Death: Final or Not?
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
But there is a connection, TenPenny between the Christianity of the settlers and what they did to the wildlife in North America. Christianity and the near extinction of many species in North America are intimately connected.
Christians were on a mission to evangelize the Indian, to civilize him. The first step in this objective was to destroy the Gods, the icons of the Indians. Indians regarded many of the animals, buffalo, bear, wolf etc. as having holy, divine powers. Many of the animals were religious icons to them.
So the first step towards evangelizing the Indians was to destroy their religious icons. That was one of the motivating factors behind the wholesale, wanton destruction of wildlife in North America. There were other factors obviously (they needed land for settlement etc.). But the religious factor was an important one.
The first thing they did was slaughter. The bible never mentioned them so they had to be demons. After a while some snapped out of it and realized they were humans.
Then there is the 'christian justification of slavery "One of Noah's sons (the black one) saw him stark raving drunk running around naked so during a raging hangover he doomed that son to be slave to his brother forever".
Lots **** daughters.... there is another doozie of a story.
Lots **** daughters.... there is another doozie of a story.
Wow. So the primary reason that buffalo were killed were as a way of exterminating the religion of the natives, so they would convert to Christianity.
What about the beavers in Canada - was it the same deal? Was the Hudsons Bay Company created as an arm of the Church? That's good to know - I'll have to stop shopping at Zellers, I guess.
Indeed petros. That is the Curse of Ham. It was also used to justify the segregation in the Southern USA.
I didn’t say the religious reason was the only reason, TenPenny. There were other factors obviously. But religious factor was one of them (and an important one, at that).
"Most of them were white Christians, YJ, much as you may not like to admit it."
And many of them were freed, BLACK slaves, who just like the whites, were Christians and had the hope for a better life.
But that is not the point. The point is that your emphasis on WHITE and CHRISTIAN proves without a doubt that you are racist.
And many of them were freed, BLACK slaves, who just like the whites, were Christians and had the hope for a better life.
But that is not the point. The point is that your emphasis on WHITE and CHRISTIAN proves without a doubt that you are racist.
I suppose it is possible but there is very little mention of blacks migrating out west. Most stayed in the east in the urban areas as far as I know. By the time they arrived the natives of the east had pretty much been subdued. The destruction of the buffalo had two fold purpose, to destroy the natives food supply as well as their culture which was based on the buffalo.
According to a christian friend of mine, it is our duty to destroy nature and remake the world in our own image. He quoted some passage in the bible to justify that assertion but I promptly forgot it because I thought he was stark raving mad. Turns out he was just a good christian obeying his god. Go figure!
According to a Christian friend of mine, it is our duty to destroy nature and remake the world in our own image. He quoted some passage in the bible to justify that assertion but I promptly forgot it because I thought he was stark raving mad. Turns out he was just a good Christian obeying his god. Go figure!
It is a passage in Genesis, Cliffy; it would be easy enough to look up chapter and verse. God says to Adam to go forth and subdue the earth. God did not tell him to preserve, conserve, nurture the earth, he told Adam to subdue, to dominate the earth.
That is why conservatives in general and Fundamentalists in particular tend to be such strong anti-environmentalists; they think that God tells them to subdue the environment, not to take care of it. To conserve, to preserve are sissy attributes, to conquer, to subdue are manly attributes (as least that is how religious right sees it).
It is a passage in Genesis, Cliffy; it would be easy enough to look up chapter and verse. God says to Adam to go forth and subdue the earth. God did not tell him to preserve, conserve, nurture the earth, he told Adam to subdue, to dominate the earth.
That is why conservatives in general and Fundamentalists in particular tend to be such strong anti-environmentalists; they think that God tells them to subdue the environment, not to take care of it. To conserve, to preserve are sissy attributes, to conquer, to subdue are manly attributes (as least that is how religious right sees it).
There were freed black slaves who became rich enough to be ranchers, are you serious? Most freed blacks spent their lives in poverty. They may be free men, but they still were very much second class citizens. Discrimination against blacks was rampant, what is more the society did not think there was anything wrong in discriminating against blacks. I expect very few of them became ranchers. Most ranchers were white, they were Christians.
If you claim that there was this hoard of freed black slaves who became wealthy ranchers, please put up a website and enlighten us all, so we can all be educated.
Much as you may not like the fact, most of them were white Christians.
Cliffy and SirJosephPorter, please, please, cite "chapter and verse" of the Bible to support your ridiculous claims. Prove that "subdue and dominate" is synonymous to "destroy" or to
What you - in your infinite stupidity - claim is that those who believe in God want to breath dirty air, drink dirty water and leave that same legacy for their children and granchildren. You claim that those whose beliefs are different from yours want to kill off all wild life, conveniently forgetting that the people whom you so vidorously and phoneyly oppose in this regard devote and donate in money and time, far more for preservation than you and your ilk ever did, does or will.
Those who developed and created the agriculture - for those who are willingly too ignorant to realize this, the farmers of the American Midwest - that could feed the world, must have been developed by strong anti-environmentalists. Can anyone but Cliffy an SirJosephPorter fail fo see the insanity of this? Yet, it was spouted by these two worthies.
These two and their ilk don't realize that species come and species go. Who cries about the passenger pigeon? Who regrets that that there are no more dodo birds? Who would like Tyrannosaurus Rex in their neighbourhoods? Who would shed a tear for the disappearence of some insignificant species, if it meant cheaper groceries and healthier/more wholesome produce?
By the same token, In California, people are suffering, an entire agricultural industry is dying, because an insignificant little minnow is deemed more important than people by the phoney and insensitive environmentalists.
What you - in your infinite stupidity - claim is that those who believe in God want to breath dirty air, drink dirty water and leave that same legacy for their children and granchildren. You claim that those whose beliefs are different from yours want to kill off all wild life, conveniently forgetting that the people whom you so vidorously and phoneyly oppose in this regard devote and donate in money and time, far more for preservation than you and your ilk ever did, does or will.
Those who developed and created the agriculture - for those who are willingly too ignorant to realize this, the farmers of the American Midwest - that could feed the world, must have been developed by strong anti-environmentalists. Can anyone but Cliffy an SirJosephPorter fail fo see the insanity of this? Yet, it was spouted by these two worthies.
These two and their ilk don't realize that species come and species go. Who cries about the passenger pigeon? Who regrets that that there are no more dodo birds? Who would like Tyrannosaurus Rex in their neighbourhoods? Who would shed a tear for the disappearence of some insignificant species, if it meant cheaper groceries and healthier/more wholesome produce?
By the same token, In California, people are suffering, an entire agricultural industry is dying, because an insignificant little minnow is deemed more important than people by the phoney and insensitive environmentalists.
"There were freed black slaves who became rich enough to be ranchers, are you serious? Most freed blacks spent their lives in poverty. They may be free men, but they still were very much second class citizens. Discrimination against blacks was rampant, what is more the society did not think there was anything wrong in discriminating against blacks. I expect very few of them became ranchers. Most ranchers were white, they were Christians.
If you claim that there was this hoard of freed black slaves who became wealthy ranchers, please put up a website and enlighten us all, so we can all be educated.
Much as you may not like the fact, most of them were white Christians."
According to recent, politically correct Westerns, the entire West was conquered by Blacks. So, which is it?
BTW, wheather you like it or not, until recently, most blacks were Christians.
If you claim that there was this hoard of freed black slaves who became wealthy ranchers, please put up a website and enlighten us all, so we can all be educated.
Much as you may not like the fact, most of them were white Christians."
According to recent, politically correct Westerns, the entire West was conquered by Blacks. So, which is it?
BTW, wheather you like it or not, until recently, most blacks were Christians.
But only, of course, because their native animals had been slaughtered by rich white christian ranchers as a way of converting them to Christianity.
BTW, whether you like it or not, until recently, most blacks were Christians.
Don’t try to twist the words, Yukon Jack. Most blacks may be Christians, but most ranchers were white Christians.
According to recent, politically correct Westerns, the entire West was conquered by Blacks. So, which is it?
In case it has escaped your mind, Westerns are movies and may not necessarily represent reality. So are you saying that all those Westerns we saw, populated by cowboys, all of the cowboys, ranchers, priests etc. were really black, but John Wayne portrayed them as white?
That sure is a new take on history. Have you published your findings (that American West was populated by blacks)? Why, you may even get a Nobel Prize for it. But in the meantime, I notice that you cannot find a credible website to support your contention (that many ranchers were black).
Don’t try to twist the words, Yukon Jack. Most blacks may be Christians, but most ranchers were white Christians.
According to recent, politically correct Westerns, the entire West was conquered by Blacks. So, which is it?
In case it has escaped your mind, Westerns are movies and may not necessarily represent reality. So are you saying that all those Westerns we saw, populated by cowboys, all of the cowboys, ranchers, priests etc. were really black, but John Wayne portrayed them as white?
That sure is a new take on history. Have you published your findings (that American West was populated by blacks)? Why, you may even get a Nobel Prize for it. But in the meantime, I notice that you cannot find a credible website to support your contention (that many ranchers were black).