Black lives matter


STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
No one is arguing against more history being studied, but that's not what critical race theory does. CRT starts with marxism and creates a race theory to advocate for marxism with the ruse that it's actually about history. For BLM it's actually about ideology, specifically marxist ideology.
They are not? Look up the attempts to promote false history going back to the end of the civil war/ reconstruction (actually earlier). With that said, you missed my point. The "limited" history is what created the void which opened the door for this.

Where was the all of the pushback to thwart the lost cause BS? At

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.co...-textbooks-long-history-deception/6327359002/


https://www.jacksonville.com/news/n...ivil-war-taught-school-depends-where-you-live

https://www.history.com/news/slave-bible-redacted-old-testament

"When slavery was legal, its proponents often justified it with the Bible; specifically, a verse that tells servants to obey their masters. There were also a lot of verses that abolitionists could and did use to argue against slavery. But you wouldn’t find those in the heavily-redacted “Slave Bible.”"

Non Sequitur: Heavily redacted....Hmmm where have I heard this before?
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
You love to be not only intellectually lazy, you like to put words in peoples mouths in addition to projecting your twisted takes.

For the record, the resistance to a full and complete history has created these voids. The voids created the opportunity to have such things as Critical Race Theory. Also of note, there is also Critical Law/ Legal theory...
You are so full of $hit. If you had an actual point to make, you would have attempted to make it.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,994
Reaction score
1,496
Points
113
They are not? Look up the attempts to promote false history going back to the end of the civil war/ reconstruction (actually earlier). With that said, you missed my point. The "limited" history is what created the void which opened the door for this.

Where was the all of the pushback to thwart the lost cause BS? At

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.co...-textbooks-long-history-deception/6327359002/


https://www.jacksonville.com/news/n...ivil-war-taught-school-depends-where-you-live

https://www.history.com/news/slave-bible-redacted-old-testament

"When slavery was legal, its proponents often justified it with the Bible; specifically, a verse that tells servants to obey their masters. There were also a lot of verses that abolitionists could and did use to argue against slavery. But you wouldn’t find those in the heavily-redacted “Slave Bible.”"

Non Sequitur: Heavily redacted....Hmmm where have I heard this before?
So, your point is that the people in power control the narrative in history. Duh! Those in power narrate history to their own advantage. That, by the way, is one of the fascinating things about the Bible as its narrative paints the characters as flawed and often morally wretched. This is uncommon to historic narrative. Most all paint a rosey picture for the ones in power.

The problem with historical narrative is that we often read secondary source documents written by biased sources. If we want to understand history we should try to read the primary source documents of eye witnesses. Then we can create our own narrative. If you rely upon a basic college textbook, you will get a simple summary from the perspective of the writer who often has plucked their thoughts from secondary sources. It's like playing the telephone game with historical narrative, the distortions get worse and worse.

BLM narrative is a horrible distortion of history.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
So, your point is that the people in power control the narrative in history. Duh! Those in power narrate history to their own advantage. That, by the way, is one of the fascinating things about the Bible as its narrative paints the characters as flawed and often morally wretched. This is uncommon to historic narrative. Most all paint a rosey picture for the ones in power.

The problem with historical narrative is that we often read secondary source documents written by biased sources. If we want to understand history we should try to read the primary source documents of eye witnesses. Then we can create our own narrative. If you rely upon a basic college textbook, you will get a simple summary from the perspective of the writer who often has plucked their thoughts from secondary sources. It's like playing the telephone game with historical narrative, the distortions get worse and worse.

BLM narrative is a horrible distortion of history.
So, it is okay to deliberately omit sections of the bible to rationalize slavery? Also it is okay to continue hiding such omissions decades after the fact?


Twisting Gods Word
 



STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
No, you moron. You just jumped the shark to something no one said. This is why people ignore you.
Okay. Well don't complain when variations of the same issues come back again. The point about the bible, which is central to the twisting of US history by some, is that omissions is what is driving CRT. Failure to acknowledge this will only allow CRT to gain more steam.

Simply, cause and effect. Ignore (cancel) if you wish. It's a free country.

Peace.
 


MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,994
Reaction score
1,496
Points
113
Okay. Well don't complain when variations of the same issues come back again. The point about the bible, which is central to the twisting of US history by some, is that omissions is what is driving CRT. Failure to acknowledge this will only allow CRT to gain more steam.

Simply, cause and effect. Ignore (cancel) if you wish. It's a free country.

Peace.
You are conflating two things. The Bible doesn't change it's narrative, but humans misuse the Bible to create prooftexts for their pretext. That's not biblical narrative, that's humanity ignoring context and literary style.
BLM embraces marxism and then creates a critical race theory to disguise their marxism. It's ideology writing an ideological document. You are attempting to compare apples to peanut butter.
 




STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
You are conflating two things. The Bible doesn't change it's narrative, but humans misuse the Bible to create prooftexts for their pretext. That's not biblical narrative, that's humanity ignoring context and literary style.
BLM embraces marxism and then creates a critical race theory to disguise their marxism. It's ideology writing an ideological document. You are attempting to compare apples to peanut butter.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. The bible was deliberately distorted to keep an institution going. Now, right or wrong, there is a movement to counter this and many other untruths or omissions.

Confronting this history honestly would go a very long way to not only eliminating the perceived need for things like CRT, but also healing this nation.
 

BarnBurner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
15,195
Reaction score
2,166
Points
113
I own it. That is funny. Obviously a mistake, but I made it. :)

Now, if you would just admit that you are pro-Trump we could all move on...

Drink!
And if you would admit you are anti whitey, we could move on.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,994
Reaction score
1,496
Points
113
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. The bible was deliberately distorted to keep an institution going. Now, right or wrong, there is a movement to counter this and many other untruths or omissions.

Confronting this history honestly would go a very long way to not only eliminating the perceived need for things like CRT, but also healing this nation.
The Bible was not distorted. The people using the Bible were distorted. Humans are distorted.
If you are to confront history honestly, you have to read the primary source text.
Instead of reading people's opinion about the Bible, read it yourself. Instead of reading some narrative from a website, read the primary source documents on that issue.
 





STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
The Bible was not distorted. The people using the Bible were distorted. Humans are distorted.
If you are to confront history honestly, you have to read the primary source text.
Instead of reading people's opinion about the Bible, read it yourself. Instead of reading some narrative from a website, read the primary source documents on that issue.
Okay, let me rephrase it. Someone issued bibles with text redacted to suit their own purpose. If your tear some pages out of the bible and hand it to me (assuming i'd never read it) and then taking it a step further preached on this redacted version of the book, I might 'be lead astray'. Do some research. These redacted versions exist.

This is just one of many issues that deserve to be questioned. CRT or No CRT. BLM, or no BLM.

Regarding the bold, huge assumption on your part.

BTW When I said the bible was distorted, I was talking about the redacted versions. I sense that you think I am attacking the unredacted bible itself. For clarity, I am not.

"altered from a true, natural, or normal state, shape, or condition"

Distorted

Revelation 22:18-19 - KJV

"18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Moving right along, this is just one of many "Omissions" that deserve to be challenged.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
And if you would admit you are anti whitey, we could move on.
Ha! Far from it. And I have receipts! We can go to the Historical Society, or the Pioneer Press to verify. From there, we can talk to Priests, Nuns, Police Officers, etc.

IM me. We can set up a time and date. Make sure you block out a big chunk of time.
 
Last edited:


MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,994
Reaction score
1,496
Points
113
Okay, let me rephrase it. Someone issued bibles with text redacted to suit their own purpose. If your tear some pages out of the bible and hand it to me (assuming i'd never read it) and then taking it a step further preached on this redacted version of the book, I might 'be lead astray'. Do some research. These redacted versions exist.

This is just one of many issues that deserve to be questioned. CRT or No CRT. BLM, or no BLM.

Regarding the bold, huge assumption on your part.

BTW When I said the bible was distorted, I was talking about the redacted versions. I sense that you think I am attacking the unredacted bible itself. For clarity, I am not.

"altered from a true, natural, or normal state, shape, or condition"

Distorted

Revelation 22:18-19 - KJV

"18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Moving right along, this is just one of many "Omissions" that deserve to be challenged.
Indeed, I have never read the Cotton Patch Bible or the Jefferson Bible. It would be anathema to me if someone like Thomas Jefferson or the Jesus Seminar of the 1990s were to provide versions not found in the primary documents.
However, a person can easily look at the primary documentation, unless a totalitarian government or organization makes it impossible to read the primary sources. Atheist socialist governments have notoriously done this very thing. Even today people around the world have been fined, harassed and jailed for speaking "hate speech" when they publicly read some parts of the Bible that people don't want to hear. Instead, those people try to remove those passages or explain those passages away so as to not be confronted by the Bible.
It's not the Bible, but it's the humans who refuse the whole of the Bible (most often liberal Christians) and thus redact the Bible to their liking.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
1,439
Points
113
I see now the new york times is reporting a 73 page dem study. This study is saying the party may continue its backward slide among blacks, hispanics, asians come the 2022 election. Study says party must change its messaging. Really incredible that minorities are receiving the 24/7 narrative that republicans are evil racists, yet minorities are apparently not buying it.

One of my favorite clips to watch is dem fox personality juan williams exasperation with 19% of black men voting for trump.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
Indeed, I have never read the Cotton Patch Bible or the Jefferson Bible. It would be anathema to me if someone like Thomas Jefferson or the Jesus Seminar of the 1990s were to provide versions not found in the primary documents.
However, a person can easily look at the primary documentation, unless a totalitarian government or organization makes it impossible to read the primary sources. Atheist socialist governments have notoriously done this very thing. Even today people around the world have been fined, harassed and jailed for speaking "hate speech" when they publicly read some parts of the Bible that people don't want to hear. Instead, those people try to remove those passages or explain those passages away so as to not be confronted by the Bible.
It's not the Bible, but it's the humans who refuse the whole of the Bible (most often liberal Christians) and thus redact the Bible to their liking.
Just take deep breath! The point about the bible was that it was redacted. The redacted version was used to enable/ extend slavery. This is not an attempt to attack you personally or attack your faith. It (the redacted bible) is just one of many, omissions/ redactions of information that have caused people to question history as it has been presented by other humans.

For clarity the following has nothing to do with you personally or your beliefs:

What I find odd is that some will argue till the end of time about a 'stolen' election, then turn right around and get upset about someone else challenging a perceived false history.

Omissions continue to be a point of contention, because some feel that they don't need to answer to someone/ something that they have owned.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
I see now the new york times is reporting a 73 page dem study. This study is saying the party may continue its backward slide among blacks, hispanics, asians come the 2022 election. Study says party must change its messaging. Really incredible that minorities are receiving the 24/7 narrative that republicans are evil racists, yet minorities are apparently not buying it.

One of my favorite clips to watch is dem fox personality juan williams exasperation with 19% of black men voting for trump.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
 


MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
9,994
Reaction score
1,496
Points
113
Just take deep breath! The point about the bible was that it was redacted. The redacted version was used to enable/ extend slavery. This is not an attempt to attack you personally or attack your faith. It (the redacted bible) is just one of many, omissions/ redactions of information that have caused people to question history as it has been presented by other humans.

For clarity the following has nothing to do with you personally or your beliefs:

What I find odd is that some will argue till the end of time about a 'stolen' election, then turn right around and get upset about someone else challenging a perceived false history.

Omissions continue to be a point of contention, because some feel that they don't need to answer to someone/ something that they have owned.
Do you then admit that BLM is the organization doing the redacting?
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
Indeed, I have never read the Cotton Patch Bible or the Jefferson Bible. It would be anathema to me if someone like Thomas Jefferson or the Jesus Seminar of the 1990s were to provide versions not found in the primary documents.
However, a person can easily look at the primary documentation, unless a totalitarian government or organization makes it impossible to read the primary sources. Atheist socialist governments have notoriously done this very thing. Even today people around the world have been fined, harassed and jailed for speaking "hate speech" when they publicly read some parts of the Bible that people don't want to hear. Instead, those people try to remove those passages or explain those passages away so as to not be confronted by the Bible.
It's not the Bible, but it's the humans who refuse the whole of the Bible (most often liberal Christians) and thus redact the Bible to their liking.
I separated this question, because I felt it deserved to be addressed alone.

Do you think that Jesus would be considered conservative? If so, why? This is just a request for an opinion. No right or wrong answer(s). I only ask, because when I read this reply, that (bold text) was the first thing that jumped out to me. The frustration seems to be with Liberal Christians. Not with some issuing redacted bibles and using this to oppress creations of God, and others continuing this by doing all they can to suppress this history. I've read enough of your posts to feel comfortable to assume that you would want all of God's children receive the full gift of God's word (assuming you consider it a gift).
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
Correct. More evidence media subterfuge may not be landing.
You may be correct. The question is where is this going? As I have stated many, many times, this is just one of many binary issues. However, it is rarely binary. Good on Juan Williams that he allegedly says Trump allegedly is supported by 19% of the Black voters. What I have always found interesting is that the 'Black Majority' never seems to matter. Pick a subject.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
Do you then admit that BLM is the organization doing the redacting?
So BLM (the organization) enslaved people? BLM created and issued a redacted bible?

Moving right along, I don't speak for BLM. Never have. Therefore, I have nothing to admit or refute. Just as I can assume that you are not speaking for slave masters or those that developed this redacted 'book'.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
1,439
Points
113
You may be correct. The question is where is this going? As I have stated many, many times, this is just one of many binary issues. However, it is rarely binary. Good on Juan Williams that he allegedly says Trump allegedly is supported by 19% of the Black voters. What I have always found interesting is that the 'Black Majority' never seems to matter. Pick a subject.

Agree on where this is going. No one knows - time will tell.

Not sure where you are going with the last two sentences.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
43,280
Reaction score
4,587
Points
113
I separated this question, because I felt it deserved to be addressed alone.

Do you think that Jesus would be considered conservative? If so, why? This is just a request for an opinion. No right or wrong answer(s). I only ask, because when I read this reply, that (bold text) was the first thing that jumped out to me. The frustration seems to be with Liberal Christians. Not with some issuing redacted bibles and using this to oppress creations of God, and others continuing this by doing all they can to suppress this history. I've read enough of your posts to feel comfortable to assume that you would want all of God's children receive the full gift of God's word (assuming you consider it a gift).
Jesus is God- he would be neither conservative nor liberal. Conservative and liberal views are a way to deal with, from a governing style- human nature. Put simply, liberalism deals poorly with human nature. We are wired to work, achieve and have purpose. Liberals do not address this with policy and in fact move away from this with their ideal of equity (equality of result versus equality of opportunity). We are wired to be connected to our creator- liberals cannot admit this.

We are wired to give- person to person- charitably. Not by force through an inefficient government. Liberalism does not recognize good and evil. God's ways are above our ways. The way we govern and choose to be governed should recognize how God's creation is wired and that we are indeed God's creation. Liberals are not evil, per se, they just fail to recognize, in most cases, who the creator is, his sovereignty, and how he wired us. Therefore, the policies fail.
 

STPGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,309
Reaction score
710
Points
113
Jesus is God- he would be neither conservative nor liberal. Conservative and liberal views are a way to deal with, from a governing style- human nature. Put simply, liberalism deals poorly with human nature. We are wired to work, achieve and have purpose. Liberals do not address this with policy and in fact move away from this with their ideal of equity (equality of result versus equality of opportunity). We are wired to be connected to our creator- liberals cannot admit this.

We are wired to give- person to person- charitably. Not by force through an inefficient government. Liberalism does not recognize good and evil. God's ways are above our ways. The way we govern and choose to be governed should recognize how God's creation is wired and that we are indeed God's creation. Liberals are not evil, per se, they just fail to recognize, in most cases, who the creator is, his sovereignty, and how he wired us. Therefore, the policies fail.
While you are entitled to your opinion, I was hoping that MennoSota would address this. He brought up Liberal Christians. I think it is safe to assume that he believes that there are conservative Christians as well.

With that said, Christ did spend much time with the poor. Something tells me he cared. Others care as well. IMHO You can care about others and not necessarily be Christian. Humans have this strange ability to be united in purpose.
 




Top Bottom