The Insignificant Discussion of Slavery

There was a time when parents sent away their handicapped children to avoid shame from neighbors. It was the dirty little secret that no one allowed to acknowledge. When the child passed, the parents of the child would bury them in an undisclosed location and remove any evidence that the child ever existed even though there are rumors floating throughout the community of a child stowed away in an institution.

The slavery of black people is that kid. He is the stigma on the collective minds of the white community. They want to forget how they chained, beat, and separated him from the rest of the family. When he passed, they buried him deep in the woods, hoping no one would remember the place of his remains. The problem is that they didn’t bury the mentality to disenfranchise family members that are different. So, when the descendents of that black child was born, instead of send them away, they separated them from the rest of the community. The child wasn’t allowed to live in the same neighborhood or interact with other members of the community.

Generations passed and eventually, the descendents of the slave-child rebelled and the descendents of the white community were forced to allow the ostracized access to the community. Even after integrating back into the community, the descendents of slaves found themselves fighting the disparities as a result of bondage. When they try to discuss these issues and what happened to the slave-children buried deep in the woods, the community’s only response is, “I didn’t have anything to do with that.”

So in what context should we discuss slavery and the impact it had on the black community? Certainly I don’t know of a single white person living today that owned a slave. Can we really write slavery off as a “black eye on America” when the residuals of that institution permeate our society?

America’s problem with discussing slavery is the same problem it has with discussing most complex issues. It would rather deal with the symbol, slogans, catch phrases and “five-step programs” rather than get down and dirty with the details. Americans do this when discussing religion, patriotism, war, poverty and even relationships. When picking a President we even analyze the effect of a 30-second ad as if 30 seconds is an adequate amount of time to discern a message.

Americans belittle its atrocities then demean the victims of those atrocities. The internment camps, the genocide of Native Americans then turning there culture into mascots and the use of atomic bombs are rationalized away to the point where there is no discussion of them at all. So it is no surprise to me that slavery is now defined as a road bump in history. The idea that there are consequences to 300 years of oppression is lost on many as they focus on the here-and-now while dissociating themselves from the past.

Now we have to ask ourselves, is this even a discussion worth having. Black people have found a way to navigate racism. But we have stalled and in some instances taken a few steps backwards with regards to race relations. This is the state in which we will remain until the impact of slavery is elevated from a glitch in the Matrix to what it was; a crime against humanity that changed the developmental course of a people.


42 Responses to The Insignificant Discussion of Slavery

  1. Bullfrog Says:
    Being that people are still impacted by this issue, it is obviously worth discussing. I think the important question is, what is the format and context of this discussion that will make it constructive and positive?

    Too often these discussions become a combination of finger pointing, followed by the "pass the buck" defense, which I think you alluded to.

    Unfortunately, I am skeptical of discussing this because I have seen attempts to tackle this issue end badly many times, mostly for a simple lack of objectivity on those involved.

    As a white man, I am willing to admit that my race has made my view of this issue a bit myopic. So educate me in a way that I can become part of the solution and not just the cause of the original problem, and if you want me to participate, don't write off my opinion because, "How could HE possibly understand this, he's white?"
  2. mark Says:
    Yo James very relevant post. its not just slavery. It is also the economic sanctions Jim Crow that hurt us to. Or how about the american terrorism practiced blatantly throughout the south. I dont even think most white people realize the amount of phycological damage done to black folk because of slavery and Jim Crowism. Our case for reperations is well founded if argued the correct way. Anyway I look forward to the comments of other bloggers. Peace. Mark
  3. James Manning Says:
    BF, it is difficult because no one wants to look at the impact of slavery. Right now there are people proclaiming a war on Islam because of the 9/11 attack. There are people that paint every Muslim as a terrorist. They even proclaim a pre and post 9/11 era. Now, that attack happened over a span of several hours and killed 3000 people. And look at the reaction.

    Now, lets view the terrorism that black people faced. It didn't happen over a span of hours, days, years or even decades. We're talking 300 years. And we know at least 40 million Africans died during the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. How many died after they hit shore - we'll never know.

    If an event on September 11, 2001 changed the psyche of Americans forever, what do you think 300 years of terrorist attacks had on the black population?
  4. Bushwack Says:
    James, Time heals all wounds, if given a chance.
    The strides all races have made since slavery is a result of the charachter of the individuals not neccesarily their race.
    All races have had slavery in their background, during one time or another.
    The African issue is different because of the length of time it was allowed and that the country of origin has not moved forward with the world.(Africa as a whole)
    There is not one country on that continent that has progressed.(South Africa so/so) The argument could be made that it is because of the importing of their people during slavery.(Another discussion) and it is not due to a lack of resources.
    Africa is one of the worst offenders of slavery in modern times.
    As far as terrorism and the blanket theory (All Muslims) I must admit I have been guilty of this. However I will be happy to change my toon as soon as I see a group of "Moderate" Muslims marching down the street in protest of atrocities commited against Americans in the name of Alah.
    Slavery is a "Black eye on our nation" it is not something to be swept under the rug and forgot about but it is also should not be a crutch for descendants to use as a reason for not succeeding in our time. A middle ground must be reached.
    I will probably have to post something on this topic now, damn it james you have got to quit making me think (I'm not only incapable but unwilling) lol. Good subject but I feel a bit out numbered here, I might have to pile up more sandbags.
  5. Bullfrog Says:
    James: great analogy, one that I have never heard and will help to give me some perspective for my thoughts.

    Bushwack: good point about the U.S. not being the only nation to harbor slavery. Is our particular "flavor" more abhorrent than other nations in history. We certainly don't corner the market on human exploitation.
  6. mark Says:
    Yo dont corner the market on human exploitation but at the same time you have gone around claiming moral authority and capitol. In fact you boy G bush used up a lot of that moral authority. You put together the greatest system in the history of the world on the backs of black folk. You practice terrosism against citizens up until the 1960s. You use the institututions that were supposed to manifest american greatness to take advantage of black folk. Riddle me this. Bushwack you got it all backwards on this one. You cannot impose economic, social and legal sanctions on an entire race and just say weve change, were sorry. Because that doesnt really mean anything. You cannot treat Nazi's with more respect than the people who helped defeat those cats and get away with. We need to talk about reperations, lets have a debate lets go to court and lets decide what is fair. The only way america will ever understand her crime against black folk is if she pays for. As for today's current citizens saying that they shouldnt have to pay because they personally are not responsible. This is my response. Black people paid taxes that were used to rebuild Germany and Japan after ww2. We certainly didnt have anything to do with those conflicts. We werent responible for anything involving world war 2 Hell we even fought to end it, and then our (black folk) tax dollars went to rebuild Germany and Japan. So we payed for freedom in other parts of the world with our flesh and coin that we didnt enjoy as citizens of the greatest country on the planet. Hell after WW2 Italation and ex Nazi's could sometimes immigrate to america and utilize univerties, schools and libraries all throughout the south partly financed by black folk tax coin. Explain that one to me. Mark.
  7. Bushwack Says:
    I don't think I can claim moral high road on anything (I've not always been a good man) nor can it be said that the Black people were the only "Victim" Of whitey, Chineese and other nationalities were exploited in the same manor for the same period after before and after slavery, My point being Reparation for what? I do not believe in making you foot the bill for the conditions in Africa. You are a decendent therefore you should be made to pay for the genocide and poverty in your "Origin" country? Not Likely a good argument but IMO thats what you are saying to me, Our government has made some strides in repairng the damage done by their predesesors. However I also believe the black community as a whole has not done a very good job of not only accepting responsibility for their own action but not grasping the opurtunities available to ALL races in our time now.
    I do not mean to be callous or seem uncaring and if you knew me you would know that is not my intentions. I believe in equality based on charachter not on color. I agree; being from the south things have been slow (Understatement) in changing, however talking about reparation will only produce fewer folks like me, whose sole mission in life is to supply a hand Up to those in need.
    Slavery was a terrible period in our time, the 50's and 60's weren't much better. Every time I see a succesfull Black Man/Woman that is making a MAJOR contribution to this nation or humanity as a whole and hear the term "sell out" or "what have they done for me"
    The black community has produced some of the most powerful people in our time (Condi or Colin) I would vote for either one of them for President.
    I'll tell you this though, I am as proud of my heritage as you are of yours. I do not like all things that were done by my people just like you shoudn't be happy about all the things done by yours.
    When I go before the lord I have to answer for things I've done. I do not have to answer for the things 'My Race" has done, I may be a target for resentment because of it here on earth and I'll deal with that. In the end we all must answer to higher court.
  8. bold as love Says:
    This is a tired issue- America's Slavery past. Instead of beating this horse we should be making sure slavery in it's many forms is not continued.
    Do something about the muslim slavers in africa- hell do something about the whole islamic world in general- women are virtual slaves where ever islam rules, and this shit is been going on for over 800 years.
    I believe in reparations- any slave living should get them, but I will not make the sons and daughters of slave owners pay for their forefathers mistakes. That is just plain fucked up, it's a situation of no redemption, and it's fundamentally wrong.
    Bascially America's slavery past should be studied and remembered- so it never happens again. It's not about getting paid or assigning blame- it's amazing during this whole discussion no one mentions that we black people were sold down the river by other black people- look at the sheer numbers of slaves that came out of Africa, logistally speaking their was not enough white men to capture all those slaves- no way possible- most of us were sold by other blacks.
    Concerning the effects of slavery being felt to this day- bullshit, if you take the time to do the research you will see that the breakdown of the black family and all the resulting problems that plague blacks to this day are directly related to the welfare system that started in the late 60's. When a man was no longer required to take care of the children he help create, it free him up to create more that he would not have to take care of.
    Blaming slavery is a cop out.
  9. Mr. Grey Ghost Says:
    Lashawn Barber and her ignorant ass needs to read this post. Good job James!
  10. mark Says:
    Yo Grey I thought you were down with LaShawn Barber. If I stand completely corrected I apoligize. Mark
  11. James Manning Says:
    Here’s the problem. Only ten comments into this post and we’ve already brought up reparations, welfare and personal responsibility and the history of slavery.

    Bold, I think it is disingenuous of you to narrowly wrap all the issues within the black community being a result of welfare. If a free check is capable of destroying a community then certainly 200 years of slavery, 100 years of brutality and segregation would have dire consequences.

    As for who gets the blame for slavery… check this: You’re walking in the National Park and standing next to tree is a man with a “For Sale” sign. You walk over to him and he explains to you that he is selling the tree and the tree will produce great wood for building and fruit no matter how you treat it.

    So you buy the tree and start butchering it and you build homes from the wood. Because you took no interest in how you tore the tree apart, some parts of the tree produced fruit and other parts didn’t. But you kept at it. Finally, a Ranger comes through and ask what you are doing. You explain to him that you’re using the wood from the tree you purchased to build you dream home.

    The Ranger looks at you and says that you can’t use the wood and wondered what would make you think you could purchase the tree in the first place. After all, the tree belonged the National Park. You finally relinquish the idea that you owned the tree. Now, the fool in this story is the man you sold the tree, but the bigger fool is the man who actually thought he could purchase the tree.
  12. Bullfrog Says:
    I like Bold As Love's response, we need to learn from this part of our history and focus on healing (and by healing I do not mean a fat "reparation" check) and stop trying to press charges.
  13. James Manning Says:
    I think we're going to disagree on some things but I refuse to write off a 200 year old institution as a "mistake". No, it was a crime against humanity and it had a profound impact on black people. Over the generations we've overcome a lot but that's not the point of this point. My point is to say that you can't sum up the ills of black people, assign pathologies and attribute it all to welfare.
  14. Bushwack Says:
    LOL, James that is a story I have not heard before, I guess I would have bought the tree and had a camp fire complete with marshmello's.
    I get the point and I agree there is something wrong with trying to brush this under the rug, I also don't think we should be using it as a crutch. all we can call it is a crime against humanity on America's part. learn from it and never allow it to be repeated.
    Welfare? And other issues we have discussed here James, are topics I don't have a lot of knowledge in. You know because I'm white and have lived with a silver spoon stuck in my ass. LOL
  15. James Manning Says:
    Bush, that's better than a fork LOL

    This is one of those conversations where it becomes so easy to just use whatever tag line is in vogue. And it's probably because we can see the immediate impact of last 20 or 30 years but trying to go back 50, 75 or 150 years... it gets too complicated.
  16. mark Says:
    @ Bold

    As for muslim slavery in africa, I am very critical of that. I have absolutely no love for people who enslave other folks including black folks who enslave other folks. As for the treatment of women by muslim culture in general I find it reprehensible.As for Africans selling blacks , sorry bold but we do not live in africa, we are not african citizens we are american citizens please remember that. If a man gives another person a gun to shoot his little brother and you blow the little brothers brains out, it is true that the man who provided the gun is a slime ball, but the person who did the shooting is a slime ball as well. Yo Bold thier is no statue of limitaitions on murder. Because of Federally allowed terrorism thousands of black people were murdered, the Naacp tried to get anti lynching legislation passed for 30 years however the dixie crats always killed it in the congress. As for not wanting to make todays citizens pay for things thier grandparents did, please name the date after 1860 when black people could have adressed reperations in a legal format without bieng lynched. Yes slavery and the worst american terrorism happened long ago. But america is a nation of laws and all throughout the south they created a mockery of law and order in regards to the citizenship rights of blacks, up until the mid 1960 the Federal goverment refused to protect black peoples property, lives and rights such as voting against terrorist all over the south. In fact black people were murdured for trying to vote up until the 60's which is less that 50 years ago. As for slavery not having any direct effect on us today, what about the Lightskin darkskin bullshit. I wont allow you or anyone else to tell me it dosent exist, or it wasnt that bad because I still know darkskinned people who hate the fact that thier skin is dark. That...Sir, came directly from slavery. Mark Bey

    P.S bold also dont forget the pathalogical mistrust, fear, and hatred that a lot of black people have of the police. That flows directly from times past
  17. mark Says:
    @ Bushwack

    bushwack said:My point being Reparation for what?

    Mark said: Ill get off of slavery for this comment right here, but how about reperations for Federally allowed and State sanctioned terrorism against black citizens. Thier is precedent for payment of reperations in the amount of $25,000 for lynching of Italtian imigrants in the early part of the 20th century, and the Japaneese also got reperations for the humiliation treatment they recieved at the hands of the united states goverment. Also you have not addressed the economic sanctions america slapped on her black population. Mark Bey
  18. Bullfrog Says:
    I think there is a fundamental imbalance when one one hand we talk about how big of an impact slavery had and is still having on the black community, then in the same breathe say that a reparation check will do the trick to make amends.

    Slavery was (and is in some places) an ethical and moral crime, so how is cash flow gonna make it right?
  19. mark Says:
    @ Bullfrog

    Yo BullFrog you have dozens and dozens of postcards of lynching, 3 which show the victim alive and then lynched, one in particular of a 16 year old retarded boy name Jesse Washington shows him in various stages of living through bieng burned alive, all in front of over 10,000 people. In fact the police handed him over to the lynch mob. This type of behavior by american public, and goverment official was unacceptable then and it is unacceptable now. Especially in america a country of laws. Also remember that the tax dollars of black americans went into rebuilding germany and Japan after ww2, black people had absolutely nothing to do with that war. Anyway just so you know here is a link were you can see white southerner clowns lynching black people then proudly taking pictures around the sometimes mutilated corpse. Mark Bey

    P.S BullFrog the Naacp tried to get anti-lynching legislation passed for 30 years but the dixie crats would always kill it in congress.
  20. mark Says:
    @ Bullfrog

    No one said that a reperations check will make a mends, thier is no mends to be made for allowing Southern Clowns to lynch black people and take pictures. I provided a lind have a look for yourself. Also you cant have it both ways, how can it be just and fair to pay reperations to the Japaneese and Italtian goverment but not black american citizens. Mark Bey
  21. Bushwack Says:
    Mark, I see your point, I don't belive that Italians or Japanese should have compensated either. (Just, MY opinion here)
    I would ask what sanctions? Quest for knowledge continues.
  22. Bullfrog Says:
    The more you make the point that slavery and crimes against blacks was so dispicable, the less appropriate it is to discuss money as a means to make amends.

    I move that reparations no longer be a part of this discussion, of course this is not a Democracy. We are at the mercy of Mr. Manning.
  23. mark Says:
    @ Bull Frog if you admit that the federal goverment allowed domestic terrorism against black american citizens, who's ancestors fought to save this country. Also you must admit that things were more fair toward Nazis and ex-Facist soldiers who imigrated to america especially in the south than towards black citizens. Then Ill take Reperations of the table for now. Also riddle me this why is sunday the most segregated day of the week in a country that claims to be christian? Furthermore Ive already thoroughly punished you before, if you insist on debating me thiers a good chance that the intellectual thrashing Ive been giving you could get worse. Yikes!

    @ Bushwack
    Yo Bush not allowing black to participate in baseball, football, boxing, as well as music and dancing, in movies as well as on stage amounts to huge economic sanctions. Do you realize that black children had it that much harder because of Jim Crow, do you realize that by not allowing blacks acess to goverment, politics, schools, ect all of these things amount to crippling economic sanctions, which directly translated into black children bieng hungry and living in poverty. Our percentage of the population has remained pretty much the same over the last 140 years. But I dont think that you can argue that we have ever had that percentage of access of oppurtunity in the american system. Just think of the Homestead act that gave away hundreds of millions square miles of land for free, a lot of it was given to foriengers and immirgrants. Id bet you money that a higher percentage of immigrants and foriegners got free land than black american citizens. Some of these peoples descendants still have that free land in thier families. I would love for you to present an argument that would make it acceptable to give land to Foriegners as opposed to black citizens who's descendants had recently fought to preserve the greatest nation on the planet. Hopefully bush I can get a more competetive debate from you than from a certain other blogger who shall remain unamed(they know who they are). But from the evidence of your beer choice (Bud) Im really starting to wonder. Mark
  24. Bullfrog Says:
    @Mark: Please refresh my memory because apparently the "thrashing" you gave me was SOOO bad that I do not recall it. In fact, I seem to remember distinctly you calling me out on James's previous blog about Destiny (using the same "intellectual white glove" analogy), but when I accepted your challenge you never responded. Or were you just waiting until now?

    Whenever you are ready, my friend...
  25. Bushwack Says:
    Mark, I think you misunderstand me, If you are looking for inteligent debate over Black cultural differences or history of the Black culture in general, I'm ill prepared and would not offer much of a challenge.
    I will say though, I feel your anger over the issue and could I go back in time and undo the damage I surely would. Again, I was not here.
    I'll thank you for the history lesson and wish you well.
    I would also oppose any reparation payment for decendants, for the reasons I've stated here prior.
    Do not for one minute believe that I don't care or have concern for the black community, I do, But as you have said in your posts, Its a two way street.
    As far as "my choice in Beer"? that was low man.LOL
  26. Bullfrog Says:
    @Mark: The "Segregated Sunday" point has been made before and I think it goes more to culture and basic human nature than anything else.

    Take a drive to any culturally diverse High School during the lunch hour and look at the quad. What you will see are little groups of kids all hanging out with those that are similar. I attended racially diverse (or integrated, if you will) schools my whole life and that is what I saw, the black, white and hispanic kids (no offense to any race I excluded) bunched together because that is what people do by nature.

    While we all preach racial harmony and race relations, we are subconsciously segregating ourselves.
  27. mark Says:
    @ bush
    As far as anger goes Im upset at everyone who has behaved badly. To be honest I much more made at fathers who dont care of thier kids, young men who terrorize thier nieghborhoods, young women who get pregnant knowing full well they are not ready for the baby, Im also disgusted with the christian right and thier focused attack on gays (when homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in the bible, Im mad at people who dont respect education and learning (then expect life to get better).

    P.S Even though I had to poke gigantic wholes in religiuous doctrine(take your choice of religion), I fully admit that without religion the world would be a signifigantly worse place. This still does not mean that any particular religous doctrine is what actually went down in history. No religion has any more proof than any other religion, period. Major Kudos to all of the christian demonations who do the overwhelming majority of the missionary work around the world. Yo bull Frog you can say what you want my dog in this fight is truth, accuracy, tolerence and respect for other who disagree with any particular religous interpretation. mark AKA Bull Frog punisher. Peace
  28. Bullfrog Says:
    @Mark: alrighty, "Bull Frog Punisher", I think it's about time we put an end to remarks like:

    "I am stronger because see validity in Christianity, Islam, Judiasm and other religious beliefs."

    "Yo Bull Frog Im much stronger on this issue than you. I see spiritual validity in the Christian, Doctrine, as well as other religous doctrines."

    Just because you proclaim yourself to be stronger on some issue doesn't make it so, and repeating the mantra that you are stronger does not entitle you to the moniker of one who has punished me in a debate, when we never debated. Here is a quote from you:

    "Once again BF Im much stronger than you on this issue, if you insist on debating I will be force to remove the intellectual white gloves.Peace. Mark"

    To which I responded:

    "Mark: I INSIST on debating this issue; take 'em off baby!!
    Your blog or mine?"

    To which you STILL HAVE NOT RESPONDED. How should I, and those reading this, characterize your failure to enter into the debate except to assume you are alot of talk and no action?

    Unless you finally choose to enter into a debate with me about the validity of one world religion over another and trounce me in said discussion, as you apparently are SO able to do, than end the remarks about how you are intellectually or informationally superior to me. And you called ME arrogant for not having an ecumenical view of religion?

    Quick telling me what a "baller" you are, pick up the ball and put it in the hoop!
  29. Bushwack Says:
    Mark, I'm as frustrated by the lack of parenting in our nation as you and believe me it is not only a "Black" thing. I have to deal with the Hispanic and White trash more than the Black trash you speak of. Bad parents are bad parents, color has no bearing.
    I'll let you and Bullfrog get on with your debate.
    Just know that you my friend are not the only one trying to make things better.
    As far as the Christian right, Both sides have the extreme, the difference is how the moderates handle the extreme. Muslim extreme's have instilled fear in the moderates .Christians have no fear of man we know where this is heading and are content with our beliefs. we get very vocal about things like Homosexuality when it intrudes on the sanctity of marriage. Other than that, they can have a gay old time. IMO, (Another discussion looms I imagine) And I'm not as far right as some, I have some moderation in my views
  30. mark Says:
    @ Bush
    Look this is how I see it. Yes thier are some extemely fundamelist backwards attitudes in Islam. But Islam is also a less mature religion as it is younger. Please do not forget not forget some of the really backwars things the catholic in Medival did. Galieo was telling scientific truth and the catholic church threatened to kill him because it did not fit thier religous version of truth.This was just a few centuries ago, and Islam is at least a few centuries younger than christianity, so they just need time to develop. Dont get me wrong I am not trying to make excuses for backwards behavior(such as how they treat thier woman mostly), but they just need time exposed to they truth. Also the moderates in Islam should come out opposed to Terrorist 100% body and soul. But to do this in my oppinion jestures will have to be made by jews, christians and muslims. And not caustic or judgemental rhetoric.
    P.S Bush Im sorry I just dont understand how one can drink that beer you drink.

    @ Bull Frog

    Yo Bull Frog I do claim victory over our earlier back and forth. Furthermore you really shouldnt go their with the bb ball rhetoric my game is still pretty nice. Second of all let me just try to explain my views on spirituallity. All religion is spiritual but not all spirituality is religion. I look at religion being a system of relating to the ultimate truth. Just as football teams have different systems they run. Some teams pass more than they run. Some teams run the ball. However thier are universal football truths such as being able to pick up third and short, or not turning the ball over, thiers the field position battle, quaterback shouldnt hold the ball to long, ect. These are few football principles that should not be violated if you want to have success in football. You also so have principles in life which should not be violated. Some of these are moderation, open mindedness, tolerance, understanding, willingness to comprimise, respect for all human life. Most religion(spiritual systems) have values that encourage those life principles I just mentioned. Now I didnt mention all of them (football or life), Im not even saying I mentioned the most relevant ones. But all religion in my oppinion should vigorously encourage practice of these values. So Christianity, Islam ect are not the only valid spiritual system. They deffinately arent the only way to win the spiritual super bowl(get to heaven). Give me science, science, science for pure truth. Give me spirituality to guide me in using that truth for good and progress of the human race. Yo BF when I say I thrashed you dont take it personal Im just having fun, anyway truth is I did ask questions that you could not or what not answer. No matter what religion this is always the case because religion is nto history or science. Now certain parts in christianity (and other religions)are based on historical events and truths but they are not an accurate chronicle of how life unfolded period. Peace. Mark

    P.S Yo BullFrog do you beleive that man and monkeys are related. One last thing. As I look into my blog crys The rublicans are going to win the next congressional and presidential election. James was right the dems need to build, regroup and get themselves together.

    Thier will absolutely be no prayer in public school.

    Evolution and science will continue to discredit religion as historical. It might be spiritual truth or some might believe that but it is not historical truth.
  31. mark Says:
    Sorry mispelled a word here is the correct version

    P.S Yo BullFrog do you beleive that man and monkeys are related. One last thing. As I look into my blog crystal ball The rublicans are going to win the next congressional and presidential elections. James was right the dems need to build, regroup and get themselves together.

    Thier will absolutely be no prayer in public school.

    Evolution and science will continue to discredit religion as historical truth. Religion may be led to spirtual salvation but it is not history.
  32. Bushwack Says:
    Man I just realized Bullfrog is a white guy, Go white boy! Arrrgggghhhh.
    Just kiddin. I'll give you this BF, You do know your stuff, as well as Mark knows his.
    This is way ou of my league because emotions don't provide much of an argument against facts.
    Fact #1 BUDWEISER is American Owned. all I need to know
  33. Bullfrog Says:
    @Mark: I think we need to take a second to define true debate before continuing. What you do is state conclusions which you believe are somehow "superior" to my conclusions, but that is only half the battle. The purpose of debate is to reinforce your conclusions with facts so that your adversary is won over, this is what you are missing and why your claim to "victory" is premature. Let me give you an example:

    You said: "Now certain parts in christianity (and other religions)are based on historical events and truths but they are not an accurate chronicle of how life unfolded period."

    In your mind, you just trumped me with this bold statement, which is why you ended it with "period" but to me, you still bear the burden of PROVING that Christianity, or the Bible, is not historically accurate. Most of our back and forth have been this way, which is why your continued claims to victory leave me confused.

    It is true that all religions share a somewhat similar morality, but I believe ther are fundamental differences that must be analyzed before we claim that they are all valid ways to worship God and ultimately get into heaven. Each doctrine has a different take on historical events, particularly the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Let's just take the Holy Bible and the Koran for the sake of argument. The Bible teaches that after Christ was crucified, He was buried in a tomb which was found empty 3 days later due to His resurrection. The Bible teaches that He was seen by hundreds after His bodily resurrection and that this proved that He was God incarnate. It also teaches that His crucifixion was the only way for us to get to heaven as our own righteousness is "as filthy rags".

    The Koran teaches that Jesus was NOT God, but a prophet, and not even a prophet that should be considered higher than Mohammed himself, and that our ability to be moral is what gets us to heaven.

    These are completely different views, so either one of them is right, or they are both wrong. They can't BOTH be right because this defies reason and logic, so we must decide. What should be the basis of our decision? It must be decided, not by reason and logic alone, but the reliability of the documents we have telling us these things. Read this, which is my argument for the historicity of the New Testament, which is why I am thoroughly convinced the Koran is not historically more accurate, or even a reliable source of spiritual truth.
  34. Bullfrog Says:
    Now, about those monkeys you mentioned. As far as I know, the missing link is STILL missing that ultimately makes the Evolutionary Theory more than a theory. If macro-evolution is valid, why are monkey still here? Why haven't they shaved their bodies, put on 3-piece suits, and gotten jobs on Wall Street already? For the record, I believe in micro-evolution, that species can improve over time in their ability to survive, but not that species can completely jump to some other new species all together, ie the ape to man, or bird to elephant.
  35. Bullfrog Says:
    That being said, I'm not sure how much a part of this debate evolution has, except that you mentioned it as a possible way to debunk religion? At the same time, you give credit to God many times in your statements, so are you really NOT a creationist? There are many who believe that God created the primodial ooze that we subsequently evolved from, and so they marry creationism and evolution. Either way, there is a God who is responsible for our being here, and so naturally we are accountable to Him and should seek to know His mind, which is why I think we can leave evolution out of this discussion.
  36. James Manning Says:
    BF and Mark,

    I think you two have put out some good information and I do appreciate that you guys are remaining civil - combative, but civil.

    As for God, evolution and Jesus Christ, I don't think any of can KNOW but that is where our faith comes into place. Sure, most religions are simular in morality issues but the ultimate purpose of religion is instructions on how to live in such a way that we spend the afterlife with God. This is where things fall apart and this again is where faith comes into play. They can't all be right but all could be wrong. We don't KNOW.

    I do think the Bible is a historical text but is it the complete historical record of humans? I don't think it is. I don't think the world is only 6000 years old. I don't think the Grand Canyon is the result of the great flood as I don't believe tectonic plate movement took place over a matter of months rather than millions of years.

    In fact, there are a lot of things that I don't know but there are many that I believe. Some common sense and some faith - that's my world
  37. mark Says:
    @ Bullfrog
    Yo BF I refered to our discussion as debate once, then I refered to it as a back and forth. But hell I can refer to our discussion as a rap song if I want to. The bottom line is Im winning and chances are Ill keep winning. As far as winning you over cant do that with religion Ive had this same discussion with a muslim recently(I pounded him on the slavery issue. Anyway I called him on some things that werent true about the Nation of Islams beliefs such as a big scientist named yacub and the mother plane (spaceships). Anyway chanllenged him on some of that nonsense and what it came down to is this, thier are people who have different beliefs, about most spiritual matters. Once again as it with you religous you are trying to insinuate that the bible is the only way to get to heaven. You can say what you want, I believe Malcolm X is going to heaven, Ghandi X, the Dali Lama, who lot of other people who werent christians. Im am not telling you or anyone else that they arent going to heaven, Im saying every good man or women is going to heaven. But because of your religion you get to say that only christians are going to heaven. Hey if this is what you choose to believe, then have at it.

    For the record, I believe in micro-evolution, that species can improve over time in their ability to survive, but not that species can completely jump to some other new species all together, ie the ape to man, or bird to elephant.

    Yo BF do you not relize the Chimps are more closely related to man than to gorillas. Have you not seen chimps care for thier young, have you not seen them interact with each other. Im not saying that everything they do is the same, but they sure looking like little people to me. I you can believe in Miro-Evolution whats to stop Macro. Were not talking about thousands of years ago were talking millions. Thier is an Island of the cost of California that has fossilized remains of dwarf Mammoths, it was determined throught science that thier shrinkage happened relatively fast in evolutionary terms. If animals or plants are isolated from other populations they may adapt to things such as food, climate, habitat, ect. Think about the fact of thier bieng Slugs and Snails that live on land and in the sea. One types breathes air one water. You also have fresh and saltwater versions of these animals. Going from air to water or water to air is what I would consider macro-evolution. As for man evolving from primortal ooze or bieng directly created by god. My common sense tells me it makes no difference one way or the other. Also the questions of evolution was out of curiosity. You also can just decide on your own which questions I can ask, Im may be asking you to see if youll fall into a trap and say something silly. Whatever you believe as long as your true to thats what important. There are different religous Ideas of what this truth is. Tell the truth I dont believe any of them as Im 100% anti-religion. This is what my logic says. If your religion (insert religion) is the way to get to god and god want everyone to come to him. Why would god allow differnt and ofter conflicting religions to confuse people. The only way we can get to heaven is thru the bible but god allows false documents such as the koran, and Tora. Im sorry but that doesent make since to me. Mark
  38. mark Says:
    This is where things fall apart and this again is where faith comes into play. They can't all be right but all could be wrong. We don't KNOW.

    Yo James this has been my point the whole time no religion on the planet can disprove any other. But a lot of them say you have to believe me or your going to hell. What about the native people from Hawaii who never where exposed to christianity until after 1600. Are you telling me that none of those folks born before thier exposure to christianity are going to heaven because they werent christians, even though they were never exposed to christianity. Only religions gets to say things like that, which is why I stay as far away from all of them as possible.

    Anyway a certain blogger thinks thinks hes competeting in this back and forth. To that I say, alls you gotta do is read the back and forth. One person is saying all peoople who arent christians are going to hell, the other one is saying all good people are going to heaven. But thats a little to much truth for certain bloggers. In fact Ive found that telling the truth has always been known to provoke weaker bloggers. I wonder what that all about. Mark

    P.S Let it be known to all bloggers the white gloves are off. I didnt but certain bloggers just would not leave well enough alone.
  39. Bullfrog Says:
    @Mark: You can scour every post or comment on these blogs I have ever made and you will not find ONE reference I have made to who or who is not going to heaven. That whole argument is just a straw man that you keep offering up so you can defeat it with your relative morality and then say, "I'm winning!".

    Your assertion that one snail species living in water and another snail species living on dry land somehow proves macro-evolution is baseless and most scientists would agree that only proves micro-evolution instead, which I have already stated I agree with.

    Although we have alot of similarities to chimps, chimps ARE NOT the missing link. Elephants also care for their young, but we don't assume we were once elephants too.

    God allowed false doctrine to enter the picture because He wanted us to search for the truth amidst lies and find it and be able to tell the truth from a lie. The gospel account of the Bible is not too complicated for us to understand. You keep implying that God can only do things that "make sense" to you, which only proves that you are inwilling to submit to the will of your creator, and that the only God you worship is yourself (your own sense of right and wrong, logic, etc.).

    As for the earth being millions of years old, prove it. Recent research has proven that the carbon dating used to date the earth are highly unreliable and that the creationist view that earth is only 6000 years old isn't as far fetched as you might like to assume.

    You haven't made ONE compelling argument, only bits and pieces of nonsense that you have heard or read somewhere and adopted them as you found fit. Your view of the world and religion is completely subjective and unscientific, yet you claim I am narrow minded and legalistic.

    Please stop telling people "the white gloves are coming off" as if people need to be prepared to feel your thunder, you have threatened me with this more than once, to which I have replied, "Take 'em off!" yet here we still are, waiting to feel the wrath of Mark's superior argument.

    Anyone reading this exchange can see you have built your house on sand, and the tidal wave is coming.

    In spite of you constant trash talk, you are transparent to all onlookers, just be honest and tell us you are unprepared to defend your position and we will call this over.

    Unlike you I will not attempt to humiliate you in front of other bloggers with immature insults and calling myself "Mark Punisher".
  40. mark Says:
    You can scour every post or comment on these blogs I have ever made and you will not find ONE reference I have made to who or who is not going to heaven. That whole argument is just a straw man that you keep offering up so you can defeat it with your relative morality and then say, "I'm winning!".

    Yo are starting to annoy me. Its more than obvious to me you have no more proof for christianity than other religions have for thier beliefs. Why do I say this because over a billion people belleve Islam is the truth. Whether or not you say only christians are going to heaven that is what you believe that is also more than obvious. Like I said I refect this view, because thier were thousands of generations of people living on the Islan of hawaii who were not exposed to christianity. Also like I said and will say as many times as I want to. I THING MALCOLM X, GHANDI AND THE DALI LAMA ARE GOING TO HEAVEN EVEN IF THE ARENT CHRISTIANS PERIOD. So if you believe the only way to get into heaven is by bieng a christian then my argument is not a straw man.

    BF:Your assertion that one snail species living in water and another snail species living on dry land somehow proves macro-evolution is baseless and most scientists would agree that only proves micro-evolution instead

    Man, how do you know what most scientist would say about the snail situation. Anyway even if that is a case of micro-evolution that still does not change the fact that macro-evolution as you call it is possible. As for Elephants bieng very nurturing that is correct. But elephants look nothing remotely like people, chimps, chimps can walk on two legs, female chimps have periods (one of the few animals to do so other humans), elephants dont pick up and coddle thier young, underneath a microscope elephants dont share 98% of the same genes.

    BF: As for the earth being millions of years old, prove it.

    MB: Only Christians, and other religous folk try to dispute that the earth is billions or years old. In fact it is a religous art form to ignore or suppress the truth if it does not follow religous doctrine.You show great promise at this.

    BF:Recent research has proven that the carbon dating used to date the earth are highly unreliable and that the creationist view that earth is only 6000 years old isn't as far fetched as you might like to assume.


    BF:God allowed false doctrine to enter the picture because He wanted us to search for the truth amidst lies and find it and be able to tell the truth from a lie.

    MB: First of all Im wondering where did you come accross this info. See, what Ive found in life is. The easiest way to get a message across is to be clear, direct and reinforce over and over again. Also you seem to not understand that most people follow the religion they do because that is the dominant religion. In some muslim countrys it is illegal to convert to christianity. So if god wanted all people to be christians why would he allow people who arent preaching christianity (muslims) to threaten the lives of people who might want to convert to christianity.

    BF: Please stop telling people "the white gloves are coming off" as if people need to be prepared to feel your thunder, you have threatened me with this more than once, to which I have replied, "Take 'em off!"

    MB: Silly rabbit I just joking know need to take it personal. Anyway for now when it comes to you the white gloves shall remain off. If you continue to chatter I will crush you.

    BF: You haven't made ONE compelling argument, only bits and pieces of nonsense that you have heard or read somewhere and adopted them as you found fit. Your view of the world and religion is completely subjective and unscientific, yet you claim I am narrow minded and legalistic.

    MB: Yo BF you must come from Babylon, because all you do is bable, salt and pepper talked about you kind of people long ago. Your argument only makes sense to christians. For some strange reason you seem unable to comprehend that. Your whole argument would get no traction with buhdist or muslims or me, in order to feel it you have to drink that christian koolaid.

    BF:In spite of you constant trash talk, you are transparent to all onlookers, just be honest and tell us you are unprepared to defend your position and we will call this over.

    Unlike you I will not attempt to humiliate you in front of other bloggers with immature insults and calling myself "Mark Punisher".

    Mb: Yo you are the one who believe that only christians are going to heaven, but Im the one thats transparent. Furthermore I did not attempt to humilate you in fron of other bloggers, I was just having a little fun if you were offended I apoligize. When you call somebody transparent , but then in the same post you state the world bieng only 6000 years old, I knew this type of foolishness was comming as soon as the debate started. If something fall into line with things in the bible even though the best scientist in the world agree on you guys (religous folk) can always say its not true, threaten to kill people telling the truth (think galieo), or just deny it. Also I never said what god could or would not do. So one more time for BF your argument only works if your a christian, and thier are over a billion people who arent christians. I refused to believe that only christians can find spiritual salvation. Mark Bey
  41. Bullfrog Says:
    It's amazing that you filled so much space, yet made no real argument, this isn't even sport!

    Alright, since you continually rail on the fact that you think Malcom, Dali Lama, and Ghandi ARE DEFINITELY going to heaven. Let me ask you this: On what merit? On the merit that YOU, Mark living in 2006 think they are good people so they MUST be going? What standard of morality did you use to come to that conclusion? Let's assume for the sake of argument that what you are saying is true and that everyone who is good is going to heaven when they die. The first question I have to ask is, what does it mean to be good? Who makes the decision about what "good" is and how much of it gets us to where we want to go?

    Maybe "good" is walking old ladies across the street. How many old ladies do you have to walk across how many streets to get to heaven? What if you do something evil, which we are all prone to do, does that mean you have to start from scratch and that all the old ladies you walked across the street before you messed up are erased? Or maybe you just have to walk that many more old ladies across the street and nothing gets erased? Is it okay to tell a "little lie" but not a "big lie"? Once again, who decides which is which?

    This sounds silly, but your assertion that the men you mentioned have to go to heaven because you think they are deserving is pretty silly too.

    Do you think Malcolm, if he was sitting here reading this, would be flattered that you think he should go to heaven? Maybe at the Pearly Gates, he would use your opinion in his defense.

    Without something with which to measure morality, there is no morality. The human conscience is NOT a reliable test of right and wrong. Look at history, things that were once considered abhorrent are now socially acceptable because the masses deem it so.

    As far as my assertion that the earth could be 6000 years old as much as it could be a quadrillion years old, since you obviously haven't done your homework on the subject except to believe what everyone else believes, maybe you should stop debating that. Your only response to my statement about the age of earth was: "YEAH RIGHT. KEEP DRINKING THAT KOOL-AID" I suppose in your line of thinking, you really punished me with that and squashed any argument I had. Well done!

    As far as why God allows godless muslims to kill potential Christian converts, maybe He is trying to give those that are still alive some sense of urgency to REPENT! That is only my guess of course.

    Just because alot of people are not Christians doesn't invalidate Christianity. Alot of people don't work at 7-Eleven, that doesn't mean there isn't one on every corner. I can't even believe you find that statement credible.

    Ironic that I am annoying you, what has been annoying me about you is you continue to make assertions without providing ANY REAL ARGUMENT, this would not hold water with Muslims, Hebrews, Mormons, or anyone else you serve it to.

    The only reason I believe Christianity to be the only true religion is based 100% on the historicity and accuracy of the Holy Bible. I have already linked you to an article on my blog defending the historicity of the New Testament, so I will not waste my breathe here. In order to "crush" me, you must contend with that because EVERYTHING I believe has that book as it's source.
  42. Bullfrog Says:
    Mark, did I mention I was anxiously waiting to be crushed by you, oh "Master of Debate"?