Anybody see a FAMILY VALUES / HUCKELBERRY Pattern Here ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone's fallible.

The difference to me seems to be admitting and owning the consequences of those failures vs. hiding or trying to justify them.
 
eolesen said:
Everyone's fallible.The difference to me seems to be admitting and owning the consequences of those failures vs. hiding or trying to justify them.
Who exactly came forward before they were found out? I know it was not Folley, Staford, Vitter the Vatican, Duggar...... So who?
 
Ms Tree said:
Who exactly came forward before they were found out? I know it was not Folley, Staford, Vitter the Vatican, Duggar...... So who?
or the Clinton's...... or the Obama's. 
 
Ms Tree said:
So you cannot think of anyone either?
I don't need to think of anyone. It's essentially everyone who's accepted Christ.

Millions of Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) confess their sins daily, be it in a confessional to a priest, in a counseling session, or in prayer during a worship service.

I don't recall a single service where I've walked away saying "yep, sure feels good to have nothing to answer for this week" or not questioned something I'd done in my own life.

Maybe you've never had that experience. You should try it.
 
 
eolesen said:
I don't need to think of anyone. It's essentially everyone who's accepted Christ.

Millions of Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) confess their sins daily, be it in a confessional to a priest, in a counseling session, or in prayer during a worship service.

I don't recall a single service where I've walked away saying "yep, sure feels good to have nothing to answer for this week" or not questioned something I'd done in my own life.

Maybe you've never had that experience. You should try it.
 

My mistake. I thought we were talking politics, not religion.

I'll pass.
 
Ms Tree said:
My mistake. I thought we were talking politics, not religion.

I'll pass.
Thanks for proving the point that religion is only an influence when it suits the agenda.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #113
eolesen said:
Thanks for proving the point that religion is only an influence when it suits the agenda.
 
Eric,......speaking of religion suiting the agenda,.....why was it, if we went back in time to (say) the civil war period, that you could go into the largest Baptist church in BOSTON on any sunday, and find Black folks in the congregation ?
conversely,
If you entered the largest Baptist churches in either Montgomery AL, or Charleston SC that you would see NOT One Black person ?
 
You have NO Idea about how correct you are about religion being a  G I G A N T I C  Influence suiting the 'agenda' !
And THIS is the  " Marinate / Marinade " that Dylann Roof......" soaked - in "   for his entire life !
 
Two factors there, but it wasn't because of religion forcing segregation.

First, you didn't see a shifting of blacks moving into the cities until reconstruction.

Second, people didn't go across town to the biggest church. They usually went to one in their neighborhood.

There was no doubt some voluntary segregation going on, but people still largely worship where they live.

Even the HuffNPuff agrees to some degree that segregated churches is a voluntary thing more than institutional: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/segregated-churches-segregated-lives-religion-race-and-marriage_b_2479693.html
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #116
eolesen said:
Two factors there, but it wasn't because of religion forcing segregation.

First, you didn't see a shifting of blacks moving into the cities until reconstruction.

Second, people didn't go across town to the biggest church. They usually went to one in their neighborhood.

There was no doubt some voluntary segregation going on, but people still largely worship where they live.

Even the HuffNPuff agrees to some degree that segregated churches is a voluntary thing more than institutional: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/segregated-churches-segregated-lives-religion-race-and-marriage_b_2479693.html
 
Blacks were FORBIDDEN to enter any church down south during the Civil War, just as a (period in time example) except the ones they formed for themselves, as a last resort.  So save your trying to spread your famous " eolesen BULL SHIIT spread " from coming my way !!
 
Send some  'southwinds way, or Do Ti La SO or citrat.  They'll SWALLOW Anything  !!
 
Not really sure what your point is, Bears.

Are you trying to say that churches didn't lead on abolition, or that people of faith didn't form the backbone of the Underground Railway?

Or are you trying to imply that institutional racism from 150 years ago is why there aren't family values today?

Seems you're trying to mix your arguments up, which are usually confusing and incoherent enough on their own.

Without a doubt, there was a huge split between various denominations over the issue of slavery, but that's a different line of argument over race.

Some denominations tried to justify slave owning or at least excuse it as not being a sin, while others called it out as sin & evil.

It's not at all unlike some of the fracturing you see today on the issues over gays or divorcees being able to take leadership roles within the church, or partake in certain sacraments.
 
NewHampshire Black Bears said:
Eric,......speaking of religion suiting the agenda,.....why was it, if we went back in time to (say) the civil war period, that you could go into the largest Baptist church in BOSTON on any sunday, and find Black folks in the congregation ?
conversely,
If you entered the largest Baptist churches in either Montgomery AL, or Charleston SC that you would see NOT One Black person ?
 
You have NO Idea about how correct you are about religion being a  G I G A N T I C  Influence suiting the 'agenda' !
And THIS is the  " Marinate / Marinade " that Dylann Roof......" soaked - in "   for his entire life !
Wow, so you were in a church, during the civil war, in Boston, that had some black people attending?
Guess that explains your Alzheimer's and selective thought process!

"Massachusetts was the first colony in New England with slave ownership and was a center for the slave trade throughout the 17th and 18th centuries."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Massachusetts
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top