This racial hate (has) to stop now.

I know one thing, Truth. That those who follow the Lord's law will be saved. Those who do not will perish. Faith is strong, those who have faith will crush the faithless who try to crush the Lord's law. The faithless will not succede in their quest to stop faith. Like in the Bible, in Revelations, those who follow the true God will be saved.

Don't abolish christianity because I don't believe in the god it has, but of what it has done and does. Christianity defended slavery. 86% of slaves were held by christians. Also, christians believe in pure evil. Nothing can be pure evil, nothing can be pure good. Lucifer isn't pure evil, he just didn't want to be a SLAVE to god. And god isn't pure good. He killed millions with one flood. He killed a few million with plague, locust, death of first born, and even ruined a mans life to prove his ego bigger than satans.

But JM, don't worry, just because christianity is f'ed up doesn't mean I don't believe in god/s.

Originally posted by James the Lesser

1)Don't abolish christianity because I don't believe in the god it has, but of what it has done and does. Christianity defended slavery.

2) 86% of slaves were held by christians. Also, christians believe in pure evil. Nothing can be pure evil, nothing can be pure good. Lucifer isn't pure evil, he just didn't want to be a SLAVE to god.

3) And god isn't pure good. He killed millions with one flood. He killed a few million with plague, locust, death of first born, and even ruined a mans life to prove his ego bigger than satans.

4) But JM, don't worry, just because christianity is f'ed up doesn't mean I don't believe in god/s.

James,

1) It's not true. The Church fought against slavery and still fighting against it. The first peoples who were against slavery were the priests.

2) What are you writing ? In your first post, it was 95%, and now, it's 86%. What's the next step ? 75% ? 69.2569875% ?

And yes,God is pure good, and Satan/Lucifer are pure Evil. You cannot compare them ( God/Satan ) to us, the humanbeing. We have 2 faces, a good one, and a bad one. But them( G/S ), they have only ONE face. They are perfects ! God is the perfect good guy, and Satan is the perfect bad guy. Do not compare us to them, or vice versa, because it's a mistake. We have a duality, not them.

3) It wasn't God. It was evils peoples, who were thinking sometimes, that they were acting in the name of God. Behind these behaviours, I can see ONLY Satan.I don't see God.

God don't act like Satan.But Satan try to act like God, because he want to deceive us. And you don't need to have a Bible or another Holly Book to know what's good and what's bad.

And there is something strange in your post. You " believe " in God, so, you have to " believe " too in Satan ( or call him like you want ). But also, you " believe " that God ordered many butchery. With a God like this one, you don't need Satan. And if God is able to do bads things, I wonder what's Satan is able to do.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Don't abolish christianity because I don't believe in the god it has, but of what it has done and does. Christianity defended slavery. 86% of slaves were held by christians. Also, christians believe in pure evil. Nothing can be pure evil, nothing can be pure good. Lucifer isn't pure evil, he just didn't want to be a SLAVE to god. And god isn't pure good. He killed millions with one flood. He killed a few million with plague, locust, death of first born, and even ruined a mans life to prove his ego bigger than satans.

But JM, don't worry, just because christianity is f'ed up doesn't mean I don't believe in god/s.

Catholics are fighting against slavery in the modern world, and many where in the past.

If you ever read the Bible, you would know he destroyed evil with that flood. He killed the Egyptians because they were evil then, and harmed his children. God is pure-good, he does bad things to punish evil. Lucifer/Satan, wanted to be God, so he revolted. He was not a ''slave''. He just wanted domination.

Sorry, 95% in america held by christians, in europe it was 86%.

And how can god be pure good? Didnt you ever read about him killing the first born? Killing people who had nothing to do with the jews. Little babies, old people, just because they were first born. Satan didn't do that. Flood, killed millions, god. Other plagues, locust swarms, infestation, killed millions, god. Not satan.

Let's see, satan didn't want to be a SLAVE anymore to god. Wow, real evil there, not wanting to be a SLAVE.

Also, no, just because I believe in god, doesn't mean I believe in satan. Witchcraft doesn't have satan. Budda doesn't have a satan. Druids don't have a satan. Hindu don't have satan.

And when did they start fighting slavery? In the south, before the war, using bible to support it. Saying it says that the servant is to follow the man, slavery ok, not a sin, and in fact aren't slaves in the bible, and not in a bad way?

And first people to fight against slavery were quackers(sp?) Amish, and other blacks.

And you right, god doesn't act like satan. Satan doesn't believe in being a slave, so he rebeled against the overseer(god). Satan has never sent a flood in the bible to kill millions. He never sent a locust swarm, killed the first born, so forth. Know what the bible is? BS. Know how it was written? By the victors.

Two sides fight, one believes in spelling cat kat, other cat. The kat wins. So in the books the cat people evil rebels, the kat people good and right.

So the slave master wins, sends the rebeling slaves to hell, and the ones who fought against slavery become evil in the books that the slave master wrote. Slave master writes that he is good for he won. So slavery stays.

Better to rule in hell than be a slave to god.(my version)

He killed the first born becuase they had the Jews kept in slavery. God was saving them from being slaves. Egypt defied him, and they were punished. So you are saying that you would rather serve Satan, then God?!?

[Edited on 12-23-2002 by JediMaster]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Sorry, 95% in america held by christians, in europe it was 86%.

Originally posted by James the Lesser

Sorry, 95% in america held by christians, in europe it was 86%.

James, look.First, it's not because you were white that you were christian. And the way you write 95% mean that 95% of the former US citizens had ALL slaves.
It's ALLWAYS the same old good story.ALL the whites were slaves masters, and all the blacks were slaves.

You know, there was only some few cotton fields owners. You try to say that ALL the whites were slaves masters. It's false. Only 1 to 5 % had blacks slaves, and there were many blacks masters who had blacks slaves ALSO. Don't forget, in the Brazil, 1/3 of blacks slaves masters were blacks peoples themselves.

And where did you learn that 86% of the formers Europeans were Christians and were slaves masters ?

Are you kidding ?

1) Only some rich peoples had slaves ( blacks, whites...).

2) In Europe ( and in the USA too ), most of the peoples ( common peoples, like you & me.Because there were only 2 class.The richs, and the poors.Not like now, where we have a middle-class ) were poors or extreemly poors. And don't forget, the richs were a little minority (0.5% ?), and the majority (99.5% ?) were the poors. And the poors didn't have ANY slaves.

3) And if, like you say, 86% had slaves, I wonder where are the descendants of those so-called former blacks slaves ? In USA, blacks represents what ? 10% ? 12% of the population ? And all of them ( 80/85 % ) are all slaves descendant.

In Europe, before 1970/80, blacks peoples were something like 0.1 to 0.5 % of the population. And all the blacks that we have now are ALL new immigrants.

We don't have ANY blacks slaves descendants. In Europe, only whites peoples are slaves descandants. When we were living like slaves, in the Middle-Age.

So, I don't know where you got your infos ( democrat party may be ? ), but you are looking pretty brainwashed on this subject ( the poors good blacks, who were ALL slaves, and the big bads whites, who were ALL slaves masters ). In fact, foe the USA,there was , by the maximum, 1/2% of the whites population who had a blacks slaves.

For the rest of your post ( about God ), well, I think that you have a strange POV about God. Of course ( ), I don't subscribe to your POV.

Never said 95% of slaves were held by whites. Said 95% were held by christians. Where you get christians means white from? And never said all blacks slaves. Some blacks held slaves themselves.

Sorry Mr. President, but either have a reading problem or an assumetion problem.(Never assume, it makes an @$$ of U and ME)

Just because the Hindus and whatever the heck else don't have Satan doesn't mean anything. It's a good thing that we have a Satan, so we can have someone to blame the bad things on. Aldo, since when as Christianity "f'ed up"? Jesus(no pun intended), c'mon! it is a right religion! Everyone has a right to believ in what they believe. You call yourself "James the lesser" but you don't seem like a Catholic apostle to me.

Second, WTF does religion have to do with slavery? So the southerners were screwed up back in the beginning of the U.S. And? You're point being? They used the Bible because it was the only thing they could use to justify the hell they put the blacks through. They were fools, and you seem to think that that makes all Catholics, and, Christians in general, bad! You're the one who would get along well with the slave traders.

So shut your mouth before you get shunned by every Catholic on this Board.

God has nothing to do with racism. Racism starts with individuals. And racism must end with individuals.

Shunned by every catholic, and the punishment is??????

I swear, god made angels slaves. When they didn't want to be slaves, he sent them to hell. Then wrote the books to say he right. Christianity defended slavery. I know, like you said, just because the majority screwed up back then, what does that have to do with today. Well, the majority rules, right? And the majority have kids. The majority tells those kids what right and wha wrong. Why do you think in the south blacks treated badly even after a hundred years after they were freed? The majority in the south believed they superior.

So, what do those people teach their kids?

Also, not just whites racist. Nowadays, racist reversed. For jeep, equal oppurtunity means best job to worst, goes bosses girlfreind, bosses kid, balck mexican, white. One job was asking for a engineering degree. Who gets it? The black who not only didn't have a engineering degree, but can't figure out that a square part won't fit in a round area. And that if the holes for bolts this way, can't put part in a different way.

Or for being arrested. A cop is afraid to do anything nowadays for fear that doing their job will get them fired. A black guy broke into someones house, killed wife, raped daughter, shot by father/husband, lived, sued the guy for being racist, won. Black guy pulled over for going over a hundred in 45, ran, finally caught, sued cop for being racist, won, cop loses job. Or a college in Michigan, a women(white) applies with almost perfect score. Yet not accepted. But plenty of blacks with low scores get in. Why should someone with plenty of brains be kept out because they white? Why should someone be given the worst job or be turned down for a better one because they white? Why should a cop lose his job because he did his job, but since he white meant he racist?

First way to stop racism is to stop it from all sides, not just the white racist to black side. A way to do this? Stop asking for race on applications for jobs/schools. If the person passes everything they need to, let them in, if not, don't. Shouldn't matter if they white or black or hispanic(unless illegal, then kill them or ship them back)

Of course, any time the Bible is used to justify an action, a particular interpretation must be employed (after all, the Bible contains quite a number of broad, vague, and even contradictory statements). The problem arises when the person refuses to recognize that they are using an interpretation. Few Christian arguments annoy me quite so much as that someone's interpretation of the Bible is just "common sense" - and that thus anyone with a modicum of "common sense" will immediately see what the Truth is and agree with them. In fact, it is rare that any interpretation of any text is really "common sense." Either an interpretation can be objectively defended by appeal to text and context, or it cannot. Those who can will do so, and those who cannot will most likely refuse to admit it. One of those issues which will appear to be "common sense" to the average Christian will be the biblical position on slavery.

Unfortunately, one of the most abominable chapters in the history of how the Bible has been used and interpreted involve the questions of race and slavery. Racial relations, especially between whites and blacks, have long been deplorable in the United States. They started out badly, got worse before they got better, and are nevertheless still poor with slim prospects of improving a great deal any time soon. Although Christians will be loathe to admit it, their religion shares a significant part of the blame for this situation.

People on all sides of racial and slavery issues have interpreted the Bible through the filters of their personal and cultural assumptions - but at no point will you find them admitting this. In every case people have seen their interpretations as "common sense" - the only and obvious way Christians should interpret their scriptures. The results will be the focus of this week's article.



Old Testament
The first, and most obvious, thing to remember is that there is no specific condemnation of slavery to be found anywhere in the Bible. At no point does God express even mild disapproval of enslaving human beings, robbing them of what freedom and independence they might have had. On the contrary, God is depicted of both approving of and regulating slavery, ensuring that the traffic and ownership of fellow human beings proceeds in an acceptable manner. In many cases, the regulations display a horrible disregard for the lives and dignity of enslaved individuals, hardly the sort of thing one would expect from a loving God.

Passages referencing and condoning slavery are common in the Old Testament. In one place, we read:

When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)

So, the immediate killing of a slave is punishable but a man may so grievously injure a slave that they die a few days later from their wounds without facing any punishment or retribution. All societies in the Middle East at this time were condoned slavery, so it shouldn't be surprising to find approval for it in this document. As a human law, the above would be commendable - after all, there was nothing quite so advanced anywhere else in the Middle East. But as the will of an all loving god, it's abominable.

As a side note, it should be observed that the King James Version of the Bible presents the above verse in an altered form, replacing "slave" with "servant" - thus gravely misleading Christians as to the intentions and desires of their God. One more reason to reject fundamentalist claims that the KJV is the only true and valid translation!



New Testament
The New Testament, unfortunately, is little better. Jesus never even comes close to expressing disapproval of the enslaving of other human beings, and many statements attributed to him reveal a tacit acceptance or even approval of that inhuman institution. Throughout the Gospels we read passages like:

A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

Although Jesus is using slavery in order to illustrate larger points, the question still remains why he would directly acknowledge the existence of slavery without saying anything negative about it?

The letters (rightly or wrongly) attributed to Paul are even worse, making it clear that the existence of slavery is not only acceptable, but that slaves themselves should not presume to take the idea of freedom and equality preached by Jesus too far by attempting to escape their forced servitude.

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

What are we to make of passages such as those quoted above? We must conclude that the author(s) did not disapprove of the institution of slavery and probably regarded it as an appropriate part of society. Again, slavery was common in all contemporary societies, and it would be surprising to find condemnation here. But if those authors were indeed divinely inspired, as is commonly thought by Christians, then we must conclude that God's attitude towards slavery is not particularly negative. Christians are certainly not prohibited from owning slaves, and anyone who does not agree is directly condemned. There is, then, no conflict between being a Christian and being an owner of other human beings.

No "common sense" interpretation can deny such things without doing violence to the text itself, and nothing can be criticized as having been "taken out of context." Christians should perhaps consider admitting that their Bible was written in a primitive, barbaric age and as such represents the primitive, barbaric attitudes of that age.



Early Christian History
How did the early Christians deal with the issue of slavery? There was almost universal approval of slavery among church leaders. Christians vigorously defended slavery (along with other forms of extreme social stratification) as instituted by God and as being an integral part of the natural order of men. At all points, their reasoning was clearly and easily supported by the Bible passages quoted above.

Let's allow them to tell us in their own words:

The slave should be resigned to his lot, in obeying his master he is obeying God... (Saint John Chrysostom)

...slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance. (Saint Augustine)

Quote of the week:

Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits.

Dan Barker. Taken from the Internet Infidels Quote File.
These attitudes continued throughout European history, even as the institution of slavery evolved and in most cases slaves became "serfs" - little better than actual slaves and living in a deplorable situation which the church declared as being divinely ordered.

Not even after serfdom disappeared and full-fledged slavery once again reared its ugly head was it generally condemned by Christian leaders. Edmund Gibson, Anglican Bishop in London, made it clear in the 18th century that Christianity freed us from the slavery of sin, not from earthly and physical slavery:

The Freedom which Christianity gives, is a Freedom from the Bondage of Sin and Satan, and from the Dominion of Men's Lusts and Passions and inordinate Desires; but as to their outward Condition, whatever that was before, whether bond or free, their being baptized, and becoming Christians, makes no manner of Change in it.




American Slavery
The first ship bearing slaves for America landed in 1619, beginning over two centuries of human bondage on the American continent, bondage which would eventually be called our "peculiar institution." This institution always received theological support from various religious leaders, both in the pulpit and in the classroom. For example, through the late 1700s, Reverend William Graham was rector and principle instructor at the Liberty Hall Academy, now Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. Every year, he lectured the senior graduating class on the value of slavery and used the Bible in his defense of it. For Graham and the many like him, Christianity was not a tool for changing politics or social policy, but instead to bring the message of salvation to everyone, regardless of their status of freedom. In this, they were certainly supported by biblical text.

As Kenneth Stamp wrote in The Peculiar Institution, Christianity actually became a way to add value to slaves in America:

...when southern clergy became ardent defenders of slavery, the master class could look upon organized religion as an ally ...the gospel, instead of becoming a mean of creating trouble and strive, was really the best instrument to preserve peace and good conduct among the negroes.

Through teaching slaves the message of the Bible, they could be encouraged to bear the earthly burden in exchange for heavenly rewards later on - and they could be frightened into believing that disobedience to earthly masters would be perceived by God as disobedience to Him. Ironically, enforced illiteracy prevented slaves from reading the Bible themselves. This is ironic because a similar situation existed in Europe during the Middle Ages, as illiterate peasants and serfs were prevented from reading the Bible in their own language - a situation which was instrumental in the Protestant revolution. Now, Protestants were doing much the same thing African slaves: using the authority of their Bible and the dogma of their religion to repress a group of people without even allowing them to read the basis of authority on their own.



Division and Conflict
As Northerners decried slavery and called for its abolition, southern political and religious leaders found an easy ally for their pro-slavery cause in the Bible and Christian history. In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his "A Scriptural View of Slavery:"

...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...

Of course, Christians in the North disagreed - and some denominations, like Quakers, appear to have never been afflicted by slavery. Interestingly, most abolitionist attacks were based on the premise that the nature of Hebrew slavery differed in significant ways from the nature of slavery in the American South. Although this was meant to argue that the American form of slavery did not enjoy Biblical support, it nevertheless tacitly admitted that the institution of slavery did, in principle, have divine sanction and approval so long as conducted in an appropriate manner.

In the end, the North won on the question of slavery. Although the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in an effort to preserve the Christian basis for slavery before the start of the Civil War, they did not feel it necessary to bother apologizing until June 1995. The reason was that even though the question of slavery had been settled, the question of race still burned.



Repression and Superiority
The later repression and discrimination against the freed black slaves received as much biblical and Christian support as the earlier institution of slavery itself. This discrimination and the choice to enslave blacks only was made primarily on the basis of what has become known as the "sin of Ham" or "the curse of Canaan." Occasionally there would also be defenses of the inferiority of blacks by asserting that they bore the "mark of Cain."

We read in Genesis, chapter nine, that Noah's son Ham comes upon him sleeping off a drinking binge and sees his father naked. Instead of covering him, he runs and tells his brothers. Shem and Japheth, the "good" brothers, return and cover their father. In retaliation for Ham's "sinful act" of seeing his father nude, Noah puts a curse on his grandson (Ham's son) Canaan: ?Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers" (Gen 9:25).

Over time, this curse came to be interpreted that Ham was literally "burnt," and that all his descendants had black skin, marking them as slaves with a convenient color-coded label for subservience. When and how this gained widespread acceptance is questionable, but anti-slavery religious and political leaders have worked to refute it for more than a century. Today, biblical scholars note that the ancient Hebrew word "ham" does not have to be translated as "burnt" or "black" - but there is unfortunately little consensus on how the name and passage should be interpreted. Further complicating matters is the position of some Afrocentrists that Ham, although not actually cursed (despite what the Bible says!) was indeed black, as were many other characters in the Bible. Once again, people end up reading the passage as supporting their own racial assumptions.

Although many Christians today would be horrified at using the Bible as a support for racism, they should recognize that it was used in just such a fashion by Christians in America in the same way and with the same justification as Christians today use the Bible in their defense of their favorite ideas. Even as recently as the 1950's and 60's, Christians vehemently opposed desegregation or "race-mixing" for religious reasons. The "curse" of poor Ham lingered on in the minds of white Christians who fought to preserve a constant separation of the races.

A corollary to the inferiority of blacks has long been the superiority of white Protestants - something which has not yet dissipated in America. Although "Caucasians" are not to be found anywhere in the Bible, that hasn't stopped members of Christian Identity groups from using the Bible to prove that they are the true "chosen people" or "true Israelites." This may seem bizarre, but it has long been popular among American Protestants to see themselves as being "divinely appointed" to tame the American wilderness despite the "demon Indians." Americans are supposed to be blessed with a special destiny by God, and many read an American role in Armageddon in the book of Revelations. I am ever amazed at the degree to which Christianity encourages extreme egotism and inflated sense of self-importance or personal destiny.

Christian Identity is just a new kid on the block of White Protestant Supremacy - the earliest such group was the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Too few people realize that the KKK was founded as a Christian organization and still sees itself in terms of defending true Christianity. Especially in the earliest days, Klansmen openly recruited in churches (white and segregated, of course), attracting members from all strata of society, including the clergy.

Although Klan ceremonies have varied greatly, one common form will include an American flag, a cross, and a Bible opened to Romans 12, exhorting Christians to "godly conduct, godly nature." Also common is a sword representing the war against all enemies of the Christian life an the American "Christian Nation." Opening and closing prayers may often include "The living Christ is a Klansman's criterion of character." The origin of a burning cross is unclear - it may stem from the ancient Scottish tradition of burning a cross on a hill to call together the clans, or it may be representative of spreading the light of the True Cross in an effort to promote Christian faith.



Interpretation and Apologetics
The cultural and personal assumptions of the pro-slavery Christians (and pro-slavery biblical authors) quoted above are probably obvious to all of us now, but I doubt that they were obvious to slavery supporters at the time. Similarly, today, I'm sure that few people are aware of the cultural and personal baggage which they bring to their readings. They assume the truth of what they believe, and are determined to find divine sanction for their beliefs in their holy book. I think that these Christians would be better off defending their ideas on their own merits, but I quite honestly doubt they are capable of it. Perhaps they doubt themselves too, and that's why they don't try.

My recommendation is against ever accepting any sort of "common sense" defense of any biblical interpretation. Throughout history, the idea that someone's interpretation is just "common sense" has been used on every side of every issue, including today's topic of slavery. Defense of an interpretation can only be done via rational, logical argument. Unfortunately for Christians, that has been used effectively on every side of every issue, too - including today's topic of slavery.

Maybe that means that using the Bible isn't a valid defense of an idea? Could be...

Toltec, you have taken every passage out of context, and thus hurting the (reader), this is
what happens when you give and only give one qoute out of aa whole chapter.

if you give me a chance i can give you explaination on the real meaning behind the passage of every passage you just gave me?


Also you are missing alot of qoutes from god that people skip over that is against slavery.

Ill have to start a topic later, because i will defend god and his word.


And toltec, im being serious when i say i do not have (blind) faith.

I have seen miracles done in jesus name.

i have seen miracles doctors cant explain.

every saint in the church who bore cchrist passion and miracles haveseen this stuff.

70,000 at fatima seen miracles of christ.

the shroud of turon has been given.

what else do you need?

there will not be many more signs given to the earth.


I sound like a broken record here, because nobody believes these miracles im talking about.


And how come you guys never seem to mention all the qoutes of how god loves every creature so much like paslms, or in christ own words?

all i here is the same attack on what you think are contradictions.

Ill make a new post later, and i will defend every contradiction you have, and with confidence.

why?

I know christ is the lord for reasons you just cannot understand.

peace.

Toltec, where do you get this stuff from which you cut and paste? Some is decent while some is wild leaps and bad history, and some is just fiction.

Can you do some of us a favor, by the way? Make the posts a little shorter? Most aren't going to read that much and it makes it difficult to discuss it when there are so many points in need of dissecting. One of the most offensive is the assertion that the white Protestant Christian is operating on the belief that he is superior. Superiority of any one race or nationality goes contrary to the teaching of the KJV 1611. While the Bible is clear that there are to be no images made, Churches still feel the need to hang a painting of Christ in the foyer. Ever noticed that it is clear that Christ wasnot Anglo-Saxxon? The assertion of non-Christians that Christians think Christ was white burns my goat as that is not the case. More attempts at painting us as racists. Don't believe that crap. As far as the KKK, I'm weary of discussing that topic or trying to stifle myths and misperceptions. And remember, many people call themselves "Christians" because they feel they need to be something, and since that was the faith the founders expected this nation to follow, folks naturally think if they believe in a god and live here, well then, they must be "Christians". Calling yourself that doesn't mean you are truly saved, and the beliefs of what they Klan came to follow and still follow from what I hear, A Christian has no place in it.

Truth broken record is an appropriate term.

Thomas no cutting a pasting was done it is from a conversation had that related to the topic. As far as decreasing the length of my post I agree this one and another presented today was lengthy and will conform to your request. As far as this topic is concerned the relationship between racism and religions are an issue of the past. This post presents the argument from the point of view of the past and its effect upon what we today are struggling with. Mush of the mentalities, which these posts offered do in fact exist today and were prevalent as recently as the 60's personal experience).

Truth the reality is the separatism causes people to feel cultures and races are inferior. You have posted very recently on several occasions that the Egyptian culture is Satan based. That kind of thinking does lead to conclusions, which are race, based.

The attached link offers a Chronology

History of Slavery

Egyptian culture isn't satan based. They don't believe in satan. Now, that is like saying the Arab culture is based on having seven gods. First, it isn't, second, they don't believe in seven gods. They belive in one, Allah. Sorry truth, you wrong again. That makes you right 3, wrong 82759387210002.

Toltec, your history slavery link start only in 1619 in the USA. I'm glad to know that we didn't have any slavery before this date.

Actually U-P if you read through the link you will find information on past spplication of the word. Keep in mind that the further back in time you go the other issues like like killing a person because they cast there shadow on another who felt or was designated of greater importance. Or for that matter the right to bed a woman just married before her husband and so one.

They just used another word.

And so lets not get into Semantics shall we

Originally posted by Toltec

And so lets not get into Semantics shall we

Yes, me and my horribles rhetoric POV's. I know, it's exasperating.

I try hardly to don't do it, but....I can't !

No sweat U-P my impressions we are all waking up and realizing that while all out ancestors made incredible contributions. They also caused more problems for each other than really was nessesary.