Do you think Americans have lost their way?

[makoshrk2]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2984833
How can one be afraid of something that only "weak-minded" people believe in. You obviously don't believe in God, so how can you fear religion. If people in politics all lie, what is to be feared?
I'm not afraid of religion per se. I'm afraid of what it does to people, and what it causes on a grand scale. If scientology was thought of 2000 yrs. ago everybody would belive in that. Show me proof of god and I'll believe, and I'm not talking about a pic. of Jesus or the virgin Mary on a burnt piece of toast.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by makoshrk2
http:///forum/post/2985193
I'm afraid of what it does to people, and what it causes on a grand scale.
There are many, many examples of faith leading people to do great deeds of selflessness. All faith, not just Christianity. Devout people are among the most generous, selfless in the world...regardless of religion.
Being that faith is belief in something that cannot necessarily be proven, you will have to hash this out for yourself. I know for a fact that I am a better person than I was without Jesus Christ. I cannot be convinced otherwise and people that know me see the difference. This is a personal journey that everyone must explore on their own. If you choose not to go there, that is your choice.

 

[makoshrk2]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2985215
There are many, many examples of faith leading people to do great deeds of selflessness. All faith, not just Christianity. Devout people are among the most generous, selfless in the world...regardless of religion.
Being that faith is belief in something that cannot necessarily be proven, you will have to hash this out for yourself. I know for a fact that I am a better person than I was without Jesus Christ. I cannot be convinced otherwise and people that know me see the difference. This is a personal journey that everyone must explore on their own. If you choose not to go there, that is your choice.
This is true. There is good people and bad people in all faiths. It's just ashame when people from any religion go to the extreme and try to project their beliefs on the rest of the world. If it makes you a better person, more power to ya. I think religion is probably good for people that are lost in their life. It gives you something to believe in even if it is a made up story. I believe more in evolution, it's a little more scientifically believable.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by makoshrk2
http:///forum/post/2985284
This is true. There is good people and bad people in all faiths. It's just ashame when people from any religion go to the extreme and try to project their beliefs on the rest of the world. If it makes you a better person, more power to ya. I think religion is probably good for people that are lost in their life. It gives you something to believe in even if it is a made up story. I believe more in evolution, it's a little more scientifically believable.
I wouldnt call myself Religious more spiritual and have a strong belief in GOD.
Evolution is a theory that cant be proven much like Faith.One of the greatest gifts this country has to offer is the freedom to choose.It is a big part of what our forefathers had in mind when writing the US Constitution.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by makoshrk2
http:///forum/post/2985284
It gives you something to believe in even if it is a made up story.
While you are entiled to this opinion, I strongly disagree that Christianity is "made up" as you put it.
Originally Posted by makoshrk2
http:///forum/post/2985284
I believe more in evolution, it's a little more scientifically believable.
IMO, it takes FAR more faith to believe that life evolved from nothing without God's that with God.

 

[makoshrk2]

Agreed. I am not an atheist either. I don't like these nut jobs that think the word "god" needs to be taken out of every document or public display either. Everyone just needs to mind there own damn business. I"m done talking about this, my brain is starting to smoke

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by makoshrk2
http:///forum/post/2985193
I'm not afraid of religion per se. I'm afraid of what it does to people, and what it causes on a grand scale. If scientology was thought of 2000 yrs. ago everybody would belive in that. Show me proof of god and I'll believe, and I'm not talking about a pic. of Jesus or the virgin Mary on a burnt piece of toast.
I cant show you air but i know its there Ye of very little Faith .

Faith by definition is a belief in something that cant be proven,I cant show it to you but I can feel it.

 

[acrylics]

Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2983874
Its called progress.
When I read this, I remembered an old essay I read some years ago. It's a little long so I broke it up into 2 segments. I hope you all enjoy it and rememember it was written over 50 years ago, much has changed since then - an not all of it for the better. But, alas, some call it progress.
Mario Pei, now deceased, was Professor of Romance Philology at Columbia University.
This essay appeared in the Saturday Evening Post of May 31, 1952, and was republished by the Foundation later that year.
When I first came to America in 1908, I learned a new meaning of the word “liberty”—freedom from government.
I did not learn a new meaning for “democracy.” The European country from which I came, Italy, was at that time as “democratic” as America. It was a constitutional monarchy, with a parliament, free and frequent elections, lots of political parties, and plenty of freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly.
But my native country was government-ridden. A vast bureaucracy held it in its countless tentacles. Regardless of the party or coalition of parties that might be in power at the moment, the government was everywhere. Wherever one looked, one saw signs of the ever-present government—in the uniforms of numberless royal, rural, and municipal policemen, soldiers, officers, gold-braided functionaries of all sorts. You could not take a step without government intervention.
Many industries and businesses were government-owned and government-run—railroads, telegraphs, salt, and tobacco among them. No agreement, however trivial, was legal unless written on government-stamped paper. If you stepped out of the city into the country and came back with a ham, a loaf of bread, or a bottle of wine, you had to stop at the internal-revenue barriers and pay duty to the government, and so did the farmers who brought in the city’s food supply every morning. No business could be started or run without the official sanction of a hundred bureaucrats.
Young people did not dream of going into business for themselves; they dreamed of a modest but safe government job where they would have tenure, security, and a pitiful pension at the end of their plodding careers. There was grinding taxation to support the many government functions and the innumerable public servants. Everybody hated the government—not just the party in power, but the government itself. They had even coined a phrase, “It’s pouring—thief of a government!” as though even the evils of nature were the government’s fault. Yet, I repeat, the country was democratically run, with all the trappings of a many-party system and all the freedoms of which we in America boast today...
End pt 1

 

[acrylics]

Begin pt 2
Freedom from Government
America in those days made you open your lungs wide and inhale great gulps of freedom-laden air, for here was one additional freedom—freedom from government.
The government was conspicuous by its very absence. There were no men in uniform, save occasional cops and firemen, no visible bureaucrats, no stifling restrictions, no government monopolies. It was wonderful to get used to the American system: To learn that a contract was valid if written on the side of a house; that you could move not only from the city to the country but from state to state and never be asked what your business was or whether you had anything to declare; that you could open and conduct your own business, provided it was a legitimate one, without government interference; that you could go from one end of the year to the other and never have contact with the national government, save for the cheery postman who delivered your mail with a speed and efficiency unknown today; that there were no national taxes, save hidden excises and import duties that you did not even know you paid.
In that horse-and-buggy America, if you made an honest dollar, you could pocket it or spend it without having to figure what portion of it you owed the government or what possible deductions you could allege against that government’s claims. You did not have to keep books and records of every bit of income and expenditure or run the risk of being called a liar and a cheat by someone in authority.
Above all, the national ideal was not the obscure security of a government job, but the boundless opportunity that all Americans seemed to consider their birthright. Those same Americans loved their government then. It was there to help, protect, and defend them, not to restrict, befuddle, and harass them. At the same time, they did not look to the government for a livelihood or for special privileges and handouts. They were independent men in the full sense of the word.
Foreign-born citizens have been watching with alarm the gradual Europeanization of America over the past twenty years. They have seen the growth of the familiar European-style government octopus, along with the vanishing of the American spirit of freedom and opportunity and its replacement by a breathless search for “security” that is doomed to defeat in advance in a world where nothing, not even life itself, is secure.
Far more than the native-born, they are in a position to make comparisons. They see that America is fast becoming a nineteenth-century-model European country. They are asked to believe that this is progress. But they know from bitter experience that it just isn’t so.

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2984498
BALONEY!!
Whipping posts were used for control. Slaves (in the US) were not allowed to read. Teaching a slave to read was against the law.
One of the largest Christian movements in history was in Africa. The Ethiopian Church remains one of the largest denominations of Christianity in the world.
I don't mind waiting until tomorrow for scripture supporting your opinion.
I found something on the United States Dept Of State website...
"Over time, increasing numbers of African-American slaves embraced Christianity, typically denominations like Baptist and Methodist that prevailed among white southerners. Some masters feared that Christian tenets would undermine their justifications for slavery, but others encouraged their slaves to attend church, although in a separate, “blacks-only” section."
Ok, first, yes it was illegal for slaves to read, if they read they would realize that they weren't animals as they were being told.
Second, Africans were the ones who sold other Africans to the "white man" in the slave trade. Yes, in select instances Europeans just took slaves, but the Africans themselves held slaves and they started "making" gold by selling their slaves to Europeans.
And as far as the State Dept., how often do you say things that make you look bad?
I haven't looked up the passages in my bibles (yes I have more than one version, Catholic, King James, New International, etc., to see what was altered and taken out and the drastically varying interpretations....), but just off google I can tell you to look up:
Eph 6: 5-6 & 1Peter 2: 18-29. Of course, again, the exact interpretation is going to vary depending on what bible you look in. I need to learn Hebrew to see what these books really say....
But, this quote by Jefferson Davis pretty much sums it up:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2985778
Ok, first, yes it was illegal for slaves to read, if they read they would realize that they weren't animals as they were being told.
Second, Africans were the ones who sold other Africans to the "white man" in the slave trade. Yes, in select instances Europeans just took slaves, but the Africans themselves held slaves and they started "making" gold by selling their slaves to Europeans.
And as far as the State Dept., how often do you say things that make you look bad?
I haven't looked up the passages in my bibles (yes I have more than one version, Catholic, King James, New International, etc., to see what was altered and taken out and the drastically varying interpretations....), but just off google I can tell you to look up:
Eph 6: 5-6 & 1Peter 2: 18-29. Of course, again, the exact interpretation is going to vary depending on what bible you look in. I need to learn Hebrew to see what these books really say....
But, this quote by Jefferson Davis pretty much sums it up:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
And thus Jefferson Davis directly contradicted the declaration of independence...
Scripturally I don't think it is condoned. It is discussed as a fact of life at that time...
But come on quoting Jefferson Davis as an impartial commentator on the subject is like quoting al gore on global warming. They BOTH had an agenda.

 

[socal57che]

Um...ever heard of Moses. He led these slaves known as Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt...LED BY ALMIGHTY GOD HIMSELF. I think that sends a pretty clear statement.
In Judea slaves were to be set free after 7 years regardless of whether they paid their debt.
I have the Hebrew Interlinear Bible. Which verses were they again? Oh those are from Ephesians and 1st Peter. The New Testament was not written in Hebrew. It was mostly Greek and a little Aramaic. Hebrew won't help us here.
So...Ephesians Chapter 6...
1Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
3That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
4And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
5Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
6Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
7With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
8Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
9And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Speaking of bondage, this passage also warns the master that God is watching, signified by Master being capitalized.
Servants described here were in bondage to pay a debt. They were not kidnapped and transported to America to work for free on plantations.
I also have this in the original Greek, but my keyboard is unable to duplicate the characters.
1st Peter Chapter 2 discusses being submissive to government and the laws of the land. Not from a standpoint of a slave to men, but as a servant of God. I fail to see where 1 Peter 2 supports your claim.
Here is a quick and easy to use reference...
http://www.biblegateway.com
Old Testament in Hebrew...
http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/

 

[socal57che]

"The Bible and Slavery
The Bible teaches that slavery, in one form or another (including spiritual, mental, and physical), is always the fruit of disobedience to God and His law/word. (This is not to say that the enslavement of any one person, or group of people, is due to their sin, for many have been enslaved unjustly, like Joseph and numerous Christians throughout history.) Personal and civil liberty is the result of applying the truth of the Scriptures. As a person or nation more fully applies the principles of Christianity, there will be increasing freedom in every realm of life. Sanctification for a person, or nation, is a gradual process. The fruit of changed thinking and action, which comes from rooting sin out of our lives, may take time to see. This certainly applies historically in removing slavery from the Christian world.
Slavery is a product of the fall of man and has existed in the world since that time. Slavery was not a part of God's original created order, and as God's created order has gradually been re-established since the time of Christ, slavery has gradually been eliminated. Christian nations (those based upon Biblical principles) have led the way in the abolition of slavery. America was at the forefront of this fight. After independence, great steps were taken down the path of ending slavery - probably more than had been done by any other nation up until that time in history (though certainly more could have been done). Many who had settled in America had already been moving toward these ends. Unfortunately, the generations following the Founders did not continue to move forward in a united fashion. A great conflict was the outcome of this failure.
When God gave the law to Moses, slavery was a part of the world, and so the law of God recognized slavery. But this does not mean that slavery was God's original intention. The law of Moses was given to fallen man. Some of the ordinances deal with things not intended for the original creation order, such as slavery and divorce. These will be eliminated completely only when sin is eliminated from the earth. God's laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved. God desires all men and nations to be liberated. This begins internally and will be manifested externally to the extent internal change occurs. The Biblical slave laws reflect God's redemptive desire, for men and nations."

 

[socal57che]

"Involuntary Servitude is Not Biblical
Exodus 21:16 says: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 24:7 states: “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”
Kidnapping and enforced slavery are forbidden and punishable by death. This was true for any man (Ex. 21:16), as well as for the Israelites (Deut. 24:7). This was stealing a man's freedom. While aspects of slavery are Biblical (for punishment and restitution for theft, or for those who prefer the security of becoming a permanent bondservant), the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude.
Any slave that ran away from his master (thus expressing his desire for freedom) was to be welcomed by the Israelites, not mistreated, and not returned. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 states:
You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your towns where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.
This implied slaves must be treated justly, plus they had a degree of liberty. Other slave laws confirm this. In addition, such action was a fulfillment of the law of love in both the Old and New Testaments. The law of God declares: “. . . you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:17-18). Leviticus 19:33-34 clearly reveals that this applies to strangers and aliens as well: “The stranger, . . . you shall not do him wrong.. . . . you shall love him as yourself.”
It was forbidden to take the life or liberty of any other man. Rushdoony writes:
Thus, the only kind of slavery permitted is voluntary slavery, as Deuteronomy 23:15,16 makes very clear. Biblical law permits voluntary slavery because it recognizes that some people are not able to maintain a position of independence. To attach themselves voluntarily to a capable man and to serve him, protected by law, is thus a legitimate way of life, although a lesser one. The master then assumes the role of the benefactor, the bestower of welfare, rather that the state, and the slave is protected by the law of the state. A runaway slave thus cannot be restored to his master: he is free to go. The exception is the thief or criminal who is working out his restitution. The Code of Hammurabi decreed death for men who harbored a runaway slave; the Biblical law provided for the freedom of the slave. 2
Rushdoony also says that the selling of slaves was forbidden. Since Israelites were voluntary slaves, and since not even a foreign slave could be compelled to return to his master (Deut. 23:15, 16), slavery was on a different basis under the law than in non-Biblical cultures. The slave was a member of the household, with rights therein. A slave-market could not exist in Israel. The slave who was working out a restitution for theft had no incentive to escape, for to do so would make him an incorrigible criminal and liable to death. 3
When slaves (indentured servants) were acquired under the law, it was their labor that was purchased, not their person, and the price took into account the year of freedom (Lev. 25:44-55; Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12-13)."

 

[sickboy]

Maybe I should clarify....I don't believe the bible is ok with slavery, I was just saying that early interpretation in this country was a tool used to justify the practice....

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2985942
Maybe I should clarify....I don't believe the bible is ok with slavery, I was just saying that early interpretation in this country was a tool used to justify the practice....
Well people can twist everything...

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2986000
Well people can twist everything...

I suppose it's like people using tragic murders to strip people of their 2nd amendment rights. Some people are just blind to the obvious. Keep the people scared and they are easier to control.
Some may have twisted the Bible to fit their needs and I feel these people pay the ultimate price when they die. People take the words of the Bible out of context daily in order to try to disprove it. You can find someone in any situation that will use a document they clearly do not follow to suppress others. People are trying to use the Constitution to strip God from Gov't and classrooms when there is clear evidence in historic writings that reinforce the fact that God was at it's foundation.
Some slave owners would use any means necessary to try to hold on to their free labor. This doesn't mean they should be quoted as an authority on what the Bible teaches because they took a few verses out of context and spewed it into the history books. Use of a Bible that they do not follow strips them of any credibility.