How good is good enough to get to Heaven?

[Madhuri]

You know Robin, you probably don't realise how offensive you are being. You are making claims about the superiority of Christian civilisations and the intellectual output from those nations. I'm not sure if you are aware that non-Christians see this as being a result of the fact that Christians went around the world killing and enslaving, forcing people to become Christian and taking their wealth.

What you are telling me is not very different in its insensitivity than if you were to accuse Native Americans of having produced little social and technological achievement because 'their religion is inferior'.

 

[Sumit]

That was not a comment that was in the context of a Forum. I asked for anyone to produce an enlightened individual in any context. It is always someone else. I have done this or noticed this in every context by which theology is commonly researched.
Yes, however before I get into it Hinduism claimed to supply this first so they must explain it first.
No thanks it takes too many shots to visit these places and third world living conditions in most.

That is very convenient. No other major religion on Earth can supply evidence for miracles as the Bible does and so their most spirited efforts to reduce the impact of any evidence is substituted instead. Let's instead examine it from a view point we can all observe. Why have most of Earth's most advanced cultures in the last 2000 years been Christian? Look at a list of top scientists, doctors, inventions, or economics. As little as 100 years ago a single man eating Tiger would paralyze an entire Indian region with abject superstitious fear. More than not a Christian by the name of Corbett was called in to take care of the problem. Any religion claiming to be divine should not produce this abject level of dysfunction. BTW the man eating problem in India was caused primarily because of Hindu burial customs.
You actually considered that statement worthy of that emoticon. Now that deserves an emoticon. Since you obviously didn't know, the reason they abandoned Hinduism in droves even though the Protégées missionaries were horrible is because Hinduism locks people in caste systems at the bottom with no possible way out. Christianity frees the captives, cures the sick, saves the lost, makes men equal, gives sanctity to human life, and produces intellectual breakthroughs that outstrip any other religion by far. Hinduism enslaves the poor and apparently produces unjustified emoticon use.

A frog lived in a well. It had lived there for a long time. It was born there and brought up there, and yet was a little, small frog. Well, one day another frog that had lived in the sea came and fell into the well.
"Where are you from?"
"I am from the sea."
"The sea! How big is that? Is it as big as my well?" and he took a leap from one side of the well to the other.
"My friend," said the frog of the sea, "how do you compare the sea with your little well?"
Then the frog took another leap and asked, "Is your sea so big?"
"What nonsense you speak, to compare the sea with your well!"
"Well, then," said the frog of the well, "nothing can be bigger than my well; there can be nothing bigger than this; this fellow is a liar, so turn him out!!!"
:beach:

Where are the Hindu Newtons, Pascals, Faradays, Sandages, Maxwells, Galileos, Davincis, Keplers, Bacons, Descartes, Boyles, Mendels, Kelvin, Plancks, etc adinfinitum?

Aryabhata, Charaka, Baudhayana, Jagdish Chandra Bashu, CV Raman, Katyayana, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and the list go long. Don't you remember what Einstein said- "We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made."

 

[1robin]

Don't you realize that this is all about context and nothing to do with religion?

You mention the caste system. The caste system is a cultural paradigm that should not exist if Hinduism today were based purely on scripture. I doubt that the caste system will survive many more generations within Hinduism. But Hinduism cannot be harmed by the extinction of the caste system, since the caste system is not Vedic.

Well I am certainly not an expert and have not been to India. However both the great philosopher Ravi Zacharias and the famous Reagan speech writer and PhD Dinesh Desouza are experts on Hinduism and attribute the caste system to Hinduism. Hinduism is so diverse that what you call Hinduism is probably one of a thousand other Hinduisms. The one you have in mind may or may not create a caste system but others may very well do so. In a pluralistic nation that may have millions of Gods it is kind of hard to nail down what version is valid.

You say that Christianity does so many wonderful things. But there have been times when it did not. There have been times where Christians have done truly horrendous things (created captives and killed people off who weren't Christian). But I do not say that these acts are representative of Christianity, because they have no basing in the scripture just like caste system has no basing in scripture.

You are absolutely right. It was Christians or those claiming to be such that did many horrible things. However you will not find justification for them in our Bible. I will give on very famous example and who did what. In the 16th through the 19th century a few thousand Christians owned slaves in the Southern US. They treated them terribly in many cases. In this most famous case of slavery, a few Christians owned slaves but 300,000 Christians died to free them. It was the Africans who enslaved their own people and then sold them to the English. Who did the slaves look to for deliverance. Hinduism? No, their own shamanism? No, Islam? No. They looked to God all mighty of Bible fame to deliver them and it was his children that freed them. The man who made the first violent attack on slavery was a minister (John Brown), and it was a world famous Christian (Abraham Lincoln) that had more to do with their being free than any other man. Only the Biblical God made men equal and gave all human life dignity and sanctity. This is a microcosm of Christianity in general, a few do very bad things but many the greatest things in history are done by the greater numbers of great Christians. Which nations (Islamic, Hindu, atheist, or Christian) are the first on the scene when famine and tragedy strike somewhere in the world.

If Hindus were today to follow their scriptures properly, they too would put their energy into helping others by all means.

Then unlike what I described above have they not.

Do you know that India was once very wealthy?

Tell me what it is you’re thinking of and I can evaluate it. India's history is long and there have been times of prosperity but I do not remember any in recent history.

Then it was invaded and pillaged by first Muslims and then Christians.

Muslims came up from within India in recent history and lived at peace until Gandhi came along. Are you referring to another time? Christians did not invade India the English army did (In a way). India had many countries garrisons within their borders to stop trade disputes. India fractured it's self into warring regions who decimated each other to the point India was in Chaos. Britain through greed and to establish stability simply stepped up and took control and made a backwards and volatile nation whole and civilized again. Britain ruled the Indians many times unjustly but did provide a peace and security and economy that more than made up for it. Gandhi came along and eventually they drove the British to leave and India went right back to tribal warfare. This time between Hindu's and Muslims. There was greed but civility and security from the western influence on India. There was disease, constant war, a fractured country and starvation without them.

India, and the Hindus, became very poor. How do you expect very poor people to manage to do great things in the world and become amazing scientists? Thank you Muslims and Christians for putting us in our place...and thank you so much Robin, for bringing up this issue.

The US started out infinitely poorer than India has been in a thousand years. With 1 person for every thousand India has and in a country that was 90% wilderness and at war with a thousand Indian tribes (native American) and the greatest power on Earth (Britain). However as Christians we overcame these issues to become the greatest nation in human history which since abandoning God somewhat are currently in decline, but still a hundred times stronger and greater than what the Hindus produced in India given far better circumstances. God and his children have been persecuted by the greatest empires in history. Did they say how unfair it was, no, they converted the great empires that were hunting them down into even greater (and newly Christian) empires.


Your blaming everyone else for India’s troubles reminds me of a movie called life of Brian. It was about 1st century Israel and a group that wanted to kick the Romans out of Israel. The leader held a meeting and was whipping the crowd into shape by saying what have the Romans ever done for them. Someone said "roads" he said "well ok roads but what else have they ever done" another guy said "school". He said "Ok but besides schools what have the Romans ever done for them". Another said "sanitation", and another "security", and another "protection", and another "justice system" and so on and so on. He said " well ok, besides roads, schools, protection, trade, sanitation, and a massive justice system, and on and on, what have the Romans ever done for them" People are too quick to claim victimhood and blame their problems of others. Christianity in the US triumphed in spite of it's far worse problems to excel. That is what I would expect a true religion to do. I would expect a false one to sit in the mud and yell how unfair everyone has treated them. The greatest empire in human history was by a tiny Christian nation the size of one of your mountain ranges.

 

[1robin]

The biggest difference between Christians and Hindus is that Hindus are not obsessed with ramming their religion down people's throats. Hindus are very chill in this regard. If I'm not rushing to throw you my evidence, it's because I truly don't think it worthwhile. This is very different from saying that we lack evidence. But if you actually have any interest in the religion, which I doubt you do, then please feel free to study it yourself.

That is a liability not an asset. We have found a true way to remake the connection that was broken by sin and have been willing to risk and suffer death, disease, poverty, misery, and oppression to give it to others. No benevolent God or message would be held back from the world. That only happens in manmade regional theological systems. Christians have many times gone about this very badly but the principle is noble and valid. I however and 90% of Christians do little evangelism. I like and see a need to defend the Bible but feel no compulsion to force anything on anyone. Christianity can't be forced. The only known example of a secular conquest being stopped based on this theological principle was done by Catholics in the Americas. In general Christianity has made where ever it's practiced better. It took a nation of people (S America and Mexico) who cut hearts out of thousands of people a day and made them into a united civilized world power. It took another nation (North America) composed of roving tribes who constantly fought each other and practiced witchcraft and turned it into the greatest nation in human history.

Hindu burial customs? Most Hindu cremate...

Not sure what you are talking about here.

I do not know the ration but in 1905 and there about they placed the dead in some ceremonial spot and left them unburied. A wounded tiger that could no longer catch prey and was starving would find these bodies and learn to like human flesh. They would go on to learn to hunt people. The abject poverty and lack of communication and technology as well as superstition left entire regions at the mercy of these animals and they killed tens of thousands until the Christian Col Corbett or some other terrible British person killed them. Even with the bad things England did in India they were far better of when Britain controlled them. Let me add I am not blind or unwilling to admit Christianity’s failures as we are but men but in general the world in infinitely better off because of it. In a letter the great G.K Chesterton pointed this out. The letter read what is wrong with the world. His response “I am” sincerely GK. Christians like all others are sinful but unlike many we admit it and are heading in the right direction and do far more good than bad along the way.

 

[Reverend Rick]

This thread is supposed to be about going to heaven not comparing each other's religions, bragging about their accomplishments, or shining a light on the imperfections of other's religions.

 

[1robin]

You know Robin, you probably don't realize how offensive you are being.

I do not think about it too much. I tailor my claims to be less offensive than they could be but the issues being discussed deserve facts. Flattering or not and political correctness is a great evil that favors preference over truth and I will not abide it. I attempt to only give truth but never insult anyone for it's own sake. I do the exact same with Christianity’s checkered past.

You are making claims about the superiority of Christian civilizations and the intellectual output from those nations. I'm not sure if you are aware that non-Christians see this as being a result of the fact that Christians went around the world killing and enslaving, forcing people to become Christian and taking their wealth.

Even if true (and it is not in any general sense) this would not produce intellectual superiority. I think you are completely missing all my points about this nation (the US being the most Christian on Earth) being the only one that when attacked defeats it's enemies and then goes on the rebuild their countries from the devastation their own actions resulted in. India did not rebuild a nation (like Germany or Japan for example) that attacked them like we did. Our soldiers have died in a hundred nations helping others maintain their own freedom. The US with all it's problems has constantly helped others including those hostile to us. There is no parallel in Hinduism nor any other culture.

What you are telling me is not very different in its insensitivity than if you were to accuse Native Americans of having produced little social and technological achievement because 'their religion is inferior'.

The truth suppressed in the name of sensitivity has caused far more damage than the truth its self ever has. Boy you picked the wrong issue. I am a Native American (1/4 Cherokee). Indians did very little to add to anything except ignorance and bloodshed. I spent my childhood being drug around to Indian museums and sites by my 1/2 Cherokee mother. I researched their history in depth. It is one long sad tale of Indian on Indian violence, ignorance, witchcraft, poverty, disunity, and oppression. All those horse culture tribes in the Midwest (the classic TV Indians) all lived on land they took from their peaceful agricultural Indian neighbors a few years before Europens came. The same with the other "classic Indians" in the south west. They were absolutely no different than armed gangs that killed for pleasure and status many times. They massacred hundreds of peaceful tribes and stole their land. Whites came along and instead of simply killing them offered them all kinds of stuff for the land. The Indians responded by raiding and killing women and children so whites took the land. However unlike the Indians did for their Indian brothers the Europeans gave them a lot of money for it in many cases. Of course there are exceptions on both sides and at times the whites were just as bad but even with the atrocities, look what Christians did with the land they stole from the ones who stole it from other Indians. I hope you challenge this as the PC view of this taught by liberals is garbage and it needs to be seen for what it was. Your Indians have done much more noble things that my Indians have in general.

 

[Straw Dog]

There could be people in heaven completely miserable because they do not know how to appreciate that which they have and there could be people in hell full of joy and compassion helping suffering people even while they themselves are suffering. Where ever you go, there you are.

 

[1robin]

A frog lived in a well. It had lived there for a long time. It was born there and brought up there, and yet was a little, small frog. Well, one day another frog that had lived in the sea came and fell into the well.
"Where are you from?"
"I am from the sea."
"The sea! How big is that? Is it as big as my well?" and he took a leap from one side of the well to the other.
"My friend," said the frog of the sea, "how do you compare the sea with your little well?"
Then the frog took another leap and asked, "Is your sea so big?"
"What nonsense you speak, to compare the sea with your well!"
"Well, then,"
said the frog of the well, "nothing can be bigger than my well; there can be nothing bigger than this; this fellow is a liar, so turn him out!!!"

Well that was a nice story. I have not the slightest idea what application you are using it for though.

Aryabhata, Charaka, Baudhayana, Jagdish Chandra Bashu, CV Raman, Katyayana, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and the list go long. Don't you remember what Einstein said- "We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made."

There was counting in ancient Samaria.
However let me illustrate this a different way. Here is a site (the first one that popped up) that lists the 100 greatest scientists of all time; there are at least 49 plus of them that worship the same God I do. You may tell me how many Hindus are on the list if you wish. I did not see any of the names above on any list of great scientists and I never suggested India never produced any scholarship, simply much less than the Biblical God has.
http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
In fact to even my surprise I can't find a list of "greatest scientists" anywhere that has an obvious Hindu name in it anywhere. There must be a few but no list includes more than few, if that.

 

[1robin]

This thread is supposed to be about going to heaven not comparing each other's religions, bragging about their accomplishments, or shining a light on the imperfections of other's religions.

If confined by those limits I can only reply with:

It's not what you're doing that gets you to Heaven, it's where you're looking. Look to Jesus!
You do NOT have to be water baptized nor doing anything to get to Heaven other than trust upon the Lord as your Savior. Romans 4:5 proclaims... “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him (Jesus) that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” What a wonderful truth! Our faith is COUNTED for righteousness! There is NO self-righteousness involved in salvation. It is the gift of God. You see, we have no righteousness of our own to offer God. No amount of good can undo the bad we've done. Thus, Jesus paid a debt that He did not owe, because we owed a debt that we could not pay. Salvation is receiving, not giving. We are Sinners and Jesus is the Savior. Jesus is precious!
Unbelief is the only sin which can keep you out of Heaven.
Just take God at His word and claim His salvation by faith. Believe, and you will be saved. No church, no lodge, no good works can save you. Remember, God does the saving. All of it!
How to Go to Heaven!



Since no non-Chrsitian accepts these words and offers an exclusive independant path to heaven then the issue must first be which religion is right. My methods may not be perfect but comparative religion is a valid and applicable subject. It usually is not white and black but what a religion produces is the best place to start.

 

[1robin]

There could be people in heaven completely miserable because they do not know how to appreciate that which they have and there could be people in hell full of joy and compassion helping suffering people even while they themselves are suffering. Where ever you go, there you are.

You mean the lack of death of a person and his loved ones, the absence of pain, sickness, disease, poverty, oppression, and sin may make someone miserable. Or that separation from God, love, justice, meaning, and purpose may make someone happy. I would hate to meet this person you describe.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This thread is supposed to be about going to heaven not comparing each other's religions, bragging about their accomplishments, or shining a light on the imperfections of other's religions.

Yeah, but some might look at the thread topic to discuss how to get to heaven, which means to some as picking the one way to get there, which means finding another opportunity to show why their way is that one and only correct, optimal, best way available.

In any case, I agree with you. Debates like these fare better when they remain on topic.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I guess it is time to tell a joke to lighten this up a bit.

Man dies and goes to heaven. Saint Peter gives him the grand tour. They go down this very long hallway with many doors. As they pass by they see Buddhists in this room and Jews in another. All kinds of religions and different doors.

They pass a door that is closed however. The man asks Saint Peter who is in there? "OH it is the Christians, be very quiet, they believe they are the only one's up here".

 

[1robin]

I guess it is time to tell a joke to lighten this up a bit.

Man dies and goes to heaven. Saint Peter gives him the grand tour. They go down this very long hallway with many doors. As they pass by they see Buddhists in this room and Jews in another. All kinds of religions and different doors.

They pass a door that is closed however. The man asks Saint Peter who is in there? "OH it is the Christians, be very quiet, they believe they are the only one's up here".

Not bad. What does the free trade slave trade signature mean?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I guess it is time to tell a joke to lighten this up a bit.

Man dies and goes to heaven. Saint Peter gives him the grand tour. They go down this very long hallway with many doors. As they pass by they see Buddhists in this room and Jews in another. All kinds of religions and different doors.

They pass a door that is closed however. The man asks Saint Peter who is in there? "OH it is the Christians, be very quiet, they believe they are the only one's up here".

Love that joke. Oldie but goodie.

 

[kassault37]

The real question should be “How good is good enough for whom and by whom?”, because if you look at a from a Catholic point of view you get a completely different version than if you look at it from a Muslim, Jehovah’s Witness, Coptic, or another religious view. Also depending on what you believe it varies from a man to a woman. If you’re a Muslim and you don’t fast during Ramadan then you’ve gone against one of the 5 pillars of Islam, however, if you’re say a Greek Orthodox it really makes no difference whether you fast during Ramadan, if you actually know what Ramada is.

 

[Blackdog22]

You are absolutely right. It was Christians or those claiming to be such that did many horrible things. However you will not find justification for them in our Bible. I will give on very famous example and who did what. In the 16th through the 19th century a few thousand Christians owned slaves in the Southern US. They treated them terribly in many cases. In this most famous case of slavery, a few Christians owned slaves but 300,000 Christians died to free them. It was the Africans who enslaved their own people and then sold them to the English. Who did the slaves look to for deliverance. Hinduism? No, their own shamanism? No, Islam? No. They looked to God all mighty of Bible fame to deliver them and it was his children that freed them. The man who made the first violent attack on slavery was a minister (John Brown), and it was a world famous Christian (Abraham Lincoln) that had more to do with their being free than any other man. Only the Biblical God made men equal and gave all human life dignity and sanctity. This is a microcosm of Christianity in general, a few do very bad things but many the greatest things in history are done by the greater numbers of great Christians. Which nations (Islamic, Hindu, atheist, or Christian) are the first on the scene when famine and tragedy strike somewhere in the world.

You are really being dishonest or uninformed to make sure your belief system sounds better than it is.

First off it isn't stated that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian. It is believed by most Historians that he was a deist. At the very least it is up for debate so claiming that he is "A world famous Christian" is flat out wrong or inconclusive.

Secondly, I like how you put in "those claiming to be Christians" in an attempt to use the no true Christian fallacy. Lets not downplay the fact that people who were Christians enslaved people and beat them, just like the Bible condoned I might add. A large portion of the southern population felt it was their God given right to enslave people. The Bible has multiple mentions telling slave owners exactly what they can/cant do and it tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Nothing in the Bible condemns this practice, but seems to make it appear perfectly okay.

Thirdly, it wasn't just a "few thousand" as you seem to think, but anywhere from 750,000 to 1,000,000 "Christian" men were fighting to ensure slavery kept its pace. The Union did win in numbers, but only because more states and immigrants joined the battle, where the immigrants alone made up over 300,000.


One thing should be crystal clear. It was not Christianity that won this battle. It was the hearts of men and the push for equality put forth by Lincoln, which is not a Biblical teaching. In fact, I challenge you to find a verse where God states all people are equal.

 

[1robin]

You are really being dishonest or uninformed to make sure your belief system sounds better than it is.

You could not know this even if true and neither point was.

First off it isn't stated that Abraham Lincoln was a Christian. It is believed by most Historians that he was a deist. At the very least it is up for debate so claiming that he is "A world famous Christian" is flat out wrong or inconclusive.

That is wishful thinking on the part of people that are invested in a man so great but who are also invested in denial of a God even greater. He made statements that were either lies or the convictions of a Christian. I did not mean he was world famous for being a Christian, he did not become one until the war was already begun. I meant he was world famous and a Christian.

Boreham says there were three mountains Lincoln climbed where his life was changed. The first stage he described as the Age of Iron, where he "climbed Mount Sinai with Moses" in his effort to keep the command- ments of God.

"No, Mr. President, it is a great doctrine of the church. Jesus himself said that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Lincoln leaped to his feet and threw his arms around this pastor. He wept openly and sobbed, saying, "Alive! Alive! My boy is alive!"

After a long pause, Mr. Lincoln solemnly replied: "When I left Springfield I asked the people to pray for me. I was not a Christian. When I buried my son, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg and saw the graves of thousands of our soldiers, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ. Yes, I do love Jesus."
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2008/12/abraham-lincoln-and-his-faith-in-jesus.html

That should settle the issue and should have for all your scholars if facts were more important than preference.

Mr. Noah Brooks, sometime after that, longtime friend and newspaper correspondent, said, "I have had many conversations with Mr. Lincoln, which were more or less of a religious character, and while I never tried to draw anything like a statement of his views from him, yet he freely expressed himself to me as having a hope of blessed immortality through Jesus Christ." Lincoln said that he had found the peace that had eluded him all of his life.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2008/12/abraham-lincoln-and-his-faith-in-jesus.html

I can keep going quite a while but since facts mean little against desire if this is not enough nothing will ever be.

That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular.
Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity on July 31, 1846 (CWAL I:382)

"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present Civi War it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose." (Meditation on the Divine Will, September 2, 1862)

No deist would say anything like this. A deity cares not for human affairs and has no will concerning our troubles.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and under a just God, can not long retain it." (Letter to Henry Pierce, et. al., August 6, 1859)
http://www.angelfire.com/my/abrahamlincoln/Quotes.html

Apparently slavery was against a benevolent and good theistic GOD in his mind.

Secondly, I like how you put in "those claiming to be Christians" in an attempt to use the no true Christian fallacy.

That is no fallacy and I have never heard anyone even suggest it was. There is a Scotsman fallacy but it does not apply here. There is a line of demarcation in Christianity that strictly delineates who is and who isn't (not in scotland). It also claims to drastically change our character and I have experienced both. It is no fallacy, it is essential and necessary information which has more relevance than any other. However knowing that some like to argue against words instead of content I did not claim to know who was or if anyone wasn't. I meant only that there is a difference and it is meaningful, I did this strictly to avoid the false claim that you coughed up anyway.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Lets not downplay the fact that people who were Christians enslaved people and beat them, just like the Bible condoned I might add. A large portion of the southern population felt it was their God given right to enslave people. The Bible has multiple mentions telling slave owners exactly what they can/can’t do and it tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Nothing in the Bible condemns this practice, but seems to make it appear perfectly okay.

I tell you what, as it will not make a difference then let's assume they were all sincere Christians.

Thirdly, it wasn't just a "few thousand" as you seem to think, but anywhere from 750,000 to 1,000,000 "Christian" men were fighting to ensure slavery kept its pace. The Union did win in numbers, but only because more states and

You will lose this debate as I have studied the American civil war more than any other subject and 99% of people. 95% of those that fought for the South did not own a slave and did not care about them one way or the other. For the South it was the very serious issue of federal control verses state control and was so important because of the colonists escape from the Tyranny of King George. Almost all southern soldiers fought because their states succeeded and would have fought for the union if not, many had never seen a slave, and the war had little to do with slavery beyond the fact that it used as a hot button issue. The war was over states’ rights and came to a head on determining whether new states could determine their own stance but had another dozen issues just as important that had nothing to do with slavery. The slaves were not even planned to be freed until McClellan fought lee to a stale mate at Antietam two years into the war. Before this if the war had ended there were no plans to free anyone. Only a few thousand plantation owners had any need for slaves.

One thing should be crystal clear. It was not Christianity that won this battle. It was the hearts of men and the push for equality put forth by Lincoln, which is not a Biblical teaching. Try to find a verse where God states all people are equal, then we can discuss this further.

Yeah right. Man's history is littered with the human debris of what our hearts caused. The worst examples are those of atheistic regimes like Stalin, mao, Pol Pot etc.. History is one sad tale of man's inhumanity toward man. Outside God slavery has no basis for claiming it unjust. Read all the statements by statesmen of the time, almost all use God to justify the fight to free slaves and none use evolution or atheism. Show without God that slavery is wrong is an actual fact. Evolution actually is an extremely good justification for it. Any book titled "The favored races" contains many allowances for slavery. Back to reality and the most obvious way to show your claim false is by the slaves themselves. In no other source on any comparable level as God were the slaves looking to for hope of deliverance. A God based hope carried out by men of faith is only proof that faith had nothing to do with it in the desperate world of atheistic fiction. The most famous early challenge to slavery was the preacher John Browns raid. The man most responsible for its destruction was a theist and probably a Christian (in fact certainly was). 90% of the men who died to free the slaves were Christians and at least 80% of the ones who fought for states’ rights did not own slaves and could have not cared less about the issue. Only God gives any actual grounds to declare it wrong to begin within: the equality of man, the sanctity of life, and the dignity of man. Atheism has no actual grounds for fighting slavery that are not assumed and without justification on atheism. Evolution at best is mildly consistent with slavery or neutral being very generous. Your reference to OT servitude has been addressed more than sufficiently by me previously and if that was not enough nothing ever would be.

I do not recomend you contend the civil war with me but hope you do anyway.

These words from his Second Inaugural Address are carved into the wall of the Lincoln Memorial: The Almighty has His own purposes.

"Woe unto the world because of offenses! For it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God give us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.

Anyone historian who claims the man who said this and has it inscribed on his memorial was only a deist , should not be allowed to comment on history.This was a good one to call it a day on. Good night nurse.
​

 

[Reverend Rick]

Not bad. What does the free trade slave trade signature mean?

It means we buy to much cheap stuff from other countries that do not have clean and safe working envionments and pay their employees very little.

If we did not have a free trade agreement, our fellow Americans might have a job.

 

[1robin]

It means we buy to much cheap stuff from other countries that do not have clean and safe working envionments and pay their employees very little.

If we did not have a free trade agreement, our fellow Americans might have a job.

If accurate I can't help but agree. However if we do not buy from them then they starve. If we must buy local then the parasitic labor unions will suck the US dry like a vampire. I like competition but it is certainly not perfect. I used to modernise teh electromnics in fed court rooms al over the US. I had a degree and years of military experience. I kept seeing the same guy changing light bulbs all over the country. I found out he made $40 an hour plus travel pay and per diem and all his union allowed him to do was change light bulbs. He made more than twice what I did as a senior technician.