We Will Pick Up a Bible As Soon As You Pick Up a History Book

Getting to the heart of the matter:

Matthew 11:27 clearly states "no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son has revealed him." Jesus himself said, "No one comes to the Father except through Me."

Therefore, according to what believers consider to be biblical truth, our fellow Christians such as Thomas Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and every other sinful Confederate (which BTW is all of them) were forgiven for their transgressions that they committed on this earthly plain against their fellow man, and are now in Heaven worshipping in the circle of the Lord.

On the other hand, many of these anti-religious academics, agnostics, and atheists who fervently preach against Christ and His followers (including born-again historical figures) may be headed to a much-much darker place. I suggest that these professors put down their history books and pick up a bible.

I just want to reiterate that it is a very, very, dark place. In all seriousness, this was written by an individual who knows absolutely nothing about academic writing or analytical history in general.  It's the worst kind of hate speech because it is born of ignorance and fear.  Who are these academic historians who hate religion and "preach against Christ and His followers?"  Have you ever heard of such insanity?  Not once has anyone cited an example of this. 

Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War’s Most Persistent Myth

“Levin’s study is the first of its kind to blueprint and then debunk the mythology of enslaved African Americans who allegedly served voluntarily in behalf of the Confederacy.”–Journal of Southern History

Purchase your copy today!

13 comments… add one
  • Greg Rowe Oct 15, 2008 @ 22:27

    As I have often commented on this site, people who misuse religion, particularly one I adhere to, really chap me. I don’t know where the post was pulled from, more precisely, I don’t care. The religious leanings of historical figures could be debated for years and never be settled. We cannot judge the sincerity of religious beliefs without actually speaking to a person in the flesh, we can only presume. I can post whatever I want about what I believe and you have to take my word for it, unless you meet me and we discuss religious issues and you can examine my nonverbal cues to determine that sincerity. We are in much the same position with historical figures without that benefit. That being said, we all must stand before whatever higher power we believe in with both our sincerity for the belief system AND how we have presented that belief system to others. While I am a Christian, I have researched several world religions and am familiar with them enough to know that is a basic tenent of most of them.

    Besides, the same Bible, oh wait, the same book of that same Bible (also quoting Christ) says, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” (Matthew 7:1-2) Let the author of that post, with whatever misguided sense of religious duty that person possess, consider how they present their beliefs.

    Also, most academics will at least discuss religion without damning you to that “dark, dark place” because you don’t happen to agree with them on every point the way most religious people do about their particular brand of faith. I’m firmly convinced that Christ would not recognize the religion of today that bears His name. Especially with people like you quoted being responsible for the PR.

  • Sherree Oct 8, 2008 @ 8:26

    Hi Kevin,

    Good morning,

    It appears that comments that I have made on your blog have been taken from your blog without my permission and used as talking points on another blog. I believe in personal responsibility as well as anyone else. I have entered statements into a public domain, and I accept the fact that once those statements are in the public domain, they no longer belong to me. With your permission and indulgence, however, and without taxing your respectful readers, I would like to state here where the comments were made, that the comments were meant for this blog, and this blog alone. On the positive side–I suppose that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

    It is the belief of many Indigenous nations that the Great Spirit–the Great Mystery–inhabits all of Creation in a powerful way that is living and real. There is the Spirit World, and there is the material world–the Unseen World and the Seen World. A stone is not inert matter. It is imbued with spirit. The ant is as important as the eagle and as humankind. All of life is to be respected and honored, down to the ground beneath our feet. The inability of some to respect the worldviews of others has led to untold tragedies for centuries. It is time for that to stop. Thank you, Kevin, for providing an open forum for discussion, and I thank your readers as well.


  • Sherree Oct 6, 2008 @ 7:23

    Hi Charles,

    The short answer would be in a dark, dark place, along with just about 99.99999% of the rest of the population of planet Earth, according to the philosophy you allude to. I regularly sit in a sweat lodge run by a Cherokee holy man, and we cover all bases in our spirituality, and in our–yes, gasp!–prayers. That disqualifies me to partake of the kingdom of God, according to some, whatever that phrase might mean. Personally, I prefer a man or woman whose god is a frog on a lily pad and who believes in the inherent equality of every man, woman, and child on Earth and of all other life forms, too, to one who condemns others in the name of God, as so many do in some of our major religions, and I think that makes me a true Christian as, perhaps, the man who actually walked the Earth over one hundred years before a religion sprang up in his name, might have meant for his message to be interpreted.

    Please keep beating your drums, and I will beat a drum in support, with your permission!

  • Kevin Levin Oct 5, 2008 @ 13:26

    You make a good point. The idea that we are supposed to praise slaveowners for introducing slaves to Christianity is just an extension of the old paternalist line that the slaveowners themselves used to justify enslavement. Very odd indeed.

  • Charles Lovejoy Oct 5, 2008 @ 11:18

    Where does a pagan like myself fit into this whole thing? Seriously? Ive never had any one offer me an explanation from the Christian or the agnostics and atheists points of view. I feel the thing that the Africans that were brought to the western world as slaves lost more importantly than just their freedom was their African spiritual identity. The soul of who they were as a people. But in Haiti as in other parts of the western hemisphere their African spiritual roots are still here. Their drums still best around their ritual fires. The Garifuna people in Honduras and Belize and the Gullah people down along the South Carolina/Georgia coast have the the candles of African spirituality burning. I assume agnostics and atheists believe in nothing spiritually about history and Christians have their diverse interpretations as history relates to their religion abd the civil war. Myself I position Papa Legba to open the gates to the spirit world.
    I would love a christian analyst or where a pagan like myself fits in to all these type civil war debates?

  • Sherree Oct 1, 2008 @ 18:25

    I understand. Have a good evening.

  • Kevin Levin Oct 1, 2008 @ 17:25

    The author of that post is no longer allowed to comment on my site.

  • Sherree Oct 1, 2008 @ 17:19


    Now I am with you. I located the quote. Please understand that some of your readers were born before the computer age.

    I am appalled by the comment, and I am further appalled by the refusal of the person who made the comment to voice his opinions here where those opinions could be rebutted. I stand by what I have said here, and by what I have said in comments I have made on other posts you have made. Keep up the good work and don’t get discouraged. Truth always wins in the end. As one of your readers said in a comment to you several weeks ago: you are doing God’s work.

  • Sherree Oct 1, 2008 @ 10:30


    Too much browsing, surfing, and thinking does a dull person make.

    It was a joke! What a relief!

    I was afraid for a moment that I had opened up a two front war with live ammo rounds in the mix.

    You have a good one, too, Kevin. RRRRLOL (really, really, really, really laughing out loud)


  • Kevin Levin Oct 1, 2008 @ 9:50

    Sherree, — LOL. I think you completely missed the point of the post. I was quoting from another website. Don’t worry as my humor is often lost on my readers. Have a good one.

  • Sherree Oct 1, 2008 @ 8:53

    You start to lose me a little here, Kevin–not that your point of view is presented to persuade me or anyone else of your position, and as you said before; we are all free to interpret the past as we see fit. There were plenty of Union soldiers who were “sinful” as well, although the North definitely fought the Civil War for the right reason: to end the institution of slavery, which did most definitely inflict a holocaust upon African American men and women. That is an undeniable, indefensible fact.

    On this point, though, perhaps another World War II analogy might be helpful, in this sense: The United States and the Allies fought the war for the right reason, to stop Hitler. (I know this is too simplistic and that there are volumes written on this subject, but for the sake of the point I am trying to make–the end result of the war was that Hitler was stopped) The men and women in the United States who lived during the time period of the war then applauded themselves on the correctness of their moral position. Subsequent studies showed that our country had its own moral dilemmas to face, including the bombing of Dresden and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This is the inherent danger of presenting the men in the Union Army as morally superior to the men in the Confederate Army, which you are not doing here, but that some studies do seem to do. At some point the moral equation will falter. That does not negate for one minute the fact that the South fought the Civil War for an indefensible reason, no matter how you slice it, to use the phrase from one of your other posts. I think that the attempt to neutralize the moral question by defendants of the Confederacy produces a harsh and necessary backlash that often forces the painting of the Union Army in an unrealistic manner that, in some ways, mirrors the Lost Cause view that romanticizes the South and the Confederacy. On the other hand, if, after the Civil War, Reconstruction had achieved in the Southern United States what the citizens of West Germany achieved in their country after World War II, we would not be having this conversation.

    Thanks again for the references on the other post. You truly are a gifted teacher and a gifted historian.

  • Kevin Levin Oct 1, 2008 @ 7:50

    Damn Marc…that would have made for an excellent title for this post. (LOL)

  • Marc Ferguson Oct 1, 2008 @ 7:29

    Indeed. Sometimes the most powerful critique is allowing the subject to speak for him/herself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *