Here, rather than trying to walk together
and there it ends.
Curious, didn’t get anywhere.
Here, rather than trying to walk together
and there it ends.
Curious, didn’t get anywhere.
@Timo: Remember how, when Jesus confronted the Pharisees, He always got the last word, and they always went away angry?
You, and they, need better arguments.
You got the last word, Harry. Well done, just like that other fella.
Just don’t project hate-or racism on me.
@Timo: Why would I project anything on you, when I have your testimony?
We can “what if” our way into all kinds of questions and situations but after everything is said and done, will there be more done than said?
Truth is, talk without action rarely accomplishes anything worthwhile. USA congress for example.
Actually, I could care less if Jesus was any certain color or ethnicity. What He did, what He accomplished for all, is what matters to me.
As an aside, the phrase should be, “What if Jesus were Black?” Subjunctive, you know,
But Jesus was not black, or asian, or aborigine. He came as a Jew into the Roman Empire where Jews were looked down upon, but were also admired for their virtuous lives. The Hebrew scriptures revealed true godliness, something the pagan writers did not so clearly reveal. And some Jews lived it.
But, why did Jesus come as a Jew and not some other race? He did it for a reason.
Although the Jews were looked down upon, they were part of the Roman Empire, and had a long and eventful history. And they had access to the Empire. It was a platform on which the gospel could be taken to the whole Roman world and then to the whole world.
It was a shrewd choice.
To have come as a black in Africa would not have allowed for such a happening. Black Africa was a real backwater at the time, and the gospel would have died unknown. God chose a jewish body for his Son, for the good of the whole world.
I might add that Jews of that era were short and dark skinned. Brown, you might say, so He did share some characteristics of the black race.
I will not get into this conversation, Harry, for they go nowhere. But a black lady told me of a recent women’s meeting she attended where several white women confessed their racism. She did not run to embrace them, but thought they were being silly, for they had not done anything.
But I would hug you if you confessed your racism, I would. At least figuratively, as we are on line. ‘hug’ ‘hug’…
Jesus came as a Jew because that was the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, “Through you and your seed, all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” This was the gospel going to the Jews first, and also to the Gentiles.” This was the fulfillment and climax of the scriptural story of Israel.
That Israel was at a geographic crossroads of the Roman Empire was an additional facet of the equation, so to speak.
What do you mean by, “They go nowhere,” Allen?
In other words, where, are you saying, should they “go”?
a) Then, why were they confessing?
b) Why was she telling you this?
c) What you’ve said, here, supports my point. In other words, though you’ve lived a long life, you haven’t had any white ladies come to you and tell you about the women’s meeting they attended where several Black women confessed their racism.
I wouldn’t hug you, if you confessed your racism, any more than I would hug you if you confessed to any other crime.
However, I would appreciate it, and after your confession, I might thank you for it, or, at least, speak highly of your act.
As for me, I can’t confess to racism, because racism is white supremacy; white supremacy is the only functional form of racism. That’s the point of the illustration, above; the one that we are currently discussing.
Like I said, I an not getting into this conversation. You think only whites can be racist. That is not true. But I will not answer a rejoinder.
Good point, and I agree.
BINGO. Correct. Absolutely correct.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…
Not only is it true. It’s logically unavoidable.
In fact, that’s the reason you’re “not getting into this conversation”: Up until, and including, this moment, any counter-argument you’ve raised against mine has been soundly defeated.
When this happens in SDA colporteur narratives, usually, the failed debater gets on his knees and asks God what to do. Shortly thereafter, he’s taking Bible studies, and more quickly than that, he’s a deacon.
Sadly, at least in this area, white people tend neither to be so spiritual, nor so humble.
I think we both know why.
I suspect Black Jesus would not be espousing a black superiority,
claiming people that look like Him are immune to The Chief Sin,
and people who don’t look like him and harry can just go, well, anywhere but here.
Well, but we must assure that there is a historical axle : Egypt, Palestine, Rome (and the borders of the Roman Empire : Please compare with maps showing the prevalence of Catholicism and Orthodoxy and Anglicanism)- They preserved our writing, our grammar, our speech, our thinking - - -)
And the seafaring nations in this area developed the technology and sent out the boats wwith their explorers - and missionaries.
Their selfesteem in supremacy we have to overcome ! - -And in the SDA community also the assumption of US supremacy in the hymnal, the dresscode, the patterns of thinking, the principles of US right and law and proceeding guidelines in the Church Manual, the exegesis in fundamentalistic approach to ancient times texts - -
Humbly we shouls accept that a Jew - just for instance - is far more competent for explaining OT texts than we - and our theologians - - - - - (well, not the renegate Cliff !)
Humbly we should accept a lot from mankind here and there, we in the trdaition of Rome or Cluny, of Koenigsberg and St. Paul/Lavanttal, in - dare I to say it ? - the New England states - - - -
This opening statement only served to add fuel to the the raging issue of racism, – based on colour complexion. It would have been better had this article not been published.
I suspect Spectrum (who is not alone in this arrant, biased posture) cannot help itself. No one can, when they get sucked up into that seductive lie-a lie too useful to the identity/ideology divisive war.
Rather than have the more meaningful conversation, the skin deep one is-perhaps surprisingly-easier. Problem is multi factorial, multi faceted, and to blame it solely on that skin deep false issue only perpetuates the problem.
Where are those-from each side- who dare stand in the breach?
I am no longer engaging with you in discussing your one sided stubborn argument on racism. But, since you keep poking on this and mentioned me again, the only thing I have to say “in response” is that after all you have been saying the only and unequivocal conclusion is that you are a living proof of the argument that not only whites are racists.
Racism is a condition of the mind that affects certain human beings no matter the color of their skin. Saying that only whites are racists is a confession and demonstration of racism in itself.
Thanks for being yourself the “Exhibit A” of what I have always said.
except, something which I’ve ofte noted-is that discrimination against women is FAR longer, broader, wider, deeper, and ongoing. Written as a “secret law” (ask Sandra Roberts) within our faith community, and openly practiced worldwide, across 99% of cultures. To suggest racism bears any responsibility for t
The specific racism being referenced here is but a few hundred years old, and supposedly limited only to America.
One cannot grant any equivalency to these two. And I might add, perhaps Jesus should have come as a woman-at least-and maybe of color.
Just me and my opinion. (Worthless) Discrimination against women makes me crazy. My wife and daughter, and other women in my family, get my full attention.
rac·ism | ˈrāˌsizəm |
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized
• the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another
“Scholars also commonly define racism not only in terms of individual prejudice, but also in terms of a power structure that protects the interests of the dominant culture and actively discriminates against ethnic minorities. From this perspective, while members of ethnic minorities may be prejudiced against members of the dominant culture, they lack the political and economic power to actively oppress them, and they are therefore not practicing “racism”.”
It would seem this is the viewpoint that HA is coming from, “From this perspective, while members of ethnic minorities may be prejudiced against members of the dominant culture, they lack the political and economic power to actively oppress them, and they are therefore not practicing “racism”
Racism is a very complicated subject. Looking at the most basic definition of the word, it would seem to me, make it of utmost importance to Christianity and yes, even Adventism! So for the calls to not be discussing the subject in Spectrum and other SDA literature is something I don’t understand. To say that it should only be discussed in a certain manner is equally troublesome. Why do we not want to hear from individuals, no matter how strongly or passionately, who have experienced it or have very strong feeling about the subject, unless they are ‘gentle’ with us?
(When the subject of EGW comes up, we seem to have no problem with those who, not so ‘gently’, disparage most everything about her and her writings!)
No one is suggesting it should not be discussed.
Indeed, many of us seem to recognize that the requirement to salute the black lives matter flag, or to accept white fragility and all of it’s assumptions/sequelae, or accede to demanded confession of “white supremacy”, stifles, indeed terminates the conversation. It becomes a tirade, mob-like snowballing.
I understand the issue, at least a little. Let me try-again (despite Harry adroitly brushed off this suggestion on previous threads).
I’ll just use “Henri” as an example.
(any resemblance to any individual purely coincidental)
He is a man.
He is a member of a system.
That system is patriarchy.
Patriarchy is very old-comparatively-
The functional form of patriarchy is male supremacy.
Only males can be male supremacists.
All males must be male supremacists because they’ve been acculturated/inculcated with their privilege and power.
Men cannot help being male supremacists.
Women must feel male supremacy is The Chief Sin
(it might be!!-roots down there in the shadow of the omen tree and all)
How am i doing so far?
Lets say Henri’s wife tires of being under his thumb,
forced to feed him, wash his figgy knickers, pleasure him etc etc.
She decides to join a feminist group, lets coin it Female Lives Matter.
FLM decides to incite protest, burn bras, participate in consequence-free sex with others, withhold sex from their mates, stop cooking, cleaning, rearing young, you know, all those things male supremacy demands of women. Before you know it-the family, the village, the kingdom are destroyed from within. The society burns.
Now, back to the real Henri. No one-not. one. of. us. here require of Harry anything resembling the subservience he expects of his wife.
And yet-the Henri’s of the world (yes, this one happens to not be a member of the Supremacy class-but trust me, he wants to.) will burn down society, disrespect law and order, denigrate-even kill- the lawful enforcers, disrespect the flag, rewrite history, demand reparations -and continue to add to the seemingly endless demands.
But Henri does not want to talk about the gender-or age discrimination (place
Childrens Lives Matter, or Unborn Lives Matter). He does not consider his role in the destruction of family, village, kingdom-but he wants something from it.
Now, if that society is destroyed-what can it give Henri?
Perhaps Henri only cares that it is destroyed? Perhaps it is not equality-which requires, equally, responsibility (on many levels) that he wants. Perhaps it is vengeance, more than anything. Perhaps envy (which fits the Chief Sin bill quite handily, no?) is the motivating factor-and it is artfully cloaked beneath some veneer that “seems” right, at least emotionally?
And despite all of the tempestuous racial agitations,
child neglect/abuse/child slavery/child termination INCREASE,
but NO ONE LIFTS A HAND, whispers a prayer, grabs a diaper.
Children are the MOST marginalized, least powerful creations of God-
who will advocate for them? Who will admit Male Supremacy so they can then address gender discrimination? Seems no one.
If we were to place, head to head, all the kidnapped children, unwanted unborn, subjugated women-how many times around the mountain would the chain of bodies encircle this mountain of our own making?
I well recall when I first met Henri.
My interaction with him-my best friend-caused me to first,
get a (deserved) beating.
Then it caused me to look within.
It was then, at 12, that I spent some of my hard won money
in the Scholastic Book mail order store.
I still have my copy of John Howard Griffins book.
My bookshelf has grown-much-since.
And so has my empathy, and understanding.
It is ongoing-despite, sometimes we are moving backwards in a fury.
We’ve all toiled in the vineyard-some harder, longer, more stridently than others.
Rather than remark to the other that they have not done enough,
I shoulder my task and pull harder.
If we’re on the same path, won’t you, too, grasp these other tasks with me?
Winters coming, the seasonal workers are gone,
yet the harvest IS large and the market hungry…
If you perceive this mere pretentious ink, ostentatious words,
deal with it.
It’s how i spill it.
What happened to Henri?
He took his anger to the marines, and it took him.