Should Confederate War Memorials/Statues Be Abolished?

[smallStops]

Okay, and I dont really need details but the point that I was going to make is that Europeans often struggle to understand the American slavery issue but they should not stuggle too hard if they know their own history. After all. the american experience with slavery all began under the British and Spanish colonists yes? The British ended slavery before the Americans did so they get points for that but it does not make erase the fact that they and the Muslim Arabs were the premier slave traders in the world for a long time. Unfortunately, one of those two groups is still at it. There is more slavery in this world today than at any time in history. So if by chance you are British, then the key to understanding american slavery would be understanding your own history and how it infected the new world. Slavery between native Americans was already here. And the massive enslavement of native americans by the Russians occurred before we owned Alaska but it is part of American history even though most Americans never think about it in the lower 48.

Canadians also had the same slavery involving native Americans but not so much with African slaves- mostly because they early history is more associated with France than Great Britain.

With such a subject, people are usually very factual.

I thought transatlantic slavery started with the Portuguese.
The Romanus Pontifex, a papal bull (1454 ) allowed Portugal King to enslave all the Muslim Sarrasins in North Africa. These were the first slaves brought to the "New World". Then it took off, and was extended to African people left in other African countries, when another papal bull forbid the enslavement of Native Americans, while slaves were needed to build the plantations.

Now, why Americans seem to be struggling with their slavery past? no idea

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

With such a subject, people are usually very factual.

I thought transatlantic slavery started with the Portuguese.
The Romanus Pontifex, a papal bull (1454 ) allowed Portugal King to enslave all the Muslim Sarrasins in North Africa. These were the first slaves brought to the "New World". Then it took off, and was extended to African people left in other African countries, when another papal bull forbid the enslavement of Native Americans, while slaves were needed to build the plantations.

There is more than we can get into in posts. I did not speak to where slavery started. That goes back thousands of years- not immediately relevant to the american experience. There were no Euuropeans -other than vikings- in the americas before Columbus in 1492 and the papal bull was in 1454 so it did not start right then. To my knowledge, there were no slaves in the american british colony before the early 1600's The Portuguese were indeed massively involved in slave trade but their slaves went to Brazil, a Portuguese colony, not to the American colonies.
It is extremely complicated because the British were getting slaves out of Africa and selling them to the Portugese and Spanish who then took them overseas. So there was more than one country that you could attibute it to. When the American British colonies started to develop, the British started taking slaves directly to the American colonies and their west indies colonies and so on.

That's the general picture. As I said, the larger story is a bit much for posts.

 

[piezoe]

Maybe we should rip out those pages in the bible used by Baptist preachers to justify the inferior position of the black man in the sight of god.

 

[fhl]

Maybe we should rip out those pages in the bible used by Baptist preachers to justify the inferior position of the black man in the sight of god.

There aren't any. But there are a lot of scriptures telling us the homo stuff is dirty. As if we needed to be told.

 

[smallStops]

The Bible stays very much valid.
Its interpretation is all to the perceptions of preachers,
but even if a preacher misinterpret the Bible,
the Bible itself stays very much valid.

 

[smallStops]

There aren't any. But there are a lot of scriptures telling us the homo stuff is dirty. As if we needed to be told.

As we say, people read the Bible, but can't understand.
The Bible never blessed homo stuff, nor impudicity, nor adultery, nor sex outside marriage, etc.

But the New testament was not about throwing a stone to people for impudicity or whatever.

Now you'll have preachers saying that homo people are bad, etc. Not the Bible.

 

[piezoe]

The Bible stays very much valid.
Its interpretation is all to the perceptions of preachers,
but even if a preacher misinterpret the Bible,
the Bible itself stays very much valid.

Possibly, except maybe the part where a women turned into a salt pillar or the part where one of every animal went on a cruise, or that part where a man dead for three days rolled back a big stone covering his grave and went to drink with his buddies.

 

[fhl]

As we say, people read the Bible, but can't understand.
The Bible never blessed homo stuff, nor impudicity, nor adultery, nor sex outside marriage, etc.

But the New testament was not about throwing a stone to people for impudicity or whatever.

Now you'll have preachers saying that homo people are bad, etc. Not the Bible.

Not throwing stones at people. Calling a sin a sin. Not the same thing.

The left thinks they can rail about cigs, guns, sugary drinks, etc, and it's fine.
If the right rails about homosexual policy, they say it means we hate homosexuals.

Does the left hate people who drink sugary drinks?

Of course I picked sugary drinks for a reason. Because we know the left actually does hate people who own guns.

 

[smallStops]

Not throwing stones at people. Calling a sin a sin. Not the same thing.

The left thinks they can rail about cigs, guns, sugary drinks, etc, and it's fine.
If the right rails about homosexual policy, they say it means we hate homosexuals.

Does the left hate people who drink sugary drinks?

Of course I picked sugary drinks for a reason. Because we know the left actually does hate people who own guns.

Can you give me links of right ring "Christian" people/preachers in America, who wash people feet like Jesus Christ advised to do ?
Because, I can not take seriously "Christian" who are full of arrogance and pride - which is actually the mark of S "% A ¨£ T /! A *$ N - that always like to infiltrate anything near the creator.

 

[smallStops]

Possibly, except maybe the part where a women turned into a salt pillar or the part where one of every animal went on a cruise, or that part where a man dead for three days rolled back a big stone covering his grave and went to drink with his buddies.

Just know that the Bible is a coded book, and S ... A ....: T ù* A ¨£ N swore to mislead as many as he/she could after refusing to bow to what God created in its own image; because in his/her view, what God created out of clay was inferior to his/her creation. S ... A ....: T ù* A ¨£ N was the first, with his/her follower, to hierarchise God's creation according to its constitution. For sure he/she has been doing a first class job.

You mean Lot's wife who was turned into salt?
What is it you do not understand in this story? what do you find disturbing?