The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[rikules]

Statue / monument of George Washington in Washington DC by Sculptor Horatio Greenough

The Apotheosis of Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The depict him becoming a god. Doesn't get much more explicit than that.

Doesn't get too much more explicit than that.

I get what you were saying now. Yes, that is over the top. However, here is a great link from a credible site that I think explains why Washington did what he did regarding slavery. In the end, people change their views and he obviously did regarding slavery. He was against it but felt that it would tear a nation apart that he was trying to bring together.
George Washington's Mount Vernon - George Washington and Slavery

George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate.
...
George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.

As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.

As I said, the focus was on establishing a free nation and making it stable. How could the slaves be completely freed until that was done?

How can any nation be a 'free nation' when there are slaves?

conservatives are very selfish people

they don't really care about YOUR freedom

they only care about their OWN.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs. That's exactly what the Consitution does. I see no harm in that.

Secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

I get what you were saying now. Yes, that is over the top. However, here is a great link from a credible site that I think explains why Washington did what he did regarding slavery. In the end, people change their views and he obviously did regarding slavery. He was against it but felt that it would tear a nation apart that he was trying to bring together.
George Washington's Mount Vernon - George Washington and Slavery
As I said, the focus was on establishing a free nation and making it stable. How could the slaves be completely freed until that was done?

How can any nation be a 'free nation' when there are slaves?

conservatives are very selfish people

they don't really care about YOUR freedom

they only care about their OWN.

bourgeois liberalism

 

[Christopher]

oh my god


is EVERY conservative completely ignorant of reality?

is there even 1 conservative that doesn't believe absolute lies and nonsense?

me: "our founding fathers accept slavery"

amazingly stupid and hatefilled conservative:
"Where is your proof that all the founders accepted slavery?


the proof, you amazingly stupid conservative, is in the fact that when our founding fathers created the good old USA slavery EXISTED!

there was NO QUESTION about it.



me again: "as does the christan god all through the bible"

moronicon response: "Again, where is your proof?"

leviticus:

thou can have slaves
thou can beat thy slaves almost to death
thou can sell thy daughter into slavery
thou can have sex with thy slaves


it's in leviticus.

what I want to know is; how can you believe so strongly in a bible when you don't even know what is in it?

"The lunacy is from those who take everything in the Bible literally and pretend there are no problems with misinterpretations in the Bible. "

interesting point

makes me wonder

have we misinterpreted gods stance on sex outside of marriage?
have we misinterpreted gods stance on homosexuals?

Read through my recent discussion here with Jbeukama. Perhaps then you'll understand my position more fully. Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions.

you wanted evidence that god condoned slavery

I provided it

it's in leviticus

stop denying reality

You need to understand that slavery in the Old Testament is different than what we think of slavery today, so once again the context matters. Slavery was based on social status and was not race-based. What the Bible does not do , which I think is what most people misinterpret as condoning slavery, is stand out openly against slavery. There is, however, one case of race-based slavery that God shows his displeasure for and that is regarding the story of the Hebrews that were enslaved by Egypt.

I tend to be skeptical of some things the Bible says, because I understand man has changed it over the years. I also know that we do not have all of the writings of the prophets over the years, nor all the words of Jesus in the Bible which could clarify things.

The other huge issue is that there are so many interpretations/versions of the Bible that can totally distort the meaning of scriptures.

The Jews were known for creating a rule/law for everything which I believe were not God-given (how many steps you can take on Sunday,et.) so while there may have been some laws in there that talk about what to do with slaves, I take it with a grain of salt.

A good test of whether something in the Old Testament is in accordance with Christian teachings is to turn to what Christ said in the New Testament. I would think he would be very much against slaves, as we define that word today.

 

[Christopher]

oh my god


is EVERY conservative completely ignorant of reality?

is there even 1 conservative that doesn't believe absolute lies and nonsense?

me: "our founding fathers accept slavery"

amazingly stupid and hatefilled conservative:
"Where is your proof that all the founders accepted slavery?


the proof, you amazingly stupid conservative, is in the fact that when our founding fathers created the good old USA slavery EXISTED!

there was NO QUESTION about it.



me again: "as does the christan god all through the bible"

moronicon response: "Again, where is your proof?"

leviticus:

thou can have slaves
thou can beat thy slaves almost to death
thou can sell thy daughter into slavery
thou can have sex with thy slaves


it's in leviticus.

what I want to know is; how can you believe so strongly in a bible when you don't even know what is in it?

"The lunacy is from those who take everything in the Bible literally and pretend there are no problems with misinterpretations in the Bible. "

interesting point

makes me wonder

have we misinterpreted gods stance on sex outside of marriage?
have we misinterpreted gods stance on homosexuals?

Read through my recent discussion here with Jbeukama. Perhaps then you'll understand my position more fully. Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions. I try to do research into scripture to find the actual context and meaning. It helps greatly to dispel the incorrect doctrines some have propagated in Christianity.

I respect you for that. What do you think of the dominionists?

Thanks. I do not know much of them. If I were you I would not worry about them. Some people take Bible's call to "preach to all the world" too far. I disagree with their view.

 

[Christopher]

Statue / monument of George Washington in Washington DC by Sculptor Horatio Greenough

The Apotheosis of Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The depict him becoming a god. Doesn't get much more explicit than that.

Doesn't get too much more explicit than that.

I get what you were saying now. Yes, that is over the top. However, here is a great link from a credible site that I think explains why Washington did what he did regarding slavery. In the end, people change their views and he obviously did regarding slavery. He was against it but felt that it would tear a nation apart that he was trying to bring together.
George Washington's Mount Vernon - George Washington and Slavery

George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate.
...
George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.

As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.

As I said, the focus was on establishing a free nation and making it stable. How could the slaves be completely freed until that was done?

By the time of the Constitution, we had been an independent nation for quite a few years....but your excuse for putting off freedom to a few million people is an interesting take on procrastination.

I trust Washington's judgment on what would have tore the nation apart at the time. The nation had to be stable before it could work out such an issue that would tear it apart.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Read through my recent discussion here with Jbeukama. Perhaps then you'll understand my position more fully. Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions. I try to do research into scripture to find the actual context and meaning. It helps greatly to dispel the incorrect doctrines some have propagated in Christianity.

I respect you for that. What do you think of the dominionists?

Thanks. I do not know much of them. If I were you I would not worry about them. Some people take Bible's call to "preach to all the world" too far. I disagree with their view.

Thanks. I'm glad you disagree with the dominionists. You should study them though. Otherwise they grow in power silently.

http://wikibin.org/articles/list-of-people-and-organizations-associated-with-dominionism.html

 

[rikules]

Read through my recent discussion here with Jbeukama. Perhaps then you'll understand my position more fully. Otherwise, you are jumping to conclusions.

you wanted evidence that god condoned slavery

I provided it

it's in leviticus

stop denying reality

You need to understand that slavery in the Old Testament is different than what we think of slavery today, so once again the context matters. Slavery was based on social status and was not race-based. What the Bible does not do , which I think is what most people misinterpret as condoning slavery, is stand out openly against slavery. There is, however, one case of race-based slavery that God shows his displeasure for and that is regarding the story of the Hebrews that were enslaved by Egypt.

I tend to be skeptical of some things the Bible says, because I understand man has changed it over the years. I also know that we do not have all of the writings of the prophets over the years, nor all the words of Jesus in the Bible which could clarify things.

The other huge issue is that there are so many interpretations/versions of the Bible that can totally distort the meaning of scriptures.

The Jews were known for creating a rule/law for everything which I believe were not God-given (how many steps you can take on Sunday,et.) so while there may have been some laws in there that talk about what to do with slaves, I take it with a grain of salt.

A good test of whether something in the Old Testament is in accordance with Christian teachings is to turn to what Christ said in the New Testament. I would think he would be very much against slaves, as we define that word today.

"You need to understand that slavery in the Old Testament is different than what we think of slavery today, so once again the context matters."

really?

god specifically says you can BEAT your slaves (almost to death, he says)
god says slaves are YOUR PROPERTY to do with as you please
god says you can sell your OWN DAUGHTER into slavery (well, that is different from conservative christian southern white slavery)
god says you can TAKE slaves from the nations around you
god says you can have sex with your slaves (what? sex with a person you are NOT married to?@!?!?!?!?)


" Slavery was based on social status and was not race-based."

so THAT form of slavery is ok as long as it isn't racial based?

do you have a daughter?

is she cute?


cuz...i've got a little money....

and god says it's a-ok with him....

 

[JBeukema]

Anyone else find it hilarious that they fought for freedom but freeing people would tear them apart?

 

[Christopher]

Statue / monument of George Washington in Washington DC by Sculptor Horatio Greenough

The Apotheosis of Washington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The depict him becoming a god. Doesn't get much more explicit than that.

Doesn't get too much more explicit than that.

I get what you were saying now. Yes, that is over the top. However, here is a great link from a credible site that I think explains why Washington did what he did regarding slavery. In the end, people change their views and he obviously did regarding slavery. He was against it but felt that it would tear a nation apart that he was trying to bring together.
George Washington's Mount Vernon - George Washington and Slavery

George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate.
...
George Washington's attitude toward slavery changed as he grew older. During the Revolution, as he and fellow patriots strove for liberty, Washington became increasingly conscious of the contradiction between this struggle and the system of slavery. By the time of his presidency, he seems to have believed that slavery was wrong and against the principles of the new nation.

As President, Washington did not lead a public fight against slavery, however, because he believed it would tear the new nation apart. Abolition had many opponents, especially in the South. Washington seems to have feared that if he took such a public stand, the southern states would withdraw from the Union (something they would do seventy years later, leading to the Civil War). He had worked too hard to build the country to risk tearing it apart.

Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.

As I said, the focus was on establishing a free nation and making it stable. How could the slaves be completely freed until that was done?

How can any nation be a 'free nation' when there are slaves?

We were not a completely STABLE free nation, that is the point. Like I said to boedica I trust Washington's judgment. He lived during that time, knew how to best run the country and what would tear it apart. He also knew that slavery needed to be abolished.

 

[rikules]

I get what you were saying now. Yes, that is over the top. However, here is a great link from a credible site that I think explains why Washington did what he did regarding slavery. In the end, people change their views and he obviously did regarding slavery. He was against it but felt that it would tear a nation apart that he was trying to bring together.
George Washington's Mount Vernon - George Washington and Slavery
As I said, the focus was on establishing a free nation and making it stable. How could the slaves be completely freed until that was done?

How can any nation be a 'free nation' when there are slaves?

We were not a completely STABLE free nation, that is the point. Like I said to boedica I trust Washington's judgment. He lived during that time, knew how to best run the country and what would tear it apart. He also knew that slavery needed to be abolished.

I see

so 1 christian knew that ALL of the REST of the christians would TEAR THE COUNTRY APART if their GOD-GIVEN rigth to enslave blacks was taken from them.

interesting

 

[JBeukema]

Is a 'completely stable nation' even a possibility so long as people are individuals?


Even today we've got a bunch of wingnuts talking about a revolution because we have a black president, a bunch of ******* talking about killing whitey to get freedom they already have, far-leftistists talking about nationalizing the economy...

 

[Christopher]

Anyone else find it hilarious that they fought for freedom but freeing people would tear them apart?

When you understand their predicament more fully, it is not so hilarious and actually makes sense. Phasing out anything that has been so entrenched in society is always difficult.

 

[Christopher]

How can any nation be a 'free nation' when there are slaves?

We were not a completely STABLE free nation, that is the point. Like I said to boedica I trust Washington's judgment. He lived during that time, knew how to best run the country and what would tear it apart. He also knew that slavery needed to be abolished.

I see

so 1 christian knew that ALL of the REST of the christians would TEAR THE COUNTRY APART if their GOD-GIVEN rigth to enslave blacks was taken from them.

interesting

When did I ever say 1 Christian? Do you consistently twist other's words?

 

[JBeukema]

Anyone else find it hilarious that they fought for freedom but freeing people would tear them apart?

When you understand their predicament more fully, it is not so hilarious and actually makes sense. Phasing out anything that has been so entrenched in society is always difficult.

We hold these truths to self-evident, that all White landed gentry are created equal in their prosperous birth, and are bestowed by their wealth with certain inalienable privileges of prestige, that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and chattel...

 

[rikules]

Anyone else find it hilarious that they fought for freedom but freeing people would tear them apart?

When you understand their predicament more fully, it is not so hilarious and actually makes sense. Phasing out anything that has been so entrenched in society is always difficult.

I am always appalled that so many conservatives wil

1. WHINE and COMPLAIN about LIBERALS TRYING TO ENSLAVE them

and then turn around and calmly, rationally, expain to us how

a. christian slavery (as in the bible) really wasn't so bad
and
b. ending slavery for blacks coudn't be done overnight....it took a LOOOOOOOOOONG time to convince conservative christians that slavery (the kind that god condones in the bible) probably wasn't such a good thing


look
when we liberals try to enslave you
trust us
it will be MUCH MORE like the christian version of slavery

so
it won't be that bad

 

[Christopher]

Is a 'completely stable nation' even a possibility so long as people are individuals?


Even today we've got a bunch of wingnuts talking about a revolution because we have a black president, a bunch of ******* talking about killing whitey to get freedom they already have, far-leftistists talking about nationalizing the economy...

We could argue what is meant by "completely stable nation". What I meant was that change of any kind takes time and the country was still going through significant changes. Yes, the Constitution was there, however, a piece of paper does not change everyone's thinking overnight. People almost always take some time to change and adapt.

Yes, we have winguts on both sides today. Those talking about a revolution because of a black president have zero chance of making headway in my view.

 

[rikules]

We were not a completely STABLE free nation, that is the point. Like I said to boedica I trust Washington's judgment. He lived during that time, knew how to best run the country and what would tear it apart. He also knew that slavery needed to be abolished.

I see

so 1 christian knew that ALL of the REST of the christians would TEAR THE COUNTRY APART if their GOD-GIVEN rigth to enslave blacks was taken from them.

interesting

When did I ever say 1 Christian? Do you consistently twist other's words?

No
I consistantly define what you really mean

you mentioned washington....
that is ONE christian

perhaps there were 3 or 4 like him

but, as you yourself pointed out...he/they could do NOTHING to end slavery because there were TOO MANY WHITE CHRISTIANS who believe in slavery as a god-given right

 

[bodecea]

I get what you were saying now. Yes, that is over the top. However, here is a great link from a credible site that I think explains why Washington did what he did regarding slavery. In the end, people change their views and he obviously did regarding slavery. He was against it but felt that it would tear a nation apart that he was trying to bring together.
George Washington's Mount Vernon - George Washington and Slavery
As I said, the focus was on establishing a free nation and making it stable. How could the slaves be completely freed until that was done?

How can any nation be a 'free nation' when there are slaves?

We were not a completely STABLE free nation, that is the point. Like I said to boedica I trust Washington's judgment. He lived during that time, knew how to best run the country and what would tear it apart. He also knew that slavery needed to be abolished.

Where oh where did Washington say that slavery needed to be abolished? BTW, Washington did not do his wife any favors with his will....did you know after he died, she locked herself in the attic bedroom for a few days because there were a few hundred slaves with vested interest in her falling down some stairs.

 

[Christopher]

Anyone else find it hilarious that they fought for freedom but freeing people would tear them apart?

When you understand their predicament more fully, it is not so hilarious and actually makes sense. Phasing out anything that has been so entrenched in society is always difficult.

We hold these truths to self-evident, that all White landed gentry are created equal in their prosperous birth, and are bestowed by their wealth with certain inalienable privileges of prestige, that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and chattel...

Please explain how you would have done things differently back then. After that, please explain how you would know better than they on how to abolish slavery.