Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Myles

Is everything fair game now?

198 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, Myles said:

?

Not sure what was confusing about that to you.  Being able to 'laugh off' things that affect others but don't affect you is about the most basic expression of what has been termed 'privilege'.  Similarly I have the 'privilege' of being able to laugh off people's upset and pearl-clutching at the mention of 'white privilege' because its mention doesn't upset me.  Get it? 

Similarly I could 'laugh off' when black people are not granted job interviews because their name on their resume is too 'black-sounding', because of my privilege.  Not only does this scenario (which is backed by evidence) not harm white me it actually selfishly benefits me.  But regardless I don't just laugh it off.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

This is literally the most ignorant brain washed crap I have ever read on these boards. I'm an oppressor? Forget you. I am nothing of the sort. The only oppressors I see are those who work to destroy free speech, by any means necessary. Its your side and your side alone who seeks to remove constitutional rights from half the population.

Conservative white Christians have been the #1 leading opponents of Civil rights in this country since as far back as this nation's founding. That isn't to say that there haven't been plenty of good Christians here and there that have contributed massively to the pursuit of Civil liberties, however for the most part Christianity has been on the opposite side of most Civil Rights debates.

The majority of Christians are still anti-LGBTQ, the majority of Christians supported segregation in the south, most slave owners justified their slave ownership via biblical texts, most Christians believed women were to submit to the will of men during the women's suffrage movement, etc. Need I go on?

And you don't have to waste my time with "not all Christians" because i never said all to begin with. I simply said most. And yes, most Christians is indeed an accurate statistic here. It's simply a fact that most Christians today are anti-gay rights, as it is a statistical fact that they have been for the most part against various other Civil Rights as mentioned in the past.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Conservative white Christians have been the #1 leading opponents of Civil rights in this country since as far back as this nation's founding. That isn't to say that there haven't been plenty of good Christians here and there that have contributed massively to the pursuit of Civil liberties, however for the most part Christianity has been on the opposite side of most Civil Rights debates.

Uhhh... Everyone was a Christian in those days. If majority of them did not supporte civil rights changes, there would have been no charge. That those rights were added by constitutional amendment means you are wrong using just the most basic level of logic.

Quote

The majority of Christians are still anti-LGBTQ, the majority of Christians supported segregation in the south, most slave owners justified their slave ownership via biblical texts, most Christians believed women were to submit to the will of men during the women's suffrage movement, etc. Need I go on?

Bahh... most Christians in the North supported freeing the slaves, and giving them rights, and women's suffrage. 

I think what you "know" didn't come from a neutral source.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Ha, which you can of course do because of white privilege.  But hey, it doesn't personally affect you so why should a Christian care?

Exactly. I mind my business and everyone else minds theirs.

I think people should have pride in themselves, and ignore the slings and arrows others cast at them. If I use the N-word on someone and they go crazy, that is giving me power. If they just laugh at me and ignore it, they are taking power for themselves. 

Quote

Great, I try to also.  You haven't noticed though that other people do not treat all people the same?  Isn't there something or other in the instructions of Jesus that involves being concerned for and caring about other people, especially people who are persecuted?  I'm not that versed in the Bible but where will I find Jesus' command in these instances to 'just laugh it off'?

It says "Love thy neighbor as yourself.". Well, I pulled myself up, and so that is what I expect of my neighbors. Love doesn't mean making yourself less to help others and it doesn't mean having to grovel because an ancestor two hundred years ago might have owned a slave.

Quote

Who else needs protecting currently that they are ignoring?  (hint: in a relative sense it's definitely not straight white Christians...)

Saving people doesn't actually help them long term. People need to do for themselves. Protect themselves. Save themselves. Otherwise you are just creating people who are permanent victims, and require a nanny state to coddle them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
17 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Uhhh... Everyone was a Christian in those days. If majority of them did not supporte civil rights changes, there would have been no charge. That those rights were added by constitutional amendment means you are wrong using just the most basic level of logic.

Bahh... most Christians in the North supported freeing the slaves, and giving them rights, and women's suffrage. 

I think what you "know" didn't come from a neutral source.

You miss the point. It was their conservative Christian ideology that specifically drove them (and still drives many of them to this day) to oppose Civil Rights in the first place.

Why do you think that the overwhelming majority of people who oppose gay rights today do so for religious reasons? Why do you think they site passages in the bible as the primary reasoning for their opposition? Why do you think the primary reasoning cited by Christians in the past for opposing other Civil liberties was the bible?

Yes, you can find plenty of Christians who exist now and existed then who have been supportive of Civil Rights on many fronts. Hell, the father of the Civil Rights movement Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an ordained minister. However their existence does not invalidate the fact that for those who opposed Civil Rights in the past, it was for the most part specifically justified by their conservative Christian ideology.

It's like when conservatives single out the religion of Islam as having the most violent acts of terrorism in the world today. By no means are all (or even most) Muslims in the US terrorists, but it is simply a statistical fact that the religion with the most terrorists in it is Islam, and that those terrorists are driven to commit such atrocities specifically because of their religion.

I'm not trying to demonize all Christians, I'm simply saying that it has been conservative white Christians who have statistically speaking for the most part been the primary oppressors of various minority groups, and who have consistently opposed Civil Rights in this nation for decades. And they do so specifically because of their conservative Christian ideology.

 

(Also, in case that bit regarding Islam seemed confusing coming from a leftist like me, let me be clear - I'm no fan of how some leftists want to defend the religion of Islam no matter what, simply because theyre an oppressed minority group in America. They're for the most partly deeply conservative, and don't support Civil Rights towards many other people, so they're viewed in my eyes in much the same way I view conservative Christians in this country. I just at the same time realize that they nevertheless don't deserve the senseless hatred and bigotry thrown at them by many on the right either. They're essentially a bit of a quagmire. I don't always defend them, but I don't always support them either. Hope that cleared things up.)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
42 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Exactly. I mind my business and everyone else minds theirs.

An attitude which, if adhered to by white male Christians in the past, would have just hindered women's rights, civil rights, etc.  Neither of those legislations get passed without the votes of white Christian males who aren't just 'minding their own business'.

45 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think people should have pride in themselves, and ignore the slings and arrows others cast at them.

Easy for you to say, you're a member of all three of the most privileged groups in the US.

48 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

It says "Love thy neighbor as yourself.".

That's not all it says of course, pretty big book. I seem to recall a few things about helping people, maybe you're reading a different Bible.

50 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well, I pulled myself up, and so that is what I expect of my neighbors.

Yes, because everyone is on an equal foundation and has equal abilities...  Can I ask where the above attitude is in Jesus' teachings?  He pretty clearly said to take care of the poor, sick, and persecuted; not 'mind your own business, your neighbors should help themselves'.

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Love doesn't mean making yourself less to help others and it doesn't mean having to grovel because an ancestor two hundred years ago might have owned a slave.

 What scenario are you envisioning where helping others makes you less, most would say the exact opposite, especially Christians, that helping others makes them 'more'.  Respecting that others may just have it a little worse than you, through no fault of their own is a long way from 'groveling', I have no idea what you are referring to with that.

This:

Ruby Bridges guarded by US Marshalls

was not 200 years ago, that little girl is alive today and younger than my parents.  I'll let you research for yourself the utter lunacy concerning why there are federal marshals surrounding her.

Quote

Saving people doesn't actually help them long term.

Depends on what you mean by 'saving'.  Providing food and health care for people doesn't actually help them long term?  Have I been hallucinating all the Christian churches and groups running charities specifically aimed at saving people?  You're not only reading a different bible than me but with regards to the word 'saving' apparently a different dictionary too.

59 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Protect themselves. Save themselves. Otherwise you are just creating people who are permanent victims, and require a nanny state to coddle them.

I think you are overstating your equation that helping people turns them into victims requiring coddling just a tad, but regardless it's hard not to notice that your opinions about how other people should be coincidentally makes everything easiest on you.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

...  I'm not that versed in the Bible but where will I find Jesus' command in these instances to 'just laugh it off'?

...

Matthew 5:39

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 2/9/2019 at 12:15 PM, Aquila King said:

You miss the point. It was their conservative Christian ideology that specifically drove them (and still drives many of them to this day) to oppose Civil Rights in the first place.

Bull. People in general hate change, and those who have power will resist. It is a human failing, not a religious one.

Quote

Why do you think that the overwhelming majority of people who oppose gay rights today do so for religious reasons? Why do you think they site passages in the bible as the primary reasoning for their opposition? 

I think it is due to scriptures linking sexual immorality with things like menstruating in the village, premarital sex, and homosexual behavior. Which were real issues 3000 years ago (kinda...).

Where in the scriptures does it say black prople are bad? I'm not sure I've read that.

Quote

Hell, the father of the Civil Rights movement Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was an ordained minister.

And what was it he said? Judge people off the content of their character, not their skin. Modern liberalism, and progressivism, are about skin color, and other physical variables. Dr King would be ashamed of most liberals and Identity Politics.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 2/9/2019 at 12:59 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

An attitude which, if adhered to by white male Christians in the past, would have just hindered women's rights, civil rights, etc.  Neither of those legislations get passed without the votes of white Christian males who aren't just 'minding their own business'.

Bull. Just because you mind your own business doesn't mean holding back society. It means treating people according to how they treat you, not looking at them as a minority and then putting on the kids gloves. That is just as racist and, IMHO, offensive as demeaning them.

Quote

Easy for you to say, you're a member of all three of the most privileged groups in the US.

And if everyone acted that way, we'd all be the same. What holds minorities back from acting that way? Progressivism... Libeealism. Because progressives need a held down population to protect, so they ultimately convince people they are being held back to maintain power. 

Black kids raised by white people act like white people and more often then not are TREATED like white people. Imagine that...

Quote

That's not all it says of course, pretty big book. I seem to recall a few things about helping people, maybe you're reading a different Bible.

True. You should read it to comprehend it better. Maybe then we could discuss where it says what?

Quote

Yes, because everyone is on an equal foundation and has equal abilities...  Can I ask where the above attitude is in Jesus' teachings?  He pretty clearly said to take care of the poor, sick, and persecuted; not 'mind your own business, your neighbors should help themselves'. 

He did say to help. He went as far as telling a rich man to sell everything to help the poor. He did not, however, say to coddle anyone. He'd heal people and expected them to then get to work, or help themselves. He also would feed people, miraculously, and then tell them to go back to their homes and fields. He didn't set up a permenant system of supporting the poor. He expected them to work to save themselves. 

Quote

What scenario are you envisioning where helping others makes you less, most would say the exact opposite, especially Christians, that helping others makes them 'more'.  Respecting that others may just have it a little worse than you, through no fault of their own is a long way from 'groveling', I have no idea what you are referring to with that.

You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. Probably on purpose. Regarding not understanding, that is a major issue with the left. And the primary reason Trump won two years ago.

I believe in helping others. I paid 2000 dollars so a friend of mine could leave a violent relationship in Utah, and move to Oregon. I let her and her two half back children, whom I love dearly, live with us, rent free, for two years. I support three children overseas. I give to four different charities every month. I have no problems with people who.NEED help being helped. I have a problem with people who's only issue is being a minority and then DEMANDING free stuff and more protections, then everyone else.

Quote

I think you are overstating your equation that helping people turns them into victims requiring coddling just a tad, but regardless it's hard not to notice that your opinions about how other people should be coincidentally makes everything easiest on you.

It would make life easier on them, if they did act like me.

Of course you think I am overstating, you are supporting the Coddlers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
On 09/02/2019 at 8:15 PM, Aquila King said:

You miss the point. It was their conservative Christian ideology that specifically drove them (and still drives many of them to this day) to oppose Civil Rights in the first place.

And yet curiously it has - historically - been Christian organisations that have lobbied FOR progressive causes such as an end to slavery, black emancipation and enfrachisement in the USA, LBGTQXYZETYSWUO rights, and so forth. 

So Christian ideology opposes Civil Rights. And Christian Ideology SUPPORTS Civil Rights. 

Gosh.. that must mean that Christian ideology is irrelevant in the reasons why people support - or oppose - specific "civil rights" movements. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Gosh.. that must mean that Christian ideology is irrelevant in the reasons why people support - or oppose - specific "civil rights" movements. 

I think it would be more clearly dileneated if we talked about Christiandom like we do Islam.

Catholics, at least in my lifetime, tend to vote center left while fundamentalists tend to vote hard right. We could probably get even more accurate through more in depth analysis.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
On 2/8/2019 at 1:56 PM, Myles said:

I think it is open now.   The next Dem president will have their looks, their kids and anyone associated with them made fun of.  

 

 

Not in the media.  The media will have a seizure of moral outrage at anyone who says anything about the next prog prez.  Isn't hypocrisy wunnerful? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I think it would be more clearly dileneated if we talked about Christiandom like we do Islam.

Catholics, at least in my lifetime, tend to vote center left while fundamentalists tend to vote hard right. We could probably get even more accurate through more in depth analysis.

Most interesting !

Of course, throughout the course of the last 100+ years, England has been dominated by Protestants and CoE rather than Catholics ? 

CoE and protestants have generally been more 'progressive' It was the Anglicans, not the Catholics, that led the charge to ban slavery, and then to emancipate negroes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Just to return to the opening post..... I think that "the left" when apeshit when Trump became president. They regarded it as a Holy Cause to denigrate him wherever possible; to try and block ANYTHING that he did or tried to do, and to try and whip up resistance against him .

In doing so, they abandoned ALL sense of perspective: nothing was too low to use in the Holy War. 

And soon, that will rebound on them. If they ever did get a Democrat president, the repubicans - and "the right"- will return the favour. 

The democrats - and the left in general - have sown the wind. They will eventually reap the  whirlwind, and America will become ungovernable. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RoofGardener said:

Most interesting !

Of course, throughout the course of the last 100+ years, England has been dominated by Protestants and CoE rather than Catholics ? 

CoE and protestants have generally been more 'progressive' It was the Anglicans, not the Catholics, that led the charge to ban slavery, and then to emancipate negroes. 

Thanks for the local info , Im an American, Im legally prohibited from knowing anything about anything that happens outside our borders :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

And soon, that will rebound on them. If they ever did get a Democrat president, the repubicans - and "the right"- will return the favour. 

The democrats - and the left in general - have sown the wind. They will eventually reap the  whirlwind, and America will become ungovernable. 

Some would argue thats exactly whats happening to Trump right now.

What goes around comes around, and the unfortunate reality for repubs, is that Trump makes the dems job of giving Trump what Obama got really easy through his idiocy and insanity.

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Bull. People in general hate change, and those who have power will resist. It is a human failing, not a religious one.

I was a fundamentalist Christian for 21 years, and during that time I opposed gay marriage and abortion rights. If you were to ask me why I opposed those things, I would cite scripture as justification. The exact moment I abandoned my faith is the same moment my views on these issues forever changed as well.

If you don't think religious belief has any bearing on one's political views, then you've likely never had a falling out of faith type of experience.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I was a fundamentalist Christian for 21 years, and during that time I opposed gay marriage and abortion rights. If you were to ask me why I opposed those things, I would cite scripture as justification. The exact moment I abandoned my faith is the same moment my views on these issues forever changed as well.

If you don't think religious belief has any bearing on one's political views, then you've likely never had a falling out of faith type of experience.

Religious views...ANY religious views can and do turn SOME portions of their flock into ranting,raving,holier than thou nut cases!

I've seen many cases of it myself...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

Most interesting !

Of course, throughout the course of the last 100+ years, England has been dominated by Protestants and CoE rather than Catholics ? 

CoE and protestants have generally been more 'progressive' It was the Anglicans, not the Catholics, that led the charge to ban slavery, and then to emancipate negroes. 

Mostly because it was still against the law for members of parliament to be Catholic in the 1800s.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Some would argue thats exactly whats happening to Trump right now.

What goes around comes around, and the unfortunate reality for repubs, is that Trump makes the dems job of giving Trump what Obama got really easy through his idiocy and insanity.

I think you can admit that the left stepped it up quite a bit.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
6 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think you can admit that the left stepped it up quite a bit.

Oh for sure..i mean look at how they disrupted the SOTU by yelling that Trump was a liar...oh wait :P

No they have for sure.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

What holds minorities back from acting that way? Progressivism... Libeealism. Because progressives need a held down population to protect, so they ultimately convince people they are being held back to maintain power. 

I see, interesting, if rather vague and unsupported, opinion.  How can progressives 'hold down' minorities without their consent or knowledge?  Your perception is clear and can see through to this truth about people you'll never meet or know, but minorities are susceptible to being convinced by progressives that they are being held back when it is, apparently in your reality, not true?  And you seemed concerned about demeaning them about a sentence ago.

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Black kids raised by white people act like white people and more often then not are TREATED like white people. Imagine that.

'More often than not'?  When was this study done?

Your quote above can be taken a few different ways, not all good, but I'll try and look at the best interpretation.  Since there isn't anything better about 'acting like a white person', after all again you avoid believing things that are demeaning, then it seems like all you are admitting is that white people treat white people better than others.  No kidding... black people already understand that and have had to endure it for centuries now.

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You should read it to comprehend it better. Maybe then we could discuss where it says what?

Hey I'm not even a believer, so yes enlighten me.  How about where we start with where Jesus says anything like, "I pulled myself up so that's what I expect of my neighbors"?  The whole point of Jesus coming here was to help sinners who cannot help themselves, and depending on your Christian flavor it's also reinforced that none of us sinners actually deserved it, it was a gift of grace.  Somehow you've taken that and seem to have arrived at, 'there's no need to help people if you think they don't deserve it'.

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You are mischaracterizing what I wrote. Probably on purpose.

No I'm not, but feel free to clarify:"Love doesn't mean making yourself less to help others and it doesn't mean having to grovel because an ancestor two hundred years ago might have owned a slave."  What is making you 'less'?  Since this is linked to the Bible, let's be more specific: how is helping others, no matter whether you deem them deserving or not, making you spiritually less?  I'd argue it doesn't, 'helping' is good, no matter what. 

And again, I see no situation where you are 'groveling', not that such a thing should really be so bad for a Christian: '...and those who humble themselves will be exalted'.

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I paid 2000 dollars so a friend of mine could leave a violent relationship in Utah, and move to Oregon. I let her and her two half back children, whom I love dearly, live with us, rent free, for two years. I support three children overseas. I give to four different charities every month. I have no problems with people who.NEED help being helped. I have a problem with people who's only issue is being a minority and then DEMANDING free stuff and more protections, then everyone else.

Ha, I see.  When you help people it somehow doesn't make them coddled and victims, and isn't you putting on the kid gloves, not being demeaning, etc.  You've done thorough psychological interviews and determined which people's only issue is being a minority? What about the very sizable proportion of the minority population who don't fit your extreme stereotypes?  What 'more' protections?

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

It would make life easier on them, if they did act like me.

Ha, it might make life easier on them too if you didn't act like you...  But do tell, this is Black History Month after all: how could little Ruby Bridges in my photo in my previous post have acted more like you to make life easier on her?  Short of painting her skin white?  Or if you mistakenly think that is too long ago and everything's all miraculously equaled out now in the last 60 years, how do black people with black-sounding names submitting resumes 'act more like you' to make life easier on them?  Change their names to 'John' and 'Bill' and 'Susie' to 'coddle' the prejudices, conscious or not, of some employers?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
6 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I was a fundamentalist Christian for 21 years, and during that time I opposed gay marriage and abortion rights. If you were to ask me why I opposed those things, I would cite scripture as justification. 

Cite away. Just give me the scriptures that support hating people based on skin color please. You did say racism before right?

Sure, I can see less progressive Christians still hanging on to homosexuality being sexual immorality.

And I understand being against abortion. Because you are killing a unborn person... a genetically distinct individual. It is not just a tumor. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I see, interesting, if rather vague and unsupported, opinion.  How can progressives 'hold down' minorities without their consent or knowledge?  Your perception is clear and can see through to this truth about people you'll never meet or know, but minorities are susceptible to being convinced by progressives that they are being held back when it is, apparently in your reality, not true?  And you seemed concerned about demeaning them about a sentence ago.

Oh, they are being held down with their knowledge. Or at least with their cooperation. It is the culture of "you are not good enough". The culture that prompts people to not move out of slums. That allows people to look away regarding the homeless, the mentally damaged, the drug dependant, the gang members, the criminals... Things that should not be overlooked, but are, because of fear. Fear put there by the left. Fear that "old white men" are going after them. Fear that they need protection. Fear that then leads to looking for that protection. Which leads to holding back, which leads to taking government money, which leads to a lifestyle of being coddled. 

Oh, I admit it all started with the best of intentions, but it is a toxic monster now, after several generations.

Quote

Your quote above can be taken a few different ways, not all good, but I'll try and look at the best interpretation.  Since there isn't anything better about 'acting like a white person', after all again you avoid believing things that are demeaning, then it seems like all you are admitting is that white people treat white people better than others.  No kidding... black people already understand that and have had to endure it for centuries now.

BS. Back people "think" they understand this, but the reality is they've been told they are TREATED bad so much that they believe it and have made it a social issue. 

I've known many people over 50 years, and those who act with self respect, and value what they do, will do well. Someone who is always looking for racism is also always concerned about their self worth, and often with self respect. Because the indoctrination coming from the social left tells them to do so.

Quote

Hey I'm not even a believer, so yes enlighten me.  How about where we start with where Jesus says anything like, "I pulled myself up so that's what I expect of my neighbors"?  The whole point of Jesus coming here was to help sinners who cannot help themselves, and depending on your Christian flavor it's also reinforced that none of us sinners actually deserved it, it was a gift of grace.  Somehow you've taken that and seem to have arrived at, 'there's no need to help people if you think they don't deserve it'.

There are several points in the New Testament were Jesus is walking around and someone comes up and asks for healing. And then he healed them. Point being, they had to ask. Jesus didn't usually just go around healing everyone, he only healed those who had the Faith to come and ask. They had to do their part before he did his.

I believe the same. Minorities need to believe they are just as good as me (Because they are.), and then they will be treated that way. Not because I was forced to by some ridiculous law, but because I would know they respect themselves and value themselves.

Quote

No I'm not, but feel free to clarify:"Love doesn't mean making yourself less to help others and it doesn't mean having to grovel because an ancestor two hundred years ago might have owned a slave."  What is making you 'less'?  Since this is linked to the Bible, let's be more specific: how is helping others, no matter whether you deem them deserving or not, making you spiritually less?  I'd argue it doesn't, 'helping' is good, no matter what. 

And again, I see no situation where you are 'groveling', not that such a thing should really be so bad for a Christian: '...and those who humble themselves will be exalted'.

Being humble isn't groveling.

As to what you quoted, loving someone indeed does not mean you have to sacrifice from yourself. A parent can buy a car for a son, but they are not required to give the son the only car so that they then loose their job. That would be stupid, right? Making yourself less can be a sacrifice some will make, and it is a very Christian thing to do, but it isn't necessary. And hurting yourself is generally considered stupid.

Quote

Ha, I see.  When you help people it somehow doesn't make them coddled and victims, and isn't you putting on the kid gloves, not being demeaning, etc.  

I didn't let it be a lifestyle. That is the difference. I helped my friend get her drivers license back. Helped her get her GED. Helped her get a job.

Helping isn't coddling, if you let them do the work and are teaching. There are many necessary social programs, but none if them should be allowed to be long term. Other then in situations where the person can never recover.

Quote

Ha, it might make life easier on them too if you didn't act like you...  But do tell, this is Black History Month after all: how could little Ruby Bridges in my photo in my previous post have acted more like you to make life easier on her?  Short of painting her skin white? 

So would you say that a back girl today faces the same racism/hate/held down as Ruby did? Obviously you feel there is still some wide gulf where people are being racist everywhere...

Quote

Or if you mistakenly think that is too long ago and everything's all miraculously equaled out now in the last 60 years, how do black people with black-sounding names submitting resumes 'act more like you' to make life easier on them?  Change their names to 'John' and 'Bill' and 'Susie' to 'coddle' the prejudices, conscious or not, of some employers?

"Black" names is actually part of the problem. As the problem with American Blacks isn't necessarily racism. Though that does still exist. It is the myth that "black" culture is worth being tolerant over.

I don't live in a part of the US were there are a lot of back people. But it seems to me that (at least the TV version of) back culture is violent, confrontative, and demands zero tolerance of anyone who suggests they shouldn't be given special rules. In other words they appear to be downright Intolerant. And I just think that is wrong. Sorry if that offends.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

So would you say that a back girl today faces the same racism/hate/held down as Ruby did? Obviously you feel there is still some wide gulf where people are being racist everywhere...

No, that is not 'obvious'.  First off, Ruby's example was to correct you that this isn't about 200 years ago (as if people today aren't affected by the way their ancestors were mistreated anyway).  Secondly, if you are even knowledgeable about Bridges then you know that this isn't an isolated incident with a few members of the KKK or something, this was white men and women and kids spitting on black kids going to their school, supported by state/local governments, requiring federal intervention.  Is our theory then that once the feds forced them to integrate that these people's racism miraculously changed and treated them equally?  Just as Ruby is still alive so are some of the spitters, and there were a lot more of them.  There's all kinds of information if you cared concerning racism at pretty much all levels of the criminal justice system, today, but if this is where you are after 50 years I don't think I can help you.

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

"Black" names is actually part of the problem. As the problem with American Blacks isn't necessarily racism. Though that does still exist. It is the myth that "black" culture is worth being tolerant over.

No, it is people's racism towards blacks that makes black names a problem; that's not even particularly controversial.  You do love yourself some stereotypes though; if we were to grade 'white culture' by the worst members of it, like you are trying to do here for 'black culture', our culture would be more disgusting by a safe margin.  There's a descriptor for, 'I'm justified in not calling you in for a job interview because your name is black sounding, which means to me you may have something in common with other black people who are criminals', but this is a family site so I won't go any further on that.

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I don't live in a part of the US were there are a lot of back people. But it seems to me that (at least the TV version of) back culture is violent

The TV Version of black culture?!  You know all these very specific things about black people, but don't actually live where there are very many of them?!  Ha, hard to believe you typed that after all holding forth in such negative detail on how you know them better than themselves; I believe the kids today call that a 'self own'. Regardless it certainly provides a lot of context and thoroughly answers everything I was curious about with you and how educated your opinions are, albeit probably not in the way you intended.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.