40 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
It is Muslims who are responsible for this.
The terrorists are coming from among them, and the Muslim community is remarkably silent when the time comes to condemn their acts and those who support them.
The same can be said
for the KKK and the christian communities that produced and tolerated them for generations.
NT - Amen Dan!
Re: The same can be said -- of the militias that brought us OKC (NT)
and just how were they attached to ANY Christian church, and just which church failed to condemn their violence?
It's a REAL STRETCH to connect either the KKK or the militias to a church although, in the case of the KKK, it seems that a case can be made that the church could have helped and did not.
Most of the KKK considered themselves good Christians and went to church every Sunday.
They were pillars of the community. I still remember the white and colored fountains and bathrooms. I remember the blacks in the back of the bus even though I was pre-school.
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
Although I do not live in the south, it is my impression that
what you say is true. I think the church REALLY FAILED in that situation. I hope some of the pastors were trying to do the right thing, but I suspect most went along with the prevailing view. I hope the churches have now repented and are trying to do the right thing.
NT - I'm sure many churches (not all) are trying to do the "RIGHT" thing...
I'm sure the quote came from somewhere, but not from my preceding post.
Trying to quote out of context?
That is why there is a Northern (now American) Baptist Church and a Southern Baptist Church
The Northern Baptist Church didn't approve of slavery and the Southern Baptist Church promoted it.
A few years ago the Southern Baptist Convention finally apologized for this. A member of my church proposed the apology for the state convention and the state convention proposed it for the national convention.
click here to email email@example.com
Let me ask you a straight forward question and maybe you can give me a straight answer.
Did God ever advocate slavery?
Did God ever condone slavery?
Under what conditions if you answer yes to either above?
Does God ever change?
Re:Let me ask you a straight forward question and maybe you can give me a straight answer.
Some among us believe the bible is the unerring word of god.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)
Some of us don't believe that.
I can see why you wouldn't.
Paul is talking to Christian slaves, and, with that in mind, one must ask what he is getting at. Is he defending slavery? No, I don't think he is. What he is saying is, if you find yourself in the position of being a slave, live an exemplary life. Do not do so for the sake of your master, but for the sake of Christ. Why is Paul saying this? So that, if possible, the slave will help win the master for Christ. The slave is thus doing what all Christians are expected to do, being a witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ. You might want to look at the book of Philemon in the New Testament to see Paul writing a slave owner on behalf of his escaped slave. Did he command that the man be freed? No, but he called him 'our brother' and strongly suggested that additional generosity be extended to him.
In Israel, the Bible allows Israelites to sell themselves in slavery to pay off debts. However, it limits this by decreeing that such slaves be freed in the 'Year of Jubilee'. The Bible recognizes that slavery exists, but does not seem to support it.
In addition, the Bible sees life as a short, temporary affair where all suffer some degree of pain. Is a slave worse off than a blind beggar? The real emphasis, especially in the New Testament, is what comes after this life. That will last for eternity, so that is what you need to get right in this life.
Re:I can see why you wouldn't.
You have to read into these passages much that isn't there to get the interpretation that you're seeking.
On the issue of slavery and human justice, I would have hoped for a better stance than "It exists but the bible doesn't seem to support it". An outright condemnation of it's inherent evil would be a good thing to find in the bible.
Re:Let me ask you a straight forward question and maybe you can give me a straight answer.
The Bible never condemns slavery outright but Christ said that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, male nor female in the eyes of God. Most Christians accepted the first set immediately; the second set took a lot longer (almost 2000 years); and some demominations still don't accept the third set.
Never knew a single card carrying member of the KKK in any church I ever attended, nor ever heard them endorsed from any pulpit in the south. Now, you may point to some psuedo political Christian Identity group, but that certainly isn't representative of Christianity in the south. One congregation I attended offered to merge with the local black church and do you know what happened? THEY are the ones that refused. They were gracious enough but felt their members had needs that would become lost in the larger context of the whole group, not unlike the problems between the Gentiles and Jews in the first century church. So instead, the two groups would share in church sings at times, and swap the preacher once in a while for a change.
I also remember the "colored" restrooms. Before there were men and women, they were "colored" and "white". Some places had 3 restrooms for customers. The thing that's overlooked is that facilities WERE provided. Let's not give any credit there.
So, if southern whites were so awful to blacks, then why did they trust them in their homes and with their children at the same time northern whites wouldn't? Hmmmm, you NEVER seem to give THAT as a recall, do you?
It's really tough to evaluate people from the outside when you weren't there.
I can only go by what people say. Based on the recollections in this thread, it sounds like maybe the KKK either kept their identities secret or were present in some churches and not others.
I think the larger question is why the church did not openly condemn, oppose, and preach against the KKK and others. It appears they were silent in the face of oppression and injustice. I don't see how the southern church can escape that charge.
'So, if southern whites were so awful to blacks, then why did they trust them in their homes and with their children at the same time northern whites wouldn't?' Well, not exactly. I've frequently heard how my grandmother had a black housekeeper (early 1900s in Chicago) who certainly helped take care of six girls. It is likely that most people in the North could not afford to do this.
Most of the militia members are from the "Christian Right." For example, look at "The Militia News," the nationwide Militia Information Center for locally controlled militias across America. Both are operated by "The Christian Civil Liberties Association."
My (bleccch!) former Congressman (for one eminently forgettable term, during which he was voted the stupidest man in the Congress by his peers), Steve Stockman, called himself as a member of the Christian Right and received helped from fundamentalist churches in the district, and was a noted militia supporter.
The Posse Comitatus, one of the best known militias, with which OKC bomber Terry Nichols was affiliated, claims it wants "a Christian Republic." The connections go on and on.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
No, not REALLY by a long shot!
ANY organization can call itself 'Christian' just as any organization can call itself Democratic. Calling itself that doesn't make it so. What evidence is there that 'The Christian Civil Liberties Association' is Christian? What is its statement of faith? Is it connected to a recognized Christian institution? Conversely, what evidence is there that the organization is NOT Christian? Does it advocate positions which are contrary to the teachings of the Bible? If it does, it's not a Christian organization.
What is the "Christian Right"? Southern Baptists? Are you saying Southern Baptists sanction the attack on the Federal Building? Let's have some specifics Dave, and vague statements about how one guy describes himself are not specifics. Otherwise, you are engaged in the worst sort of smear of your fellow citizens.
Don't forget. People like Jim Jones, David Koresh and others of their ilk claimed to be christians. Very clearly, their claims were false. Don't try to lay their sins at the door of the Christian Church.
Re:No, not REALLY by a long shot!
I hope you will remember this when you are discussing groups that call themselves muslim.
That's precisely why I answered as I did.
Many of the terrorists are quoting the sacred texts of Islam, and are NOT being denounced by Muslim clerics. In fact, many in the Muslim world applaud them. How many Muslims must approve of their actions before they are considered a legitimate part of Islam? How many Christians approved of Jom Jones or David Koresh?
Re:That's precisely why I answered as I did.
Jim Jones? Not many. David Koresh got a lot of support. How much of that was predicated on Clinton bashing is unknown, but there were many speaking out against the treatment he got.
We don't have to plumb the history books too much to find behavior that was approved of or let pass by christians that would be roundly criticized today.
Where did a reputable Christian organization support David Koresh? Koresh was supported by the anti-government types who didn't like Janet Reno's tactics. Actually, it wasn't very bright to set the place on fire, but that's not Christian support for Koresh.
Re:It is Muslims who are responsible for this.
Undeniably, you are correct.
However, it would be incorrect to sum people up just because they are associated with a name. It will be unfair to sum up the Christians and Jews in the same manner. This is stereotyping big time and wrong. If a terrorist finds out I gave such statement, they would call me an enemy of Islam.
I have just recently read a post stating that because one is an atheist, they are all pedophiles and child molesters. This is characterization and judgment and it is incorrect. If the terrorist finds out that I gave such statement, they would call me an enemy of Islam.
Just because a Muslim is silent, how can one assume it means they are in support of these hideous acts of violence? If you only knew how many Muslims condemns this violence, you would be in shock. 9-11 for instance, did they (terrorists) ever care about the Muslims who died in that event? Of course not! The terrorist hates many of the Muslims living in the West because they feel the Muslims have adopted a way of life contrary to their imposed twisted beliefs. Even the word, East and West, Muslims differs in many aspects of the faith. There is a clash.
It is a complex issue, and a very long story and I do not have all the answers.
Point is this, what is our role in a more civilized country such as North America? I think we have a lot to offer to make a difference in the lives of many others if we at least try to make the first step from where we are sitting or standing.
You would not hit me on the head when you see me just because I am a Muslim would you? < A general question >
No, of course I would not hit you on the head or anywhere else.
I strongly believe that everyone is free to believe what they think is true. I also believe in freedom of conscience (someone should not be forced to violate their conscience) as long as that does not lead to a violation of natural law. I do think that people should be free to discuss their faith and attempt to persuade others of the truth of their position. I also think that someone should be free to change their faith if they become persuaded that another position is true. If a Muslim decides to become a Christian, is he or she free to do so? Will he continue to be welcomed by his family and his community? I have been told that, in many Muslim countries, the penalty for abandoning Islam is death. Is this true?
As I said earlier, what disturbs me is the silence of the Muslim community in the face of terrorism. Yes, Muslims were killed on 9/11, but I think that they were not the targets of the terrorists and the community understood this. You seem to be saying that the Muslim community has been intimidated into silence by a fear of reprisal. I suspect that, as long as this silence continues, the Muslim community will continue to be regarded with suspicion by other Americans. The leaders of the faith must have the courage to speak out and condemn the violence.
Another question I hope you will comment on. Muslims in the Sudan are enslaving Sudanese Christians. Again, I am not aware that this practice has been condemned. Why is this?
Re:No, of course I would not hit you on the head or anywhere else.
We are all free to believe whatever we want to believe in -- Free Will, yes. Something tells me that man will not be able to exercise this Free Will to a full extent however, he wishes. I will tell you why.
Adam and Eve disobeyed the law of God by eating the forbidden fruit. There was a price for the disobedience of man in this life and in the Day of Judgment.
To experiment jumping off the 911th floor of a building, what do you think will happen? Somebody will pick up the bloody remains of your body. We can choose to believe or not -- Newton's Law of Motion and Gravity. It just simply exists. To say it does not exist does not remove the operation.
Man must eat to live. If you do not eat for a certain number of days, the body would then begin to disintegrate. You do not have to believe that you have to eat to stay alive; all you do is eat. To break this law to nourish the body, defies it and you will slowly die. The law of preservation -- man must eat to live.
The Law of Man
You think you can run around naked the Ashbury Street (San Francisco)? What do you think will happen? You would be arrested, spend a night or two in jail and then apt for psychiatric evaluation. The radical hippie day is over. Unless you belong to a private Hedonist Club, then you would be out of luck with your freedom of expression.
Laws are meant to control and discipline the people in a given society. It can be said that these laws runs parallel of each other. You do not have to abide by any of these laws to exercise your freedom of beliefs it is just simply the civilization of mankind. There is always a price to pay for Freedom.
If you understood this message, then I have answered your *Why?*. Mankind will just simply learn to survive.
I really am dense. I need it spelled out more explicitly.
Are you saying that the law prevents Muslims from converting to Christianity? Are you saying that the law calls for slavery in the Sudan? Are you also saying that the law MUST be obeyed?
If I have understood you, then I can tell you what I think the Christian opinion is. Our basic rights are given to us by God. No law can legitimitely infringe on those rights, and no Christian is bound to obey a law that does. Since God gives us our rights, no human institution can take them away. Freedom of belief and worship is one of those rights. While one may be killed or imprisoned for exercising this right, that does NOT remove the right. The one doing the killing or imprisonment will ultimately be answerable to God. Claiming that right, even in the face of death or imprisonment, is the price of freedom.
Christians led the way in the outlawing of slavery in both Britain and the United States. I don't think any religion can win respect today if it condones, or is silent about, the practice of slavery in its midst. It must condemn and end this practice.
Re:I really am dense. I need it spelled out more explicitly.
Paragraph 3 of your statement offers truth according to the timeline of history. They were also the ones who enjoyed and indulged in slavery before they outlawed it. They were also responsible for burning the witches. The Spanish Conquistadors were also responsible for bloody converting the populated Muslims and pagans in the Philippines to Catholicism. Many fled to the south. The Spaniard called them, the Moro. Japan were Buddhist, a country ruled by emperors guarded by armies of Samurai. Modern army introduced by the Christians along with the religion replaced the downfalls of the respected Samurai. King Henry VIII, breaking away from the Catholic Church because the Pope would not let him get a divorce. A new sect was born, the Anglican Church.
In response to paragraph 1 and 2 of your statement, I gave you my response. Fact is, every nation is guilty of an amount of dirty laundry. None is exempt of it. Naturally we all would like to live in a country were we can exercise our definition of rights but that is not always the case. It is one person's blessings and somebody else's misfortune that they are unable to exit from such oppression. If you and I have the power of the gavel like President Bush, we can change whatever we want that we do not see fit. I, however, would not want to be swinging the gavel because it always gives way to updated version of corruption.
We can all agree and disagree about many things in this life but in the end of the day, we all look forward to the next day. I prefer Optimism and silence when necessary.
Silence in the face of oppression is troubling.
Would that those who would be heard would speak and bring freedom to the Muslim nations.
With respect to British and American participation in slavery, let's be fair. Although 'They were also the ones who enjoyed and indulged in slavery before they outlawed it.', it was the Muslims who provided them with their slaves. Slavery had been accepted from ancient days. It is not surprising that it continued to be practiced until Christians like Wilberforce became convinced that it was wrong. It is commendable that, once convinced of its immorality, these cultures did outlaw it.
As to military suppression of various cultures, you did not mention that the initial spread of Islam was fueled by military conquest. It is thus not surprising that there was a military response, although Christians today do not accept the proposition that one can be converted by force. There was a thriving Christian community in North Africa which was suppressed and eliminated by the Muslim conquest of the region.
Timeline of history...
Spanish yes, but "Conquistadors" as a label at that time has problems.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)