The Sparrow and the Affairs of Men

Amy L November 14, 2012 at 02:32 pm

He doesn't need or want proof. He probably got that chain email about Obama supposedly canceling the National Day of Prayer and also approving a Muslim Day of Prayer at the Capitol. Pissed off by this, he just went off half-cocked and posted this drivel.
Obama has recognized and issued a proclamation for the National Day of Prayer every year he has been in office. The Muslim prayer was a private event approved by Capitol Police and Obama didn't even know about it. He was at the G20 summit.

lee kellogg November 14, 2012 at 09:00 pm

I'm also curious as to how why you think Franklin would believe in a God that controlled every movement of every creature all the time? Deists didn't believe God did anything beyond set the clock. You didn't make that up too, did you?

Mr. B November 14, 2012 at 09:18 pm

To whom are you directing this question, Lee?
You obviously don't know any more about free will than you do Islam.

Tammy Osier November 14, 2012 at 10:59 pm

Sorry Steve, I'd like to help out, but once I saw lee and company, I decided it wasn't worth my time. No point in casting your pearls, if you know what I mean. You may need to find a more professional venue to write in where you'll get respectful comments and not have to worry about getting off topic. Not one comment has been on topic (well, one- thanks Marsha). But, I do agree with you. Our country is divided and there seems to be no exercise of accountability at the top. That's a guarantee of failure. Other nations have not escaped ruin and toppling and I don't think we are immune either unless we return authority to where it belongs.

R November 15, 2012 at 03:26 am

Amy
Is your assessment above based on comments from others or your own personal, physical observations?

David Brown November 15, 2012 at 01:25 pm

Listen to Frederick Douglass, the famous nineteenth-century slave who taught himself to read and write, about how Christian America was: "Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference ---- so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked.... I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial, and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity."

John Cook November 15, 2012 at 04:27 pm

Okay, Lee, you demand verification for what others have said--therefore I am demanding verification from you regarding what Franklin believed, including citations form appropriate sources that existed during his early life defining what a deist believed at the time. Also include quotes that prove that Franklin had read and agreed with those definitions of deist.
With a little research you will find that people who claimed to be deists also made statements that conflicted with the very essence of deism. Were they confused, or did they hold a different concept of the term than Noah Webster later defined in his new concept called a dictionary?

John Cook November 15, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Beginning in 2009 when President Obama took office, he has annually refused to attend the National Day of Prayer Service in Washington D.C., even though previous presidents have traditionally done so. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained, "Prayer is something that the president does every day . . . . privately . . . ."
The article above does not say that the President banned anything; merely that he declines to participate in a tradition that both Democratic and Republican presidents have partciipated in since 1952. He signs the proclamation, but won't attend the service. He does what he considers important. He obviously doesn't consider it important since he hasn't attended one during his four years in office.

John Cook November 16, 2012 at 12:18 am

From what I have read, it was Christian citizens who advocated for the abolition of slavery. Perhaps Douglas didn't have access to the facts.
And the slavery in The Bible was not the sort of slavery that was exported from Africa. In the Bible, a person in debt would agree to become a slave to work off a debt or to gain a certain amount of money. Every seven years was a Year of Jubilee in which all slaves were freed. At that time, a slave could voluntarily become a bond-slave for the rest of their lives, but the decision was a personal choice, not forced upon that person. The slavery exported from Africa was done by chiefs (African Princes) who kidnapped other Africans from neighboring villages. The African Chiefs exchanged (sold) these kidnapped persons for commodities--usually rum. The slaves had no choice, which made it immoral.

David Brown November 16, 2012 at 01:12 am

Let us not overlook how the Southern Baptist Convention was founded. Southern Baptists split from Northern Baptists over the issue of forbidding churches in slaveholding states from sending missionaries to spread the gospel. There is much more to the rest of the story, but I'll stop here.

Tammy Osier November 16, 2012 at 01:33 am

That is not where we are now, so what's your point? Go back to the words of Frederick Douglass and you'll see the answer, "...and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference ---- so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy,..." That is the One in whom Steve is referring to. No one can control the acts of those in whom claimed the name of the Lord but did not have His spirit. History is full of those people. You can argue, make ridiculous statements, present strawmen all you want, but if indeed God has the last say, you may find yourselves very humbled someday when an accountingis req.

David Brown November 16, 2012 at 02:28 am

Tammy, I was merely responding to John Cook's statement "From what I have read, it was Christian citizens who advocated for the abolition of slavery. Perhaps Douglas didn't have access to the facts." That was my point. Excuse me.:) And by the way, I would be careful of putting forth Benjamin Franklin as a model of virtue. Benjamin Franklin was a known womanizer.

John Cook November 16, 2012 at 03:29 am

Yeah, undoubtedly Franklin was referring to Allah or Buddah, or Mohamed . . . especially since Benjamin Franklin was a well-educated man and was familiar with Jesus' words in the famous Sermon On the Mount in Matthew 10:29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care."
The Bible is only referred to as the most influential book in the history of the world and the #1 bestseller of all time. It's a pity that some people who consider themselves well-educated have never read a book with such high reputation.

Tammy Osier November 16, 2012 at 11:31 am

Thanks for sharing John. It was christians that advocated and fought for the abolition of slavery. It 's always good to see the whole picture, not just chery pick the facts as many are in the habit of doing.
David, my point was that you fcan't look at just the people who are idiots even though they call themselves christians. Throughout history there is always a remnant who will rise up and make things right.

David Brown November 16, 2012 at 01:29 pm

Tammy, I will meet you half-way and accept that there were some Christians that advocated and fought for the abolition of slavery. However, in 1845, the Southern Baptists probably comprised a large segment of Christians here in the south. It is a fact that the Southern Baptists were so obstinate about keeping their slaves that they split from the Northern Baptists and created their own congregation. I do recognize and appreciate that the Southern Baptists apologized for their poor civil rights record, including keeping slaves, at their June 1995 convention.

STEVE RAMEY November 16, 2012 at 03:41 pm

Everyone needs to understand that at maximum only 15% of Southerners owned slaves. Many of the rest worked almost as hard as slaves to exists. We all know slavery was wrong; that is a given. My own Grandparents were sharecroppers at one time; that is very close to slavery. Not one of you seem to realize the war was not fought over slaves but economics.Besides the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the south but not the north. Lincoln was still wanting to either ship slaves back to Africa or colonize them in a land set aside for that purpose. The original proclamation even stated the South could keep their slaves if they returned to the Union by January 1st 1863. General Grant did not give up his slaves until after the war. Read a real history book not written by the revisionist: "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians" by Walter Brian Cisco is a good choice. The great Lincoln was the first to advocate collateral damage to civilians and property as just that, He burned their homes and bombed the southern cities with citizens living there..
Why don't you now focus on the slavery continuing today in the middle east of north Africa if you have an urge to do something noble?

John Cook November 16, 2012 at 05:29 pm

Google the term "red herring propaganda device." The comment about Southern Baptists, as well as the comment about Franklin being a womanizer are both red herrings. In a forensic debate such comments would be penalized. Red herring comments are designed to distract from the issue rather than refute the main point.

John Cook November 16, 2012 at 05:32 pm

Besides, how many times have I been told since the impeachment hearings of 1999 that womanizing is irrelevant and has nothing to do with job performance? Yet, when convenient, here it is again being used to slam a good man. [grin]

John Cook November 16, 2012 at 05:51 pm

My great-grandfather and his brothers owned farms and blacksmith shops in Norcross and Duluth, but no slaves. I wonder how that happened? No slaves! Oh yeah, I think I read a letter that indicated that they attended the Methodist Sunday School, so that must have made the difference. If only they had been Southern Baptists, do you think they would have owned slaves just to fit in with the rest of the church members? Get real. I only remember reading about one plantation in all of Gwinnett, and that was the Promised Land plantation in the Lithonia area. But I can't read that resource again to verify it, because when Joanne Pinder was director of the Gwinnett Library system, she threw away that book and other books related to the history and geneology of Gwinnett. Yep, in the dumpster so she could make more shelf space available for novels. She didn't even think that perhaps she should donate them to the historical society.
Now, would someone please introduce a red herring propaganda comment about the evils of Methodists? We should really have a comment bashing them, also. No good person should go unbashed in this comment thread. [grin]

Mr. B November 16, 2012 at 06:00 pm

My family didn't own salves. Slaves had it better than my family. At least they had places to live and food to eat. Might not have been much but something is better than nothing.

David Brown November 16, 2012 at 08:03 pm

Below is a link to the June 1995 Southern Baptist Resolution on Racial Reconciliation. Please read the fourth whereas.
http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amresolution.asp?id=899

Mr. B November 16, 2012 at 08:26 pm

The congregations of the Baptists were separate since their founding dating back to the 1600's. The First Baptist Church in America was established in 1638 and was separate from Baptist churches in England. In 1755, Baptist churches were established in NC. Southern state Baptists were initially referred to as Separate Baptists. In 1830, there was tension between the Northern star Baptists and the Southern sate Baptists over slavery. In 1845, the Southern state Baptist met and founded the Southern Baptist.

Tammy Osier November 16, 2012 at 11:40 pm

John Cook, my favorite subject in college was "critical thinking". That's why these comment sections cannot be called debates, because they're not. The red herring is one of the biggest ones used when talking politics. Of course, hypocrisy was a biggie too in the last election.
You'll note that Steve brought up a valid point about modern day slavery (like...uh...if you really want to talk about slavery- lol) but it'll sit there. You'll note that we elected a black president- twice, but yet we are quibbling over slavery of long ago and how it relates to christianity so as to debunk that God just might happen to play a part in the great scheme of things. Go figure.

Tammy Osier November 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm

To prove my (and John Cook's) point that these responses have no actual thought to them, but are meant to detract from a very well written piece, here's a little cricket to *chirp* the morning away! IN fact, I may go out ot see if I can hear any birds chirping in the trees, look up and smile that I'm not in here on the computer arguing aimlessly with mindless arguments. Have a great saturday ya'll!

Tammy Osier November 17, 2012 at 12:55 pm

John Cook wrote:
Besides, how many times have I been told since the impeachment hearings of 1999 that womanizing is irrelevant and has nothing to do with job performance? Yet, when convenient, here it is again being used to slam a good man. [grin] Thus, my argument concerning the hypocrisy of the left. It's ok for Clinton and others, but when it's done by someone who invokes the name of God or leans to the right...ooooooohhhhhhhh......

David Brown November 17, 2012 at 02:51 pm

"Mindless point"? My main point was how my fellow Christians, through the ages, have harmed the cause of Christ by their treatment of minorities. Some of you might be insouciant when it comes to that, but God and I take it seriously. A close Black friend of mine told me about his childhood church in Abbeville, South Carolina. The White worshippers were allowed inside the sanctuary. The Black worshippers had to worship outside the church building. I recall Tony Evans, the well-known Black pastor, being told by an Atlanta megachurch that he was not welcomed there. I recall hearing a visiting White pastor at my former church describe how a group of his White worshippers threatened to leave the church after that pastor baptized some black children. I recall reading about Thomas Jefferson's mistreatment of Sally Hemings. I find it interesting that Jesus' last miracle was healing Malchus's ear that had been cut off by the Apostle Peter. In other words, Jesus healed a wound that had been inflicted by a Christian upon a non-Christian. Those of us who call ourselves Christians need to stop inflicting wounds on non-Christians. That's my "mindless" point.

Tammy Osier November 17, 2012 at 04:44 pm

Sorry David, I was actually referring back to the first part of this thread when people came out in full attack mode. My apologies. Note that you're still in here and the rest have flown the coop. I should have been more specific, but bringing the things up that you do, have some merit in which I'd be ashamed to be associated with. I guess that 's why I have always looked for the signs of a true church where reconciliation has always played a big part. Having said that though, I believe the church has been working hard in the past decade to change that. Proof is the churches that have sprung up in defiance of that. I just prefer to be a part of the solution rather than continually condemning the ones who aren't complying to that mandate- it leads to bickering with no solutions in sight. God has a way of fixing that so I'd rather defer it to HIm. :)

Tammy Osier November 17, 2012 at 04:50 pm

Btw....David, I go to a church and am part of a ministry whre I am the minority and I hear those stories all the time from my black brothers and sisters. But those are from their childhood, and they will also say that they've seen much reconciliation in the body in recent years. The book of Acts is point on in what God prefers for His body. Jesus rebuked the church constantly. The NT Epistles tell us how to treat each other and how to treat those on the outside. We need to get about His kingdom and stop the (carnal) arguments that don't lead anywhere. However, I do believe that believers need to beware when getting their information from the media that loves to stir things up when it comes to this subject and others similar. The media tends to focus on what's wrong rather than what's right.

Tammy Osier November 19, 2012 at 03:02 pm

Now that my point has been proven that if you post something that has to do with God or decency, that the drive-bys will come and splatter their spiel for a while and leave, I'd like to leave with my conclusions on the matter. Your post was right on, and I'd think that many would be comforted that God is ultimately in control. Our freewill allows us to go just so far before God intervenes and shows us the better way to do it. I found a really good article that I want to share that might leave you with some food for thought. Here's to looking forward to your next awesome piece!
http://townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/2012/11/18/if_god_doesnt_judge_us_hell_have_to_apologize_to_sodom?fb_action_ids=3426258795039&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_ref=column_bottom&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

David Brown November 19, 2012 at 03:37 pm

Tammy, again, we will have to agree to disagree. I have a BIG problem with your view and Doug Giles's view of God's sovereignty. Both of your views are faulty and show an exegesis of Scripture that is colored by your political perspectives. I love you as my sister in Christ and respect you, but we just see things differently. I'll be thrilled when we get to heaven where Christians won't be wasting precious time arguing about politics and social issues.:)