It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

True or False: If the slaves never fought, they'd still be slaves? If you don't do anything change

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Let me tell you what I mean when I say "The Law of Attraction vs The Law of Allowing" so that there'll be no misunderstandings. I know this is not the "official" definition but I am using these phrases in a short way to describe what I mean.

Law of Attraction - Think thoughts, Plan, and Take Action based on what you want in life. Your thoughts AND ACTION has to be in alignment with what you are wanting. Then you can get what you want in life, and if not, you aren't really attracting it in the right way, or the universe is giving you something even better - or knows what is best.

Law of Allowing - Be in the moment, Stay calm, think about whatever calm thoughts that you want. Take action if it is calm for you and not panicky or nervousness for you. Don't focus too much on desire just stay in the moment and take the action which will bring you most calmness... Whatever happens in life is what was meant to be. It is all good. You don't have to worry too much about forcing "change" because change happens on its own since this is the way of the universe (or cosmos, logos or god).

The Law of Allowing seems more accepting reality (God, Existence, Universe) than the Law of Attraction which is about changing for whatever you want. Acceptance is a part of love by the way.

But, if the slaves followed this Law of Allowing rather than the Law of Attraction would they still be slaves to today? Was it meant for them to be free? Will circumstances would have happened which caused them to be free anyway?

With the law of allowing, it is knowing that you aren't running things, that it is reality, universe, or logos (reason) if that is what you call it. Your only job is to stay calm in this reality and let the reality take care of the rest.

With the law of attraction, it is saying screw reality, change for what you want or it never will.

What do you think?




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I think reality demands to be interacted with,,, and there seems to be no rules as to how far or what kind of interactions are allowed... the only rule is understand there will be consequences of your interactions,,



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The fact that the slaves helped fight in the American Revolution, and in the Civil War... is by no means the main contributing factor towards the perception if they should have been free or not.

I'm not going to give you a history lesson, but a little reading on anybodies part should make this point fairly clear.

John Jay....

Unless America adopted gradual abolition, Jay believed, "her prayers to heaven for liberty will be impious"

Then there was the creation of the New York Manumission Society, who worked heavily in wide-ranging campaigns against slavery.

Many that argued for the rights and freedoms of slaves often invoked a higher moral authority, in respect to laws..

"In the interpretation of treaties, things odious or immoral are not to be presumed, The abandonment of negroes, who had been induced to quit their masters on the faith of official proclamations, promising them liberty, to fall again under the yoke of their masters and into slavery is as odious and immoral a thing as can be conceived. It is odious not on as it imposes an act of perfidy on one of the contracting parties, but as it tends to bring back to servitude men once made free."
Hamilton

"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition" of slavery.
Washington to Robert Morris

Thomas Jefferson supported the cease of the imports of slaves as well, and even sent a plan to congress on their behalf, which congress denied... because of the economic pressures of the south and their roles with the economy of the north.

Regardless, it was not necessarily the actions, words, or even opinions of the slaves that lead to their freedom. although much of their efforts in obtaining freedom undoubtedly helped the cause.

It was men who saw the immoral basis of slavery that directly opposed the very construct of a free nation. It is that simple....

You want freedom, those who design the structure of society inevitably have to address hypocritical stances, even if the truth to the solutions stood in direct opposition of their desires.

So, if the slaves never fought, they would not still be slaves. For critical thinking, and any notion of freedom would arise a nation in which they were no longer in bondage to such a barbaric means. This is a product of revolution, when the aim and goal is freedom for all men that were created equally by their creator.

I hope that made sense....

Edit(clarification)
The strength of reasoning, and justice is the very means for which freedom is to be procured. It does not necessarily take force and the baring of arms in order to establish a new societal structure. Those who find necessity in baring arms are only to defend their means. Those who find themselves in the midst of obtaining such ideals as freedom use their mental faculties, for the power of thought and reasoning will always trump any notion of physical and war like means.

The pen is mightier than the sword.
edit on 16-4-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: additional statement



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

There were many slave rebellions, that being the reason southern colony militias are very under represented in the Revolutionary war. They were needed at home to put down the rebellions.
edit on 16-4-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The slaves didn't fight. They escaped. And then they told the story to people who saw how horrible it was and wanted to help.

The slaves didn't fight, at least not in my country. They played it smart and appealed to people who could help.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
The slaves did fight....



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The problem is the slaves don't know that they are slaves. We are all slaves.

The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market… It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live… It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?

That's on wage slaves from Wikipedia
edit on 16-4-2012 by Prisoner60863 because: added more



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prisoner60863
The problem is the slaves don't know that they are slaves.

The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market… It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live… It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?


Much of you stance is based upon behavioral economics, which is never a concrete adherence for the means and economic landscape is always changing.

It can be said that the people of America are slaves to a higher authority that is the corporate world. Over time, this will undoubtedly change, for no government, society, and means stay the same.

The very masons that constructed those houses in which you claim are not to be inhabited by what you deem slaves, eventually become the very quarters in which future generations of said slaves will call their abode.

Obama, I rest my case! Although that's not necessarily the best example if you want to nit pick, but it is symbolic of what I'm trying to relay.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by dayve
The slaves did fight....


He clearly said, "at least not in MY country". he's probably not talking about yours.



Originally posted by Prisoner60863
The problem is the slaves don't know that they are slaves. We are all slaves.


We are not talking about slaves today, we are talking about slaves of the past and whether they would still have been free without taking action to get free.

Do things happen on they own or must we force reality (universe, order, God) to change? That was the question.


Originally posted by oghamxx
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg


That's not really saying much. Could it be that the same folks who voted to put them in the chains later realized that it was wrong and voted against it?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme



Originally posted by dayve
The slaves did fight....


He clearly said, "at least not in MY country". he's probably not talking about yours.



Originally posted by Prisoner60863
The problem is the slaves don't know that they are slaves. We are all slaves.


We are not talking about slaves today, we are talking about slaves of the past and whether they would still have been free without taking action to get free.

Do things happen on they own or must we force reality (universe, order, God) to change? That was the question.


Originally posted by oghamxx
Those who do not move do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg


That's not really saying much. Could it be that the same folks who voted to put them in the chains later realized that it was wrong and voted against it?


Maybe reality is a force that constitutes time. So therefor, time brings forth force in which 'cosmic' justice is inevitably a factor.

As we become more enlightened to the truths that may be deemed self evident, action is unavoidable... the cause is creation stemming from love, the effect is an evolving paradigm that invokes morality through empathy.

Those who do not move, are stagnate and susceptible to unwanted conditions. People are not stagnate, and progressive by nature, for innovation and communication creates an atmosphere of progressive thought.

It is the 'pursuit of happiness', we are never in a state of eternal bliss. Happiness is subjective and temporary, so there for always withers and incites revolutionary thinking. This is why there is a time limit to civilizations and means. Cause and Effect.

edit on 16-4-2012 by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS because: clarification



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Those who do not move, are stagnate and susceptible to unwanted conditions. People are not stagnate, and progressive by nature, for innovation and communication creates an atmosphere of progressive thought.


I'm no talking about taking "no action". I'm talking about, only taking loving actions. If you are a slave, choosing not to desert your slave master or to fight them. I'm talking about, if the slaves only focus on the positivity will the change happen on its own or will they have to take negative action of fighting in order to change it?

They say that universe or god will help you when you are loving and some say that you have to manipulate for change.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Those who do not move, are stagnate and susceptible to unwanted conditions. People are not stagnate, and progressive by nature, for innovation and communication creates an atmosphere of progressive thought.


I'm no talking about taking "no action". I'm talking about, only taking loving actions. If you are a slave, choosing not to desert your slave master or to fight them. I'm talking about, if the slaves only focus on the positivity will the change happen on its own or will they have to take negative action of fighting in order to change it?

They say that universe or god will help you when you are loving and some say that you have to manipulate for change.


Well...

Focusing on the positivity is the very thing I addressed. The notion of freedom, and instilling it was in fact a focus on the positivity of freedom. Which then gave premise towards actions of those who were the founding fathers.

A slave focusing on the positive.
I think I outlined fairly well that people and structure is never to remain the same, and always changes. In focusing on the positive, thoughts of applying morality to said change arises.

These thoughts don't just echo internally, but are then to manifest them into words. People don't just sit there and think, they also express their thoughts.

The very expressing of these thoughts then contributes to the newly designed structure that results from action.

It doesn't take a slave to take action in order to find freedom, it takes thought then action of those who are to lead the way towards freedom.

If you're talking, 'only taking loving action' does this then exclude any idea of 'killing in the name of love' and any notion of 'just war theory'? I don't care to get all theological about it, but...
Did god not find it necessary to take action, and 'kill' or 'destroy' people that were in opposition of his doctrine(something to that effect)?
Are we not to be considered to be an extension of God, for 'he' created all, and we are 'made' in his image?
So therefor our actions are to be justified through this reasoning in regards to 'killing in the name of love' as means of 'creating' a world of peace?
Was manifest destiny false in its assumption that the notion of such actions may ultimately become readily apparent, and regarded as inexorable?

This then becomes a very tricky subject, because... it involves what many have hypocritically called evil, in reference to the wars between religions.

So... to conclude these ramblings:

You have to define the parameters of 'taking loving action' and if it constitutes the killing of another. I personally think, that as we have evolved, we are coming closer to an age where enlightenment and reasoning can destroy desires and immoral means.
These questions are subject to the times in which they are asked.
If slaves only focus on positivity, and does not take action in which means the taking of a life(fighting)... yes I think that change will come. For the very reasons I outlined in my previous posts. The slaves won't necessarily be the individuals who bring forth this change. It is the 'heroes', aka founding fathers, in which lay the groundwork for this.
There is always someone with stronger influence fighting on your behalf, even if they don't present themselves readily in the limelight.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme



Originally posted by dayve
The slaves did fight....


He clearly said, "at least not in MY country". he's probably not talking about yours.


Then what country are we talking about? Next time CLARIFY... even tho the original post said America......and I happen to live in America....



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


No killing someone against their will is not an action of love, there is no love there for the one being killed against their will no matter how you reason it.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


i think you are misguided in believing that all beings human do not face the specter of slavery over their conscious. some people can work in america having good intentions and find a debt relationship similar to slavery that can not be solved by fighting within the system that supports their disenfranchisement.

since this in philosophy and metaphysics:
america being a blessed land but not the land promised to gods children (according to the creation of a state of israel?) but still being founded on the principles of god. the abolishment of slavery was eventual like some have said because irregardless of the blood and tears shed if jesus did transfigure certain "beyond human template" directives were mandated that may collide and not coincide with the reality of gods rays penetrating slavery being proper for man and mankind. yet humans in the reality of what america has attempted fail to fully perceive amongst most of its "citizens" is that abolisment means like striking from very law itself; to remove the very practice or rite that makes what that deed is capable. the abolishment of slavery has to do with orders of magnitudes that children of god who focus on themselves fail to realize its impact on the nature of gods expression regarding humanity. all that aside you have to constantly fight to know and be the free you you are because your weakness is your neighbors greatest strength; being black and being a black descendent of american slavery: i will add that trusting in your neighbor to uphold the ideals he purports does not mean you do not have to fight to exist surely not even in his own.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dayve

Originally posted by arpgme



Originally posted by dayve
The slaves did fight....


He clearly said, "at least not in MY country". he's probably not talking about yours.


Then what country are we talking about? Next time CLARIFY... even tho the original post said America......and I happen to live in America....


That's true. He didn't clarify what he (or she) meant. And yes, my original post was assuming America, which is why I thought the person wasn't talking about America when they said "not in MY country". But yeah, I don't know WHAT country this person was talking about.


Originally posted by Ausar
reply to post by arpgme
 


i think you are misguided in believing that all beings human do not face the specter of slavery over their conscious.


I didn't state my belief. I'm asking others for their opinion based on these two different ways of life.

If they didn't fight and take negative action against the slave masters, would they still be slaves or will it be the universe or destiny that will help them out of it? Or will they be forced in it until they take the negative action of war and fighting against the slave masters.

Is evil more powerful than good? Do you have to do evil against evil to destroy it or will destiny help those who only cling to what is good?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
The enslavement only changed form. You are still a slave, only your plantation is slightly bigger. In fact, prior to the civil war, far fewer people, per the percentage, were slaves then now. Every single thing you do is governed by a governing body. Not one thing you do, not one, is not controlled - that is enslavement.

As for "laws" these are not laws .First the "law of attraction" is a fallacy, as there is nothing outside you to attract. You PROJECT, you do not attract. The "law of attraction" is a psyop designed to keep people thinking the world exists outside them - nothing exists outside, as it is all inside. You can't go out into infinity, but you can go in to infinity.

The "law of allowance" while a quaint idea, is not anything more then a suggested definition for the equally poorly named "law of interference." In this case it is not possible, not unlawful, simply not possible to interfere with another. Freewill makes interfering with another not possible unless they agree - loads of people agree to scenarios without really understanding what they agree to.

Which leads us to slavery. In the end we are all choosing to be enslaved, we just don't know it.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


What exactly is "projected"? Other people? The sky? The sun?

If everything is projected, then how is there freewill? Can't you just change the projection into whatever you want?


If you are outside and it is about to rain and you have no umbrella, do you have the free-will to not get wet and still be able to travel home?

Do you have the free-will for your body to not absorb oxygen and still exist? Free-will for the heart to not beat but still be alive?

If someone puts a gun to your head and rob you, and say "give me your money or I will kill you" would you consider that free-will even though you had a choice?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


No killing someone against their will is not an action of love, there is no love there for the one being killed against their will no matter how you reason it.


What? where is the reasoning in that... not that I'm blind to it, but it seems to be very 'fanciful'.

Do people not exhibit free will when they decide to commit suicide?

Is the killing in defense of something that you love, done out of protection of self preservation, and the preservation of procreation?

Do people not exhibit free will, when they decide to continue acting in a fashion in which they know that it is putting themselves at risk of being killed?

If someone acknowledges that their free will is conducive towards opposing forces that inevitably will be the source of their demise, is that not in accordance with their will... especially when confronted with any notion of martyrdom?

Answer those in order... and now rethink your stance. Did it change? If not, why?



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


Do people not exhibit free will when they decide to commit suicide?


Yes, committing suicide is free-will.


Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
Is the killing in defense of something that you love, done out of protection of self preservation, and the preservation of procreation?


Yes.


Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
Do people not exhibit free will, when they decide to continue acting in a fashion in which they know that it is putting themselves at risk of being killed?


No, I agree with you here. It is indeed free-will if they know it will lead to them being killed and they keep doing it.



Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
If someone acknowledges that their free will is conducive towards opposing forces that inevitably will be the source of their demise, is that not in accordance with their will... especially when confronted with any notion of martyrdom?


No, it definitely is free-will I agree with you there.


Originally posted by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
and now rethink your stance. Did it change? If not, why?


No, it didn't change and here's why.

If a person commits suicide, they are doing it by their own free-will to their own body.

If you are killing in self-defense, then it is you versus them, one of you will die and you both KNOW what will happen and what circumstance you are agreeing to.

If a person is choosing to take an action which they KNOW will lead to their demise, then it is still free-will because they chose it.

But, if your WILL is to jump off of a building and fly and you don't know that gravity exists, you don't have the free-WILL to do that. You will fall and die against your will even though your intention was to fly.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join