Confronting Racism

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-06-2016, 06:19 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Yikes. Blows my mind people live their life according to this book. I wonder where mankind would be if we were not held back by religion.

Good question.  However, I tend to think it might not be as far a long as you might think.

For instance, there are some people that will refuse to listen to the laws made by Man.  However they will listen to laws made by God.

To say that killing is wrong.  Fine.  

Why?

Without the threat of punishment in the afterlife, why is killing wrong?

Just because YOU say so?

Who are YOU?

Society?  Well, whose society?  There are societies in parts of this world that condone all kinds of things that we in our society would find repulsive.  Should we impose our society onto them?  

However the concept of a God or Gods and an afterlife in which you are rewarded or punished based on how you lived, is something that can be used to impose order.

Kings used this as a way of controlling the population and making the population believe that God had given them the right to rule.  It is one of the reasons some historians believe may have facilitated the spread of Christianity among the Nordic tribes.  

We, today, have had many scientific breakthroughs that were not known 2000 plus years ago.  Even with the breakthroughs that we have, the question of how we got here is still unknown.  Sure we talk about evolution and the big bang, but questions of "Where did the 1st single cell organism come from?" and "What caused the Big Bang?" still remain.

Think what you will about religion and the bible, both were a huge part of our history and were instrumental in shaping our society into what we have today.

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2016, 03:23 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The only way you can see romans 8 as supporting antinomian is if you read it without reading romans 7. Romans 7 says the law of sin (and death) is human nature. That is what Jesus is freeing you from. Not Gods law which was also mentioned in romans 7.

Romans 7 supports antinomianism. 4-6 says we are dead to the law. I also find it interesting that you didn't continue with Matthew 5 where Jesus himself changes the law with his words.

It is through grace alone that we are saved, not our deeds. Jesus fulfilled the law and thus extended to all of is his grace. Only through his fulfillment of the law can we enter Heaven.

[Brownshoe]

(02-06-2016, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Romans 7 supports antinomianism. 4-6 says we are dead to the law. I also find it interesting that you didn't continue with Matthew 5 where Jesus himself changes the law with his words.

It is through grace alone that we are saved, not our deeds. Jesus fulfilled the law and thus extended to all of is his grace. Only through his fulfillment of the law can we enter Heaven.

Romans 7 is saying that we are dead to the law of sin, not Gods law.

So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. (Romans 7:21-25) (this is the end of Romans 7)

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)

I don't know how Jesus changes the law with his words. I'll copy paste from Matthew 5:17 to the end of Matthew 5. You just go and point out where he changes the law.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Murder

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Adultery

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Divorce

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Oaths

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]

Eye for Eye

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[xxlt]

(02-05-2016, 03:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, for those non-religious types, there is a religious bent to this. For those that mock the idea of privilege, this is about white privilege and recognizing it. http://michellederusha.com/2016/01/why-im-not-cool-with-my-96-white-church/

I would pull a quote, but you have to read the whole thing to get it, and it's lengthy so I don't want to post it all. Take a look, see what you think. Comment. I'll wait a bit to jump in to see if anyone else has any thoughts.

She could have written the same piece about a business, a school, a civic club. So, the religious bent is really rather ancillary. I will say from her religious perspective she did use appropriate quotes and make valid points tying in to that, but again, this is a piece about racism and not about religion. I found the piece honest and something most white folks could relate to, if they would read it. Probably about 11/4,000 (Belsnickel will get the reference from the article) exposed to it will read it. And the complacency she references at the end of the article is as big a problem as the racism.

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2016, 11:35 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Romans 7 is saying that we are dead to the law of sin, not Gods law.

So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. (Romans 7:21-25) (this is the end of Romans 7)

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)

I don't know how Jesus changes the law with his words. I'll copy paste from Matthew 5:17 to the end of Matthew 5. You just go and point out where he changes the law.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Murder

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.
25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Adultery

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Divorce

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’[f] 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Oaths

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]

Eye for Eye

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

You really are spending a good deal of time ignoring what is in front of you. I am not sure why your animosity leaves you in such a manner, but I feel it wrong to continue stoking it. You see something different in the texts than I, which has been going on since the days of early Christianity. Theologians on both sides of this debate have hashed out this argument for centuries, theologians with far more knowledge than either of us. My faith is that through Jesus the law is fulfilled and we are all saved by his grace, and grace alone. I don't need to convince you of the same.

[McC]

This racism thread is now Bible class?

[Aquapod770]

Semi-related note: A shocking number of people don't even know what racism is/means. I'm not talking about on this message board, but in general.

[*bfine32*]

Back to the OP: I think the blogger might be stretching the truth a bit. Let me ask a few questions:

How did they know the taillight was out for 36 hours (seems kind of precise)?

How many of those 36 hours do we think he was actually driving the vehicle?

Of those driving hours, how many were at night where anyone would notice a burnt out taillight?

How does she know "that look" that her black friend's son has according to her?

So if the taillight were to burn out right at dusk, we could get about 16-17 hours of darkness in those 36 hours. So if we assume this kid drove every hour it was dark (yet, somehow the police could see "that look" in the darkness), the police are pulling him over once every 4 hours; yet she claims to have gone 3 months with the same issue and to have never gotten stopped?


I could continue but in short: IMO this lady is, at best, stretching the truth and the fact that she would do so and bring sin into the equation is disturbing.

[Sovereign Nation]

My take is this:

Why is it that only white people are expected to "confront racism" yet black people are only expected to be "victims of racism"? I know what some will say, I just don't buy it.

Also, this woman is using generalizations mixed in with her own anecdotal evidence and people seem to be OK, with it. Yet if the person were trying to present a counter argument using these same tactics, then people would be quick to point out the "fallacies" and claim that you can't generalize or use anecdotal evidence.

I will confront racism among white people and acknowledge white privilege just as soon as black people start confronting racism and acknowledge black privilege. Until then, nope, don't care.

[fredtoast]

(02-06-2016, 10:07 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: My take is this:

Why is it that only white people are expected to "confront racism" yet black people are only expected to be "victims of racism"?  I know what some will say, I just don't buy it.

Also, this woman is using generalizations mixed in with her own anecdotal evidence and people seem to be OK, with it.  Yet if the person were trying to present a counter argument using these same tactics, then people would be quick to point out the "fallacies" and claim that you can't generalize or use anecdotal evidence.

I will confront racism among white people and acknowledge white privilege just as soon as black people start confronting racism and acknowledge black privilege.  Until then, nope, don't care.

I think you are confusing "racism" with "oppression".

Both blacks and whites are guilty of racism, but since white people are the ones in power we are pretty much the only ones doing any oppressing.  It is pretty much impossible for white people to play the victim card when they control a vastly disproportionate amount of the wealth, power, and political control in this country.



Basically you have to be a huge pusssy to whine about being the victim of a tiny poor minority.

[Aquapod770]

(02-07-2016, 12:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think you are confusing "racism" with "oppression".

Both blacks and whites are guilty of racism, but since white people are the ones in power we are pretty much the only ones doing any oppressing.  It is pretty much impossible for white people to play the victim card when they control a vastly disproportionate amount of the wealth, power, and political control in this country.



Basically you have to be a huge pusssy to whine about being the victim of a tiny poor minority.

Generalizing people based off race is exactly the problem. Individual experience differs widely. 

[fredtoast]

(02-07-2016, 04:01 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Generalizing people based off race is exactly the problem. Individual experience differs widely. 

Agreed, but way too many people fail to see that the biggest protests are over "institutional" racism.

A perfect example of this was all the times during the Treyvon Martin debate certain people brought up cases where black people killed white people and demanded to know why there were not protests over them.  And in almost every single case the black shooter had been immediately arrested and charged.  these people did not even know that the reason there was so much outrage over the Treyvon Martin case was not that a white (kind of) guy had shot a black kid.  Instead it was over the fact that the police refused to even investigate the case.

It was difficult to have a meaningful discussion when many people on the other side did not even recognize the issue was about racism in the institution (police) instead of just the shooter.    

[Brownshoe]

(02-07-2016, 04:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Agreed, but way too many people fail to see that the biggest protests are over "institutional" racism.

A perfect example of this was all the times during the Treyvon Martin debate certain people brought up cases where black people killed white people and demanded to know why there were not protests over them.  And in almost every single case the black shooter had been immediately arrested and charged.  these people did not even know that the reason there was so much outrage over the Treyvon Martin case was not that a white (kind of) guy had shot a black kid.  Instead it was over the fact that the police refused to even investigate the case.

It was difficult to have a meaningful discussion when many people on the other side did not even recognize the issue was about racism in the institution (police) instead of just the shooter.    

What do you mean the police refused to even investigate the case? They handcuffed Zimmerman and took him to the police station. They said they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him after that, due to the stand your ground law. There was even a FBI investigation to see if Martins civil rights were violated due to the "lack of investigation" and they couldn't continue that investigation after 35 months, due to the fact they didn't have any evidence supporting that. Oh, and BTW Zimmerman wasn't white, and he didn't even look "kind of" white.

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-07-2016, 12:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think you are confusing "racism" with "oppression".

Both blacks and whites are guilty of racism, but since white people are the ones in power we are pretty much the only ones doing any oppressing.  It is pretty much impossible for white people to play the victim card when they control a vastly disproportionate amount of the wealth, power, and political control in this country.



Basically you have to be a huge pusssy to whine about being the victim of a tiny poor minority.

Minority is subjective.

Worldly... Whites are a minority.  In America as a whole, Whites are a majority compared to blacks.  However, if you go more locally, Ferguson, Baltimore, Detroit, Charlotte, Atlanta and many other areas, have higher volumes of blacks compared to whites.

Basically, you can be a white person and be a minority....

Now on a worldly side of things.  In places like India, China, Japan, Somalia, Uganda, UAE, Kuwait and many other places, being white doesn't do anything for you.  In Japan, being Japanese is a plus.  In Uganda, being Ugandan is a plus.  Kuwait?  yep, being a local is very helpful.  In a lot of SA cities, being white can get you killed.

Zimbabwe has a white farmers being removed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-132504/Zimbabwe-white-farmers-fight-flee.html



So you were saying something about minorities?

[fredtoast]

(02-07-2016, 05:19 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: What do you mean the police refused to even investigate the case? They handcuffed Zimmerman and took him to the police station. They said they didn't have enough evidence to arrest him after that, due to the stand your ground law. There was even a FBI investigation to see if Martins civil rights were violated due to the "lack of investigation" and they couldn't continue that investigation after 35 months, due to the fact they didn't have any evidence supporting that. Oh, and BTW Zimmerman wasn't white, and he didn't even look "kind of" white.

What I mean is that the Police Chief was relieved of hid duty over the way the investigation was handled.  The police never followed up with some witnesses and seemed to disregard others.  The police had Martin's cell phone call log but never contacted his girlfriend who was on the line with him just moments before he was killed.  They did not even try to identify Treyvon's body by asking if any of the neighbors recognized him.

[fredtoast]

(02-07-2016, 05:32 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: So you were saying something about minorities?

I was saying that they only control a disproportionately small amount of the wealth, power and political control in this country, so it is lame for a white person to claim he is oppressed.

I am sure it could be a problem in the rap music industry, but otherwise they uasully don't have the power to oppress you.

And I am just talking about here in the United States.  I have already agreed that all races are racists, but that is different from having the power to oppress.

[Brownshoe]

(02-07-2016, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What I mean is that the Police Chief was relieved of hid duty over the way the investigation was handled.  The police never followed up with some witnesses and seemed to disregard others.  The police had Martin's cell phone call log but never contacted his girlfriend who was on the line with him just moments before he was killed.  They did not even try to identify Treyvon's body by asking if any of the neighbors recognized him.

I don't know where you're getting your info, but the phone Martin was using was malfunctioning, and they couldn't even collect any data from it using their data recovery device. Everything that I have read said that they talked to the people who lived around there, and took statement from the witnesses on the scene. Also, what investigation doesn't disregard/doesn't follow up with witnesses that are telling inconsistent stories? They also did get in contact with Martins girlfriend too, and she gave a testimony that she later said she lied about.

Yes, the police did make a few mistakes in the case, but that happens all the time no matter the race of the people involved.

[Brownshoe]

(02-07-2016, 05:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was saying that they only control a disproportionately small amount of the wealth, power and political control in this country, so it is lame for a white person to claim he is oppressed.

I am sure it could be a problem in the rap music industry, but otherwise they uasully don't have the power to oppress you.

And I am just talking about here in the United States.  I have already agreed that all races are racists, but that is different from having the power to oppress.

This is more of a problem with the rich oppressing the poor than it is a race oppressing another race. Plus IDK if white people control more power in politics considering we have a black president (you know, the person who has the most power compared to everyone else). Yeah, there's a lot of rich white people, but because there's a lot of rich white people doesn't make it better for poor white people.

The government will help a person of color easier than it would help a white person too. Getting a government grant for college is easier for a black guy to get than a white guy who's in the same situation as each other. The same goes with a lot of jobs too, due to the fact that there's laws that makes companies hire a certain percent of minorities. It also goes with college applications. It's easier for black people to get in better college with the exact same grades/scores as it is for any other race.

The fact that people try to claim "institutional oppression" is crazy to me. There's no laws that oppress any minority, and if there was that would be "institutional oppression". If anything it's individual racism that makes it seem that way.

[Aquapod770]

(02-07-2016, 04:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Agreed, but way too many people fail to see that the biggest protests are over "institutional" racism.

A perfect example of this was all the times during the Treyvon Martin debate certain people brought up cases where black people killed white people and demanded to know why there were not protests over them.  And in almost every single case the black shooter had been immediately arrested and charged.  these people did not even know that the reason there was so much outrage over the Treyvon Martin case was not that a white (kind of) guy had shot a black kid.  Instead it was over the fact that the police refused to even investigate the case.

It was difficult to have a meaningful discussion when many people on the other side did not even recognize the issue was about racism in the institution (police) instead of just the shooter.    

Fair enough, but people are starting to believe that the only kind of racism is institutional racism. I've heard an alarming number of people claim only white people can be racist. Hating someone because of the color of their skin is never okay. It doesn't matter if you're black, white, red, orange, or purple. 

I think another problem is (both sides) jump to conclusions before really any facts are known. Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown were perfect examples of this. The media feeding into these racial tensions is not helping either. 

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-07-2016, 05:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was saying that they only control a disproportionately small amount of the wealth, power and political control in this country, so it is lame for a white person to claim he is oppressed.

I am sure it could be a problem in the rap music industry, but otherwise they uasully don't have the power to oppress you.

And I am just talking about here in the United States.  I have already agreed that all races are racists, but that is different from having the power to oppress.

Yet those races do have the power to oppress and they do... why should a majority white country be any different than a majority Japanese?  Or Indian? or Middle Eastern?  What makes you think if blacks, or any other group, were the majority in this country that they wouldn't try to oppress us?  There are places where we can actually observe this, but you would have to look outside of this country to see it.

However, I disagree.  There are plenty of rich black people that are in a lot of control in this country.

I seem to recall a trust fund baby that went on a hunger strike at Mizzou.  His actions resulted in the resignation of 2 whites.  The city of Baltimore has a BLM player wanting to run for mayor.  The current mayor of Baltimore is a black woman.

Ferguson had plenty of white guys fired.  Obama, a black man, is president of the US, Holder, a black man, was Attorney General, Lynch, a black woman, is now the Attorney General.  We have Carson, a black man, running for president.

These are just a handful of examples, but there are plenty more.

Here is something from 2014:

http://qz.com/251380/starting-this-year-minorities-will-outnumber-white-americans-in-public-schools/

If you added up all people that didn't identify as white, then whites aren't as much a majority as you think.