Living in a country where many have grown today accepting truth as a second thought. This is for anyone who fall within this category.
Should we or could we assume when King James decided to rewrite the holy book, it was to bare penitents for all the bad things he had allegedly done in his past, or was it to demonstrate his arrogance being king and white. If the latter was true, than there must be a reason a percentage of whites today choose to believe his writings, since they may equate his ethnic identity to be equal to all truths. But it would also seem logical to make certain changes, knowing the laws of the original book was more exact regarding wrongdoings. But few ever question it, since it was he who chose to change what was in the old book. But for what purpose. Was declaring it to be new a way to leave an untainted legacy. How would he be conceived by parishioners today, knowing he wasn’t God. But again since it was he who chose to write his own bible, whose to say he didn’t believed he was a figment of God, because of entitlements. Regrettably immortality wasn’t one of them. This should lead to more questions. Has anyone proven God suggested or had any part in telling him to modify or remove any of the annotations from the original bible.
I’m not an atheists or disbelieving of a deity more powerful than God, but I don’t believe because man has been able to gain certain spiritual elements of knowledge, he has the right to alter what was and always seen sacred to add his beliefs as truths. Strange, but powerful people always find a way to sway truth in thier favor. With eyes opened, it’s should be easy to see some who claim God spoke to them usually reveal some measure of entitlement, which the devotee seem to prefer to overlook. That’s the same reason religion has become more of a habit, than a lifelong process of checks and balance.
But now I’ll get at what I’ve been trying to, it’s this thing called Values, that has nothing to do with a persons religious beliefs or race. That’s why I feel those who constantly lecture about it, are usually in conflict with their own integrity. Fortunately few are capable of writing new manuscripts to disguise their discord. But yet some will still equate success to ethics. Unfortunately suggesting it is polarizing, because their case and point is sometimes directed at those where the chance of success has always been limited……………..From the most humble of individuals to the most astute, we all learn to uphold some principles if we consider the likely consequences of us failing to apply it during our lives. Yet we’re still faced with the illicit psychic that seems to ponder in the character of powerful people who should be better examples and have more reasons to display true values. So hearing someone of that type suggesting morality as a means to our needs, it’s say’s they are just using rhetoric to conceal their past or future transgressions.
Many tea party advocates say they feel deeply about their religion. Oddly their association and sometimes manner of participation sets their actions contrary to the way their bible suggests. Few may have pushed aside the reading that was necessary, since it’s not only what you do that can determined imminent consequences; its also what you think and say. Unfortunately this has allowed the most bigoted of that group to persist in keeping up the slander against so-called minorities.
Would believing Jesus Christ is white give them more of a right to do it? The question may sound silly, but it seems to have a valid point with many who carry signs and yell racial obsenities. If I got the chance, I would ask the most passionate, why is it okay to convey ill feelings towards people who often have been in this country all their lives and not wonder why a good portion of the world feel the same way about them? I would also ask, if they are hoping to rid the country of everyone that’s non white? If it were possible there would surely be constant turmoil, civil and otherwise since they have shown there are few things they can agree on without conflict. But this could be dangerous because it could also allow those who want to destroy this country a chance to do it with ease. Without a doubt the cushion of white America has always been the people they labeled minorities. They are the people they hate and blame when things are going bad in their lives. It’s like the slave owner blaming the slaves because his yearly crops were meager.
But here’s something not so religious, although many conquests was in it’s name. Few whites may realize from the beginning of time their forebears has been generally migratory besides invasive of land and cultures. So I’ll ask; if the gates of Europe suddenly reopened and there were pleas and heartwarming rhetoric from the church and politicians suggesting all whites who were the result of many hundred of years of nomadic passage”Please come home”. Would any choose to leave, believing their lives would be better because ethnically they have more in common? Of course it’s a hypothetical notion. So here’s another question, what country are some arguing to take back? This is for those who freqently use social and political idioms, before spending a little time to understand them. If there was never any degree of socialism in this country, few would have anything they often claim to be theirs. To conclude; although it was demonstrated during the Jim Crow period, lies and bias rhetoric adding other conditions was necessary to the ruling establishment. Sounds familiar? The risk today is how it allows the most powerful to wittingly rearrange the society and to a greater extent economics where the probability of all citizens could eventually face conditions similar to 3rd world populace. For the disbelievers, most of the negativity isn’t against the rich or poor. It’s aimed at the middleclass which have always helped to maintain this nations sovereignty.