the people.I don't know about the queen but I do know that our presidents do command the military by executive order. I'm not familiar with anything in the constitution that says it's in name only. Congress is accountable to the people at the voting booth. This is a representative republic, not a pure democracy. I don't know where you are getting your information from. Maybe barflies?
As for leader vs ruler..'...As a leader, he offers the people guidance....', I'd reply that the Executive Orders, used by many presidents, past and present, give the office of president, the power of 'ruler', which is beyond the scope of 'leader', because it bypasses the people's wishes.That sorta contradicts the 'in name only' comment, doesn't it? The president might take a poll and base his decision on it, like a Bill Clinton, but he isn't obligated to do so. Running in front of the herd and saying "follow me" isn't leadership. If you were right we could simply get rid of the Executive branch and replace it with something like American Idol and rule by popular demand. Then we can all vote for free gas, beer, and a two day work week. Then we'll collapse as a nation and hopefully a representative republic will be reborn. Just like the one we have had.

[Stormy]

:
Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
So, should I leave because we're not alike in appearance?

Jasper;
I didn't suggest that, just pointed out that some things are human nature. That doesn't make it right. I'm well aware of pigeon holing but I don't have the power to change human nature.

Yes, the power is not with you to change human nature, the power you have is within you, to stop pidgeon-holing people. Now, I'm not accusing you, I'm not. I only say that everyone should take a close look at themselves, and how they deal with others.

Stormy;
No, Jasper. According to the Constitution, The Commander-In-Chief is to the military as the Queen of England is to her military. It is an honorable position in name only. All military matters are at the level of the Joint Chief's of Staff, which receive their orders from Congress, which receive their orders from the people.

Jasper;
I don't know about the queen but I do know that our presidents do command the military by executive order.

Yes, they do. That's called 'ruling by decree'.

I'm not familiar with anything in the constitution that says it's in name only. Congress is accountable to the people at the voting booth. This is a representative republic, not a pure democracy. I don't know where you are getting your information from. Maybe barflies?

I'm glad you have some sense of humor.


Stormy;
As for leader vs ruler..'...As a leader, he offers the people guidance....', I'd reply that the Executive Orders, used by many presidents, past and present, give the office of president, the power of 'ruler', which is beyond the scope of 'leader', because it bypasses the people's wishes.

Jasper;
That sorta contradicts the 'in name only' comment, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't contradict, it explains; what it should be.vs, what is now.


The president might take a poll and base his decision on it, like a Bill Clinton, but he isn't obligated to do so. Running in front of the herd and saying "follow me" isn't leadership. If you were right we could simply get rid of the Executive branch and replace it with something like American Idol and rule by popular demand. Then we can all vote for free gas, beer, and a two day work week. Then we'll collapse as a nation and hopefully a representative republic will be reborn. Just like the one we have had.

LOL. Yes, voting for free gas, free beer, and two day work weeks, is exactly the method used to self-destruct a democracy. Given the mentality of the sheeple, they'd do exactly that. That is why the Founding Father's chose to have responsible landowners represent the people at the Federal level, to prevent such stupidity from taking place.

[PB3021]

[





.



LOL. Yes, voting for free gas, free beer, and two day work weeks, is exactly the method used to self-destruct a democracy. Given the mentality of the sheeple, they'd do exactly that. That is why the Founding Father's chose to have responsible landowners represent the people at the Federal level, to prevent such stupidity from taking place.[/QUOTE]

Is'nt this what destroyed the Roman Empire?

[Stormy]

Stormy

LOL. Yes, voting for free gas, free beer, and two day work weeks, is exactly the method used to self-destruct a democracy. Given the mentality of the sheeple, they'd do exactly that. That is why the Founding Father's chose to have responsible landowners represent the people at the Federal level, to prevent such stupidity from taking place.

PB
Is'nt this what destroyed the Roman Empire?

You bet. And it would destroy this empire as well.

[PB3021]

Ah the Romans. Those who don't learn from from history are doomed to repeat it. It seem so simple sometimes, dose'nt it?

[Stormy]

Ah the Romans. Those who don't learn from from history are doomed to repeat it. It seem so simple sometimes, dose'nt it?

It's because of it's simplicity, that allows the powers that be, to fool the people. Remember; its the forest that is hidden by the trees.

[PB3021]

You mean if I leave a girl to drown and claim I strive to serve the downtrodden I could be senator for life? Or, if I claim I don't know what "is" means, I can seduce a young girl and violate the oath of office? Or, if I make bajillions from oil specuatling while people can't afford to drive to work I can do whatsoever? This is the job for me, correction; this is the job for a defense attorney.

[PB3021]

Gawd bless the Forest!

[Stormy]

You mean if I leave a girl to drown and claim I strive to serve the downtrodden I could be senator for life? Or, if I claim I don't know what "is" means, I can seduce a young girl and violate the oath of office? Or, if I make bajillions from oil specuatling while people can't afford to drive to work I can do whatsoever? This is the job for me, correction; this is the job for a defense attorney.

I'll venture to guess, most politicians are attorneys.

[Smolla126]

What about Shinto, Taoism, Native american shamanism, Wicca, Neo-Druidism. Vodun, Candomble, Neo-paganism, Unitarian Universalism, etc? I don't remember there being any examples of those religion teaching conversion of those of different faith.

I can only personally speak for neo-paganism...but I have never ever ever been taught in my faith that we are supposed to convert others. Ever.

What about them? Didn't you know that those aren't legitimate religions? (at least according to my sophomore theology teacher. LMAO. Nearly shat herself when I told her that I was Buddhist, then told me that Buddhism wasn't a real religion).

Seriously, though. The Bible, the Koran and the Torah all say things that just don't apply today. How many people do you see these days walking a mile and a half from a water source to take a dump? Not many, right? Well back in the day, that was a rule of Judiasm. Slavery is wrong. I think everyone here can at least agree on that.

I'm also willing to bet that a lot of people that quote the good book haven't really read it. Bits and pieces, maybe, but not the whole thing. Sit down and read the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or any other religious doctrine, and I think a lot of you will be surprised just how much will make you go, "Um, seriously?"

Just saying.

[JasperST4]

How many people do you see these days walking a mile and a half from a water source to take a dump? Not many, right? Well back in the day, that was a rule of Judiasm. Slavery is wrong. I think everyone here can at least agree on that.

I'm also willing to bet that a lot of people that quote the good book haven't really read it. Bits and pieces, maybe, but not the whole thing. Sit down and read the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or any other religious doctrine, and I think a lot of you will be surprised just how much will make you go, "Um, seriously?"Um, seriously, have you read the New Testament?

[Smolla126]

:D You bet. I went to Catholic school for 12 years. It was pretty much shoved down my throat. ^_^

[JasperST4]

:D You bet. I went to Catholic school for 12 years. It was pretty much shoved down my throat. ^_^That's odd. Why did you bring up the OT laws for Hebrews?

[Smolla126]

My school taught about other religions, too.

I was trying to make a point that the slavery issue was something that was common at the time that scriptures were written. So was the bathroom law. The Bible wasn't written yesterday. Yes, there are things that are in the Bible that we consider to be wrong or immoral that during that time were common. One should look at the scripture with that in mind.

Just take it in perspective, that's all.

[Stormy]

Everytime I read a post from Stormy for some reason I imagine him saying those words in a low whispering voice like a talking Teddy Bear or something like that.:D

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2398/2264615600_606b2520cf.jpg?v=0

Hugs are good, tony. All veterans hug one another as a sign of compassion, and understanding. Especially the ones who've experienced combat duty. ;)

http://www.nowpublic.com/twilight-zone-intro

[PB3021]

I imagine the narrator from "The Christmas Story"...

[Stormy]

I imagine the narrator from "The Christmas Story"...

:D:D:D:D:cool: Anyone for Rod Serling??? Yeah, that's it. Rod Serling!!!

http://www.nowpublic.com/twilight-zone-intro

Rod Serling was a paratrooper with the US Army during World War II, awarded the Purple Heart following injuries sustained during the war in the Pacific. He would suffer from flashbacks and nightmares for the rest of his life, which influenced his writing. He is best know for The Twilight Zone, whose surreal and sometimes horrific sci-fi episodes, in various incarnations, dazzled audiences from 1959 through 2003.

Ah, but did you know that he also wrote Planet of the Apes? Still, most of us most likely remember his distinctive voice, both on the page and in the intro to... The Twilight Zone.

The Rod Serling Memorial Society is lobbying for a postage stamp bearing the writer's image, though I'm not sure if the USPS takes requests.

Serling died after a third consecutive heart attack in 1975.

[JMTX]

I'm also willing to bet that a lot of people that quote the good book haven't really read it. Bits and pieces, maybe, but not the whole thing. Sit down and read the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, or any other religious doctrine, and I think a lot of you will be surprised just how much will make you go, "Um, seriously?"


Bravo, Smolla. I was raised without religion...I read the Bible for myself to determine my opinion of it. I read the whole fricking thing, and more than once.

I always get amused at Christians who ask me "what turned you away from Jesus" . They don't know what to say when I tell them, "Um, well ya see, I wanted to give it a chance, really I did...but then I read that joke you call the Bible. You might give it a read sometime, it's quite eye-opening."

[Stormy]

Bravo, Smolla. I was raised without religion...I read the Bible for myself to determine my opinion of it. I read the whole fricking thing, and more than once.

I always get amused at Christians who ask me "what turned you away from Jesus" . They don't know what to say when I tell them, "Um, well ya see, I wanted to give it a chance, really I did...but then I read that joke you call the Bible. You might give it a read sometime, it's quite eye-opening."

You're not a weirdo. I'd like to see you change your avatar. ;)

[midnight_v]

Bravo, Smolla. I was raised without religion...I read the Bible for myself to determine my opinion of it. I read the whole fricking thing, and more than once.

I always get amused at Christians who ask me "what turned you away from Jesus" . They don't know what to say when I tell them, "Um, well ya see, I wanted to give it a chance, really I did...but then I read that joke you call the Bible. You might give it a read sometime, it's quite eye-opening."

Thats really interesting, there's this part where jesus says someone brought up in the word will not sway far from it.
Maybe that's Freud... or maybe he said it too.
Though honestly I had a similar experience, I was brought up on the bible but, read all the other books on religions to see, if the bible was B.S. or was it legit, I decided after much deliberation that it was legit.
Other than that I'd still be worshiping the War god. A place like valhalla of my very own. Still to dominate is the nature of man, Jesus tells us to be non peacful

[JMTX]

You're not a weirdo. I'd like to see you change your avatar

Hold your tongue, man! I am too a weirdo!

No changing of the avatar just yet...I'm not tired of seeing the joker's smiling face just yet.

Give me time, you know I get bored easily and will want to change the whole thing!

[JMTX]

Thats really interesting, there's this part where jesus says someone brought up in the word will not sway far from it.
Maybe that's Freud... or maybe he said it too.
Though honestly I had a similar experience, I was brought up on the bible but, read all the other books on religions to see, if the bible was B.S. or was it legit, I decided after much deliberation that it was legit.
Other than that I'd still be worshiping the War god. A place like valhalla of my very own. Still to dominate is the nature of man, Jesus tells us to be non peacful

You know, I just think that it's a lot easier to accept Christianity if you were raised up in it.

For a person who wasn't raised as a christian, the Bible is hard to accept really. The concepts there just don't make any logical sense to me.

I remember reading the Bible and going, "Do what?? I must of read that wrong...." But no matter how often I reread it, it still said the same weird things. I laughed out loud often when reading it. I just couldn't understand how anyone could think the things written in that book were valuable or even logical.

[Smolla126]

Well, my mom was Catholic, but never went to church, my dad was lutheran, but never went to church, and the only reason I went to Catholic schools was because the Milwaukee Public School system is terrible. And it was a good education. I decided on Buddhism when I was about 11 years old, after doing a lot of my own research. Of course, I got a whole lot of "You're going to hell!" Over the years, but I got used to it. It really freaks people out when you come back with a blank stare and just say, "Hell is a state of mind." LoL.
Honestly, the hardest part for people I think is that I don't get into religious arguments. They shout their "So-and-so is going to smite you!" and I just say, "Okay, that's cool." Like I've said before. Religion is just one of those things it isn't worth arguing about. People believe what they believe and discussions about it only make people angry. I think in 10 years only one or two people have actually been genuinely interested in hearing about my religion without coming back with, "Then how do you explain "xy" or "Haven't you heard xx?"
I actually enjoyed reading the bible, and about the torah, and the koran, and I pick up books on religion any chance that I get. But they are just stories to me. I admire someone that has the ability to be faithful and believe that God has a plan. I really do. I'm just not one of those people.

[ray8285]

Thats really interesting, there's this part where jesus says someone brought up in the word will not sway far from it.


Actually it says if you are brought up in it you may stray but will come back.

[PB3021]

Actually it says if you are brought up in it you may stray but will come back.

Thers' still hope for you'all!!:p

[Stormy]

Well, my mom was Catholic, but never went to church, my dad was lutheran, but never went to church, and the only reason I went to Catholic schools was because the Milwaukee Public School system is terrible. And it was a good education. I decided on Buddhism when I was about 11 years old, after doing a lot of my own research. Of course, I got a whole lot of "You're going to hell!" Over the years, but I got used to it. It really freaks people out when you come back with a blank stare and just say, "Hell is a state of mind." LoL.
Honestly, the hardest part for people I think is that I don't get into religious arguments. They shout their "So-and-so is going to smite you!" and I just say, "Okay, that's cool." Like I've said before. Religion is just one of those things it isn't worth arguing about. People believe what they believe and discussions about it only make people angry. I think in 10 years only one or two people have actually been genuinely interested in hearing about my religion without coming back with, "Then how do you explain "xy" or "Haven't you heard xx?"
I actually enjoyed reading the bible, the torah, and the koran, and I pick up books on religion any chance that I get. But they are just stories to me. I admire someone that has the ability to be faithful and believe that God has a plan. I really do. I'm just not one of those people.

[bold highlite mine]

Torah? I didn't know the Torah was printed in English? Or, did you read it in Hebrew?

[Smolla126]

I've read English interpretations of it. Same with the Koran. ^_^ You caught me. I haven't sat down and read it word-for-word in Hebrew. Sorry for the confusion. I'll edit appropriately.

[Smolla126]

Thers' still hope for you'all!!:p

Oh, thank heavens! I was getting a little worried there. :rolleyes: :D

[Smolla126]

Oops... double post..

[SkepticAlways]

Go Stormy go!