|
Post by Lee on Sept 6, 2020 7:46:54 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2020 9:28:29 GMT -5
awesome...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 6, 2020 16:53:49 GMT -5
All smart talk. Makes no difference to anyone but his own fantasy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 21:05:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 7, 2020 23:50:51 GMT -5
Published June 4 Megachurch pastor apologizes for liking ‘insensitive’ postsA prominent Christian pastor and author tearfully apologized this week for liking posts on social media by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk which were considered racially insensitive.
Pastor Chris Hodges, founder of the 60,000-member Church of the Highlands in Alabama, which has one of the largest congregations in the nation, tripled down on his public apology Tuesday.
"Some saw something on social media that questioned my character, and, I’ll own it, by the way, but that is not what I believe, and it is not what we teach. And I understand how this has made you feel and I apologize," Hodges said Sunday morning.
Chris Hodges, senior pastor and founder of 60,000-member Church of the Highlands in Alabama, apologized multiple times for liking social media posts by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk that a high school teacher called racially insensitive. cont. @ www.foxnews.com/us/pastor-charlie-kirk-post-apologize-online
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 22:32:11 GMT -5
kirk stated that the governor of virginia wore black face along with two people wearing KKK uniforms, that would be calling out racism, if calling out racism is racially insensitive so be it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2020 23:33:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2020 0:25:00 GMT -5
Well, so what if there a "Black Woman" who tries to denounce the "Critical Race Theory" in the British Parliament? Do you think, Lee that just because she is a "black lady," that makes any difference in what is really true?
Her or your view does not invalidate the fact that there is & has been for a long long time that the "law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour.
According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities.
The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s.
You may want to deny the truth and she might want to deny the truth, but that can't change what is really true, Lee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 0:33:01 GMT -5
Well, so what if there a "Black Woman" who tries to denounce the "Critical Race Theory" in the British Parliament? Do you think, Lee that just because she is a "black lady," that makes any difference in what is really true?
Her or your view does not invalidate the fact that there is & has been for a long long time that the "law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour.
According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities.
The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s.
You may want to deny the truth and she might want to deny the truth, but that can't change what is really true, Lee.
lee didn't post that i wally did...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 14:32:33 GMT -5
"According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities"
Blame whitey. Sure thing.
A LOT of white boys died so our country could abolish a worldwide tradition of enslaving others. Bad whitey.
A LOT of white people matched and passed laws promoting equality. Bad whitey.
A LOT of white people (including myself) are actively engaged in the African American communities, working to undo the true evils of past generations. Bad whitey.
My little girl, on MLK-Jr. day, after a long conversation about racism, slavery and inequality looks at me in total bewilderment and says, "but Dad, I like brown and white people!" Bad little whitey! Don't you know that because of the color of your skin, you are responsible for the sins of the past?
B***S***.
BRAVO to the Trump Administration for creating opportunity zones, increasing funding for HBCUs to record levels, and creating the lowest African American employment in recorded history!
But don't forget..... Bad Whitey!
CRT can go into the left's garbage pile of bad ideas, next to communism. It isn't forward thinking, and instead creates the self-fulfilling culture of inequalities it pretends to hate.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2020 16:01:41 GMT -5
Well, so what if there a "Black Woman" who tries to denounce the "Critical Race Theory" in the British Parliament? Do you think, Lee that just because she is a "black lady," that makes any difference in what is really true?
Her or your view does not invalidate the fact that there is & has been for a long long time that the "law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour.
According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities.
The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s.
You may want to deny the truth and she might want to deny the truth, but that can't change what is really true, Lee.
lee didn't post that i wally did... OK. -sorry but when you two gang up together with your excuses to not face the truth, you do sound alike. But that's ok for you to correct me,- you just gives a chance to show my own post over again for anyone who may have missed it the first time!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2020 16:44:13 GMT -5
"According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities" Blame whitey. Sure thing. A LOT of white boys died so our country could abolish a worldwide tradition of enslaving others. Bad whitey. A LOT of white people matched and passed laws promoting equality. Bad whitey. A LOT of white people (including myself) are actively engaged in the African American communities, working to undo the true evils of past generations. Bad whitey. My little girl, on MLK-Jr. day, after a long conversation about racism, slavery and inequality looks at me in total bewilderment and says, "but Dad, I like brown and white people!" Bad little whitey! Don't you know that because of the color of your skin, you are responsible for the sins of the past? B***S***. BRAVO to the Trump Administration for creating opportunity zones, increasing funding for HBCUs to record levels, and creating the lowest African American employment in recorded history! But don't forget..... Bad Whitey! CRT can go into the left's garbage pile of bad ideas, next to communism. It isn't forward thinking, and instead creates the self-fulfilling culture of inequalities it pretends to hate. OK, ipsedixit, -but so were I and my husband actively working to undo not JUST the evils of past, but the evils of racism RIGHT HERE & NOW.
He worked here in Illinois to get the governor to put a moratorium on the death penalty., -the reason? -see below*
That is why it is so terrifyingly disappointing to me to find so much of our hard work go right down the drain with Trump and his enablement and encouragement of racists to rear their ugly heads again!
Ipsedixit, -If you consider that CRT should "go into the left's garbage pile of bad ideas," -have you any better ideas to correct the racist problem?
*According to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), both supporters and opposers of capital punishment in the United States agree that its implementation is racially discriminatory. In another report by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), disparity against Blacks is very evident in the justice system, from charging to executions.
In the NAACP report gathered from the US Department of Justice, 48% of defendants who were White were able to get granted life sentence through plea bargaining. In comparison, only 25% of Black defendants were able to be granted the same. For most of the Black defendants, it’s a firm death sentence decision.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 18:02:07 GMT -5
"According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities" Blame whitey. Sure thing. A LOT of white boys died so our country could abolish a worldwide tradition of enslaving others. Bad whitey. A LOT of white people matched and passed laws promoting equality. Bad whitey. A LOT of white people (including myself) are actively engaged in the African American communities, working to undo the true evils of past generations. Bad whitey. My little girl, on MLK-Jr. day, after a long conversation about racism, slavery and inequality looks at me in total bewilderment and says, "but Dad, I like brown and white people!" Bad little whitey! Don't you know that because of the color of your skin, you are responsible for the sins of the past? B***S***. BRAVO to the Trump Administration for creating opportunity zones, increasing funding for HBCUs to record levels, and creating the lowest African American employment in recorded history! But don't forget..... Bad Whitey! CRT can go into the left's garbage pile of bad ideas, next to communism. It isn't forward thinking, and instead creates the self-fulfilling culture of inequalities it pretends to hate. OK, ipsedixit, -but so were I and my husband actively working to undo not JUST the evils of past, but the evils of racism RIGHT HERE & NOW.
He worked here in Illinois to get the governor to put a moratorium on the death penalty., -the reason? -see below*
That is why it is so terrifyingly disappointing to me to find so much of our hard work go right down the drain with Trump and his enablement and encouragement of racists to rear their ugly heads again!
Ipsedixit, -If you consider that CRT should "go into the left's garbage pile of bad ideas," -have you any better ideas to correct the racist problem?
*According to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), both supporters and opposers of capital punishment in the United States agree that its implementation is racially discriminatory. In another report by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), disparity against Blacks is very evident in the justice system, from charging to executions.
In the NAACP report gathered from the US Department of Justice, 48% of defendants who were White were able to get granted life sentence through plea bargaining. In comparison, only 25% of Black defendants were able to be granted the same. For most of the Black defendants, it’s a firm death sentence decision.My solution is to teach individualism as the fundamental and best idea of Western philosophy. To get rid of "identity politics" entirely. Identity Politics can find a place somewhere between communism and CRT. Or put it another way - if we have to place people who each have unique experience and perspectives in groups for political purposes, make them groups of one.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 23, 2020 21:11:26 GMT -5
OK, ipsedixit, -but so were I and my husband actively working to undo not JUST the evils of past, but the evils of racism RIGHT HERE & NOW.
He worked here in Illinois to get the governor to put a moratorium on the death penalty., -the reason? -see below*
That is why it is so terrifyingly disappointing to me to find so much of our hard work go right down the drain with Trump and his enablement and encouragement of racists to rear their ugly heads again!
Ipsedixit, -If you consider that CRT should "go into the left's garbage pile of bad ideas," -have you any better ideas to correct the racist problem?
*According to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), both supporters and opposers of capital punishment in the United States agree that its implementation is racially discriminatory. In another report by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), disparity against Blacks is very evident in the justice system, from charging to executions.
In the NAACP report gathered from the US Department of Justice, 48% of defendants who were White were able to get granted life sentence through plea bargaining. In comparison, only 25% of Black defendants were able to be granted the same. For most of the Black defendants, it’s a firm death sentence decision. My solution is to teach individualism as the fundamental and best idea of Western philosophy. To get rid of "identity politics" entirely. Identity Politics can find a place somewhere between communism and CRT. Or put it another way - if we have to place people who each have unique experience and perspectives in groups for political purposes, make them groups of one. OK. I understand what you are saying although I don't understand being against "identity politics" in our political system.
identity politics
a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
Critics argue that identity politics groups based on a particular shared identity (e.g. race, or gender identity) can divert energy and attention from more fundamental issues.
That no doubt does sounds reasonable for someone to not want to divert energy and attention from what they consider "more fundamental issues," -if that "critic" is white, male, privileged; -perhaps wealthy and socially advantaged; -who already enjoy the benefits of political system which acknowledges their rights.
They who also are the ones who create the legal, economic institutions whereby the rest of us must live by, -whether we be of another color, female, of a different sexual orientation or for that matter, even a male laborer in a factory.
If we did not come together in groups with a "shared identity" as laborers, our people working in our factories would still be working in dangerous conditions and for peanuts.
There would not be women running for the vice-presidency today.
We would still be having LGBT gender oriented people being put in jail.
Knowing all of the that, and much, much more, -why would we want to get rid of "identity politics?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 22:28:20 GMT -5
My solution is to teach individualism as the fundamental and best idea of Western philosophy. To get rid of "identity politics" entirely. Identity Politics can find a place somewhere between communism and CRT. Or put it another way - if we have to place people who each have unique experience and perspectives in groups for political purposes, make them groups of one. OK. I understand what you are saying although I don't understand being against "identity politics" in our political system.
identity politics
a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
Critics argue that identity politics groups based on a particular shared identity (e.g. race, or gender identity) can divert energy and attention from more fundamental issues.
That no doubt does sounds reasonable for someone to not want to divert energy and attention from what they consider "more fundamental issues," -if that "critic" is white, male, privileged; -perhaps wealthy and socially advantaged; -who already enjoy the benefits of political system which acknowledges their rights.
They who also are the ones who create the legal, economic institutions whereby the rest of us must live by, -whether we be of another color, female, of a different sexual orientation or for that matter, even a male laborer in a factory.
If we did not come together in groups with a "shared identity" as laborers, our people working in our factories would still be working in dangerous conditions and for peanuts.
There would not be women running for the vice-presidency today.
We would still be having LGBT gender oriented people being put in jail.
Knowing all of the that, and much, much more, -why would we want to get rid of "identity politics?"Should I, being a "white privileged male" do Everything within my power to further the interest of my exclusive white male group? White males are being asked to hate their own group for evils that they are not responsible for. Ought I instead to recognise that injustice based on race occurs, and fight against it? If people like me do it, we're Klansmen. And white won't always by in majority.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 24, 2020 1:17:42 GMT -5
OK. I understand what you are saying although I don't understand being against "identity politics" in our political system.
identity politics
a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
Critics argue that identity politics groups based on a particular shared identity (e.g. race, or gender identity) can divert energy and attention from more fundamental issues.
That no doubt does sounds reasonable for someone to not want to divert energy and attention from what they consider "more fundamental issues," -if that "critic" is white, male, privileged; -perhaps wealthy and socially advantaged; -who already enjoy the benefits of political system which acknowledges their rights.
They who also are the ones who create the legal, economic institutions whereby the rest of us must live by, -whether we be of another color, female, of a different sexual orientation or for that matter, even a male laborer in a factory.
If we did not come together in groups with a "shared identity" as laborers, our people working in our factories would still be working in dangerous conditions and for peanuts.
There would not be women running for the vice-presidency today.
We would still be having LGBT gender oriented people being put in jail.
Knowing all of the that, and much, much more, -why would we want to get rid of "identity politics?" Should I, being a "white privileged male" do Everything within my power to further the interest of my exclusive white male group? White males are being asked to hate their own group for evils that they are not responsible for. Ought I instead to recognise that injustice based on race occurs, and fight against it? If people like me do it, we're Klansmen. And white won't always by in majority. The 2-party structure of the US system doesn't work well for a pluralistic society. What we've ended up with is two parties neither of which can really decide what their primary constituency will be. It leaves major portions of the population unrepresented in legislatures, and their unique concerns unheard and neglected. Right now I think it would be interesting to see a Trumpist AND a Traditional Republican running in each electoral district.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2020 1:35:01 GMT -5
Should I, being a "white privileged male" do Everything within my power to further the interest of my exclusive white male group? White males are being asked to hate their own group for evils that they are not responsible for. Ought I instead to recognise that injustice based on race occurs, and fight against it? If people like me do it, we're Klansmen. And white won't always by in majority. The 2-party structure of the US system doesn't work well for a pluralistic society. What we've ended up with is two parties neither of which can really decide what their primary constituency will be. It leaves major portions of the population unrepresented in legislatures, and their unique concerns unheard and neglected. Right now I think it would be interesting to see a Trumpist AND a Traditional Republican running in each electoral district. its not entirely a 2-party system i voted last week and had a choice of 6-7 candidates for president of which only 2 were dem/rep....as for other positions choices ranged from dem/rep to libertarian. outright socialist and non partisan and judges had(of course) no political affiliations at all...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 24, 2020 1:35:23 GMT -5
OK. I understand what you are saying although I don't understand being against "identity politics" in our political system.
identity politics
a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
Critics argue that identity politics groups based on a particular shared identity (e.g. race, or gender identity) can divert energy and attention from more fundamental issues.
That no doubt does sounds reasonable for someone to not want to divert energy and attention from what they consider "more fundamental issues," -if that "critic" is white, male, privileged; -perhaps wealthy and socially advantaged; -who already enjoy the benefits of political system which acknowledges their rights.
They who also are the ones who create the legal, economic institutions whereby the rest of us must live by, -whether we be of another color, female, of a different sexual orientation or for that matter, even a male laborer in a factory.
If we did not come together in groups with a "shared identity" as laborers, our people working in our factories would still be working in dangerous conditions and for peanuts.
There would not be women running for the vice-presidency today.
We would still be having LGBT gender oriented people being put in jail.
Knowing all of the that, and much, much more, -why would we want to get rid of "identity politics?" Should I, being a "white privileged male" do Everything within my power to further the interest of my exclusive white male group? White males are being asked to hate their own group for evils that they are not responsible for. Ought I instead to recognise that injustice based on race occurs, and fight against it? If people like me do it, we're Klansmen. And white won't always by in majority. I, nor anyone else, is asking you to "hate" their own group" for something that you are not responsible for! Only that you realize that your position in society now does rest on the past and that that it is still the same prevalent position today.
As to our question "Should I, being a "white privileged male" do Everything within my power to further the interest of my exclusive white male group?"
Of course not! Of course it is better that you "recognize that injustice based on race occurs, and fight against it" and I am glad to hear that you do so.
However; -do you think that we in other groups like women's groups, -laborer groups etc. -work ONLY to further the interest of of our own group?
More often we work together in coalitions to help each other.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 24, 2020 1:47:30 GMT -5
The 2-party structure of the US system doesn't work well for a pluralistic society. What we've ended up with is two parties neither of which can really decide what their primary constituency will be. It leaves major portions of the population unrepresented in legislatures, and their unique concerns unheard and neglected. Right now I think it would be interesting to see a Trumpist AND a Traditional Republican running in each electoral district. its not entirely a 2-party system i voted last week and had a choice of 6-7 candidates for president of which only 2 were dem/rep....as for other positions choices ranged from dem/rep to libertarian. outright socialist and non partisan and judges had(of course) no political affiliations at all... And on some ballots you're free to write in the name Ronald Reagan, as one person promises to do.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 25, 2020 9:05:07 GMT -5
lee didn't post that i wally did... OK. -sorry but when you two gang up together with your excuses to not face the truth, you do sound alike. But that's ok for you to correct me,- you just gives a chance to show my own post over again for anyone who may have missed it the first time!
We know what the truth is, and we're facing it. America and it's culture and its institutions have done more than any other nation to reverse the evils of racism, tribalism .. you name it. You however, in your anger at God you wish to impose Marxist optics and solutions on everything, by ignoring the progress we've made, even deleting our constitutional rights that are weighted towards the freedom of the individual over the collective. Marx said mankind's problem was material, that we were materially oppressed so that the oppressors could oppress. Having no spiritual problems himself apparently, as he must have reckoned, -he needed a MATERIAL savior, which SAVIOR would be government. Thus he envisioned a reset of the world down to its metaphysical roots and assumptions. He said that if government had to play God to humankind, strip them of their autonomy and freedom (like their stinky little religions to list one) so be it, it was a necessary evil. And so you see the communist party ruling today, in that fashion. The western tradition is founded in freedom. Christianity too is founded on freedom, on the doctrine of free will. You apparently knew none of it yourself, but strangely, for those who interpret the world by christian optics, suffering or weathering or resisting the effects of sin is in itself an impetus to individualism, and a rather unique one. So when you want to eradicate oppression in the radical way Marxism proposes, you eliminate a wide range of unique, growth catalyzing experiences that each and everyone of us have benefited from, directly or indirectly. I'm saying people who have suffered at the hands of sinners, be it the sin of racism or any other, have had unique opportunities for growth, a growth that has been recycled into the collective consciousness of the human being by a free media, by organic public and private discourse. In your God anger, you would say this is perverse, or doesn't happen at all. Of course Marxism has not eliminated oppression. In fact it is proven to be more oppressive than governments who have not committed to the metaphysical assumption that government has a divine right to save the sinner from himself. Marxism seeks to eliminate the oppressor (the sinner), by out-oppressing all, then turns around and claims it doesn't oppress, and proceeds to disappear (like big tech media is doing today to elect Biden) any counter-testimony that it does indeed oppress. Marxism is the product of God-hate. Marxism says some of us don't have any sin so we can build a world where we will rule the sinners. Sinners never would repent one by one in a million billion years anyway it says. Certainly not by religion, just look at all the christian hypocrites and fails. But we can and we will impose our canard and our pretence of salvation and repentance upon them.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 25, 2020 19:29:27 GMT -5
OK. -sorry but when you two gang up together with your excuses to not face the truth, you do sound alike. But that's ok for you to correct me,- you just gives a chance to show my own post over again for anyone who may have missed it the first time!
We know what the truth is, and we're facing it. America and it's culture and its institutions have done more than any other nation to reverse the evils of racism, tribalism .. you name it. You however, in your anger at God you wish to impose Marxist optics and solutions on everything, by ignoring the progress we've made, even deleting our constitutional rights that are weighted towards the freedom of the individual over the collective. Marx said mankind's problem was material, that we were materially oppressed so that the oppressors could oppress. Having no spiritual problems himself apparently, as he must have reckoned, -he needed a MATERIAL savior, which SAVIOR would be government. Thus he envisioned a reset of the world down to its metaphysical roots and assumptions. He said that if government had to play God to humankind, strip them of their autonomy and freedom (like their stinky little religions to list one) so be it, it was a necessary evil. And so you see the communist party ruling today, in that fashion. The western tradition is founded in freedom. Christianity too is founded on freedom, on the doctrine of free will. You apparently knew none of it yourself, but strangely, for those who interpret the world by christian optics, suffering or weathering or resisting the effects of sin is in itself an impetus to individualism, and a rather unique one. So when you want to eradicate oppression in the radical way Marxism proposes, you eliminate a wide range of unique, growth catalyzing experiences that each and everyone of us have benefited from, directly or indirectly. I'm saying people who have suffered at the hands of sinners, be it the sin of racism or any other, have had unique opportunities for growth, a growth that has been recycled into the collective consciousness of the human being by a free media, by organic public and private discourse. In your God anger, you would say this is perverse, or doesn't happen at all. Of course Marxism has not eliminated oppression. In fact it is proven to be more oppressive than governments who have not committed to the metaphysical assumption that government has a divine right to save the sinner from himself. Marxism seeks to eliminate the oppressor (the sinner), by out-oppressing all, then turns around and claims it doesn't oppress, and proceeds to disappear (like big tech media is doing today to elect Biden) any counter-testimony that it does indeed oppress. Marxism is the product of God-hate. Marxism says some of us don't have any sin so we can build a world where we will rule the sinners. Sinners never would repent one by one in a million billion years anyway it says. Certainly not by religion, just look at all the christian hypocrites and fails. But we can and we will impose our canard and our pretence of salvation and repentance upon them. Lee, it is regrettable that in order for you to maintain your view that you have to make personal accusations against myself others which are blatantly inaccurate.
Such as this accusation you made against me:
"You however, in your anger at God you wish to impose Marxist optics and solutions on everything, by ignoring the progress we've made, even deleting our constitutional rights that are weighted towards over the collective."
Lee, I would feel confident enough to bet my very life on the fact that I, -far more that you, -have actually WORKED in many capacities in many groups toward maintaining "our constitutional rights" for the "freedom of the individual" than you have ever even knew existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2020 1:48:16 GMT -5
I still haven't concluded which is more accurate - whether the West thrive(s/d) because of the Judeo-Christian principles of the founders, or despite it. I suspect some combination. It at least didn't contain doctrines giving rise to a strong enough argument against basic mathematics that caused the end of Islam's Golden Age.
At any rate, there are doctrines in Christianity which may have been helpful (or prevented stagnation) for progress.
- When Jesus said that neither the blind man, nor his parents sinned (as reason for his blindness). This and other teachings promotes individualism, and simultaneously allows for the possibility that disease isn't caused by sin. (Given we're both tribal and superstitious, it's questionable how many people believed these things, but at least the concept is there).
- "render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's". Not my realization, but a point made by Sam Harris. It allows for a degree of separation between natural and spiritual.
I tend to think however that progress happened more despite Christianity than because of it, but there's a decent case to be made for either (imo).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2020 2:01:51 GMT -5
Should I, being a "white privileged male" do Everything within my power to further the interest of my exclusive white male group? White males are being asked to hate their own group for evils that they are not responsible for. Ought I instead to recognise that injustice based on race occurs, and fight against it? If people like me do it, we're Klansmen. And white won't always by in majority. I, nor anyone else, is asking you to "hate" their own group" for something that you are not responsible for! Only that you realize that your position in society now does rest on the past and that that it is still the same prevalent position today.
As to our question "Should I, being a "white privileged male" do Everything within my power to further the interest of my exclusive white male group?"
Of course not! Of course it is better that you "recognize that injustice based on race occurs, and fight against it" and I am glad to hear that you do so.
However; -do you think that we in other groups like women's groups, -laborer groups etc. -work ONLY to further the interest of of our own group?
More often we work together in coalitions to help each other.
There's a lot to address here - at a time when a more coherent response is allowable (from my sleep deprived brain). I understand and can see your perspective. I would just suggest that the general message to white males is rarely very positive. And where smaller groups are able to have pride in themselves (and rightly so!), white males are being sent the message that they must be ashamed because of the color of their skin. I've had some good conversations with a student of mine from South Africa. He went home last year, and was really glad to be back. He said the racism against whites was disgusting to him. It's odd, because my 100% honest reaction that sprung to mind was "who cares - they're white. Probably serves them right." What a racist thing to think! I've been conditioned to be racist by endless messages of the evils of white people. I can reason through this, and understand why (to a degree). The risk is creating the exact kinds of groups you describe above, comprised of disenfranchised whites (ie - Proud Boys). Because the reality is that amongst white people, the true bigots are a minority group, and I wish to give them no reason to unite.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 26, 2020 21:26:12 GMT -5
We know what the truth is, and we're facing it. America and it's culture and its institutions have done more than any other nation to reverse the evils of racism, tribalism .. you name it. You however, in your anger at God you wish to impose Marxist optics and solutions on everything, by ignoring the progress we've made, even deleting our constitutional rights that are weighted towards the freedom of the individual over the collective. Marx said mankind's problem was material, that we were materially oppressed so that the oppressors could oppress. Having no spiritual problems himself apparently, as he must have reckoned, -he needed a MATERIAL savior, which SAVIOR would be government. Thus he envisioned a reset of the world down to its metaphysical roots and assumptions. He said that if government had to play God to humankind, strip them of their autonomy and freedom (like their stinky little religions to list one) so be it, it was a necessary evil. And so you see the communist party ruling today, in that fashion. The western tradition is founded in freedom. Christianity too is founded on freedom, on the doctrine of free will. You apparently knew none of it yourself, but strangely, for those who interpret the world by christian optics, suffering or weathering or resisting the effects of sin is in itself an impetus to individualism, and a rather unique one. So when you want to eradicate oppression in the radical way Marxism proposes, you eliminate a wide range of unique, growth catalyzing experiences that each and everyone of us have benefited from, directly or indirectly. I'm saying people who have suffered at the hands of sinners, be it the sin of racism or any other, have had unique opportunities for growth, a growth that has been recycled into the collective consciousness of the human being by a free media, by organic public and private discourse. In your God anger, you would say this is perverse, or doesn't happen at all. Of course Marxism has not eliminated oppression. In fact it is proven to be more oppressive than governments who have not committed to the metaphysical assumption that government has a divine right to save the sinner from himself. Marxism seeks to eliminate the oppressor (the sinner), by out-oppressing all, then turns around and claims it doesn't oppress, and proceeds to disappear (like big tech media is doing today to elect Biden) any counter-testimony that it does indeed oppress. Marxism is the product of God-hate. Marxism says some of us don't have any sin so we can build a world where we will rule the sinners. Sinners never would repent one by one in a million billion years anyway it says. Certainly not by religion, just look at all the christian hypocrites and fails. But we can and we will impose our canard and our pretence of salvation and repentance upon them. Lee, it is regrettable that in order for you to maintain your view that you have to make personal accusations against myself others which are blatantly inaccurate.
Such as this accusation you made against me:
"You however, in your anger at God you wish to impose Marxist optics and solutions on everything, by ignoring the progress we've made, even deleting our constitutional rights that are weighted towards over the collective."
Lee, I would feel confident enough to bet my very life on the fact that I, -far more that you, -have actually WORKED in many capacities in many groups toward maintaining "our constitutional rights" for the "freedom of the individual" than you have ever even knew existed.
Unless the lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Based on your postings, in pursuit of a bedrock ethic you have confused equality for perfection. Should all people be rich? Should all people be 50 percent gay? Should all women be fifty percent men? Should the races be racing 100 percent equally at this point in the race, by a mere measure of material wealth? Certainly equality does relate to virtue. The poor, the noble working poor shouldn't be so poor they can't afford the essential necessities of life, and an average duration of life. Who will deliver these? We will. We will vote and we will pray these things into existence. We will preach Jesus until everyone gets it. Failure is not an option.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 27, 2020 1:46:38 GMT -5
Lee, it is regrettable that in order for you to maintain your view that you have to make personal accusations against myself others which are blatantly inaccurate.
Such as this accusation you made against me:
"You however, in your anger at God you wish to impose Marxist optics and solutions on everything, by ignoring the progress we've made, even deleting our constitutional rights that are weighted towards over the collective."
Lee, I would feel confident enough to bet my very life on the fact that I, -far more that you, -have actually WORKED in many capacities in many groups toward maintaining "our constitutional rights" for the "freedom of the individual" than you have ever even knew existed.
Unless the lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Based on your postings, in pursuit of a bedrock ethic you have confused equality for perfection. Should all people be rich? Should all people be 50 percent gay? Should all women be fifty percent men? Should the races be racing 100 percent equally at this point in the race, by a mere measure of material wealth? Certainly equality does relate to virtue. The poor, the noble working poor shouldn't be so poor they can't afford the essential necessities of life, and an average duration of life. Who will deliver these? We will. We will vote and we will pray these things into existence. We will preach Jesus until everyone gets it. Failure is not an option. As to how far as it goes, "Unless the lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain." -it has never gone very far in the past by the people who you claim will "deliver " on their promise that, "The poor, the noble working poor shouldn't be so poor they can't afford the essential necessities of life, and an average duration of life."
(BTW, your caveat of stipulating that it was "noble working poor" to whom you you were referring, -didn't slip past my radar, Lee! Of course it will be people of like thinking as yourself who will be the ones who decide who is "noble" and who is not! )
Lee, -you all can "preach Jesus" from the mountain tops, -rend your clothes, -shave your head, -throw dust on yourself, -wear sackcloth; all with holy zeal, -but until you all recognize that Jesus did not put those kinds caveats on how to treat others, -all of your talk will amount to no more than a "Poot in A Whirlwind!"
One reason is that it requires a lot more actual work than just trying to "pray these things into existence."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Oct 27, 2020 16:09:58 GMT -5
Unless the lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Based on your postings, in pursuit of a bedrock ethic you have confused equality for perfection. Should all people be rich? Should all people be 50 percent gay? Should all women be fifty percent men? Should the races be racing 100 percent equally at this point in the race, by a mere measure of material wealth? Certainly equality does relate to virtue. The poor, the noble working poor shouldn't be so poor they can't afford the essential necessities of life, and an average duration of life. Who will deliver these? We will. We will vote and we will pray these things into existence. We will preach Jesus until everyone gets it. Failure is not an option. As to how far as it goes, "Unless the lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain." -it has never gone very far in the past by the people who you claim will "deliver " on their promise that, "The poor, the noble working poor shouldn't be so poor they can't afford the essential necessities of life, and an average duration of life."
(BTW, your caveat of stipulating that it was "noble working poor" to whom you you were referring, -didn't slip past my radar, Lee! Of course it will be people of like thinking as yourself who will be the ones who decide who is "noble" and who is not! )
Lee, -you all can "preach Jesus" from the mountain tops, -rend your clothes, -shave your head, -throw dust on yourself, -wear sackcloth; all with holy zeal, -but until you all recognize that Jesus did not put those kinds caveats on how to treat others, -all of your talk will amount to no more than a "Poot in A Whirlwind!"
One reason is that it requires a lot more actual work than just trying to "pray these things into existence."These kinds of prayers resemble the "works of the lazy and selfish".
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 28, 2020 9:03:10 GMT -5
There’s effective and ineffective prayer. Effective prayer begins with visualizing a solution or remedy after recognizing a need, followed by Gods divine blessing and providence from time immemorial. I suppose it could be argued there are evil prayers that are being answered as well by something, someone less than God. Evil people might know something about that.
You two still haven’t answered my questions:
Should all people be rich? Should all people be 50 percent gay? Should all women be fifty percent men? Should the races be racing 100 percent equally at this point in the race, by a mere measure of material wealth?
Remember George Orwell’s summary mocking of the grand Marxist deception of equalitarianism:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
This is just like the devil. He feeds you one lie so he can feed you another.
PS. The working poor are noble, no matter what Marie says lee says.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 29, 2020 7:26:01 GMT -5
Unless the lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Based on your postings, in pursuit of a bedrock ethic you have confused equality for perfection. Should all people be rich? Should all people be 50 percent gay? Should all women be fifty percent men? Should the races be racing 100 percent equally at this point in the race, by a mere measure of material wealth? Certainly equality does relate to virtue. The poor, the noble working poor shouldn't be so poor they can't afford the essential necessities of life, and an average duration of life. Who will deliver these? We will. We will vote and we will pray these things into existence. We will preach Jesus until everyone gets it. Failure is not an option. As to how far as it goes, "Unless the lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain." -it has never gone very far in the past by the people who you claim will "deliver " on their promise that, "The poor, the noble working poor shouldn't be so poor they can't afford the essential necessities of life, and an average duration of life."
(BTW, your caveat of stipulating that it was "noble working poor" to whom you you were referring, -didn't slip past my radar, Lee! Of course it will be people of like thinking as yourself who will be the ones who decide who is "noble" and who is not! )
Lee, -you all can "preach Jesus" from the mountain tops, -rend your clothes, -shave your head, -throw dust on yourself, -wear sackcloth; all with holy zeal, -but until you all recognize that Jesus did not put those kinds caveats on how to treat others, -all of your talk will amount to no more than a "Poot in A Whirlwind!"
One reason is that it requires a lot more actual work than just trying to "pray these things into existence."While you were yet in the 2x2 hinterland, was your orientation to salvation one of works?
|
|