Does your church address racism?

[tango]

You brought it up not me. You brought it up in response to my reply. Why bring it up?

Because it's relevant to the question.

I gave my definition of racism. Have you given yours? I haven't seen one.

See, you bring it up again, when I never indicated any exclusion.

Since you want to respond to some of my replies to another, then respond to my post #(28). Which everyone seems to ignore. Consider (29) also.

Lees

I'm not really interested in the pretense of a discussion with someone who expects to micromanage very aspect of the interaction. Thanks anyway.

 

[Lees]

Let's start with you reading the four or five messages I've already posted in this thread and which contain plenty that's deserving of your consideration.

I did read and consider them and commented if I was in disagreement.

In my post #(9) I didn't really disagree with what you said in post #(8). So I simply made a statement concerning the general difficulty people in the church have in discussing racism. Espeicially if you have a view that is opposed to the accepted American cultural/political view.

In your post #(12) I didn't really disagree with you, so did not reply.

In your post #(14) I did address you in post #(15).

In your post #(16) I did address you in post #(19).

In your post #(31), it was your reply to atpollard's comment in post #(25). I had already commented on that post in post #(29).

In your post #(36), it wasn't addressed to me and I didn't really disagree with what you said, so did not reply.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Why don’t you just spit out what it really is that you’re trying to say.

I believe I have been clear in what I am saying.

I said the Church in America can't discuss racism unless you agree with the American cultural/political view of racism. Which means racism is evil, and by that, almost always means only white racism. And if you oppose that view, you are branded a racist. I gave my definition of racism.

The Scriptures and Heaven were brought up with the implication that Heaven is opposed to segragation, with the implication that God is opposed to segragation. So I asked pertinent questions in post #(28) concerning that.

To which none have responded that I am aware of.

What I have said, and am saying, is that the Church is following the American cultural/political view of racism. Not the Biblical view. Which is why no one addresses my questions in post #(28).

Let me give a present day and current example. Tonight on TV you can watch the Trumpet Awards honoring black excellence. Nicely positioned on June 19th, Juneteenth, the day Federal troops arrived in Galveston Texas in 1865.

That is racism. I'm not saying that's bad. See my definition of racism. But it is racism. But, just imagine if a show was specifically dedicated to honoring white excellance. Oh, how evil that sounds. That can never be allowed. See the hypocrisy?

That is the American cultural/political definition of racism. The black race, brown race, or any other race can be honored on the basis of race. But don't dare try and honor the 'white race'. To do so is evil. You can honor a white person, his achievements, etc. But don't bring the word 'white' up in doing so. Hypocrisy. And that is racist and wrong. But in America's eyes, it is good, and righteous.

And the Church in America loves to bow down and follow suit.

Lees

 

[Albion]

I did read and consider them and commented if I was in disagreement.

Okay. So it's not as though I haven't offered anything to the discussion. And yet your reply was "If you have something to say, say it. I'm willing to talk." (?)

At the heart of that particular matter, the fact is that you didn't make your position about racism and the churches clear. Saying this: "What I have said, and am saying, is that the Church is following the American cultural/political view of racism" can be taken several different ways by the readers.

 

[Lees]

Okay. So it's not as though I haven't offered anything to the discussion. And yet your reply was "If you have something to say, say it. I'm willing to talk." (?)

At the heart of that particular matter, the fact is that you didn't make your position about racism and the churches clear. Saying this: "What I have said, and am saying, is that the Church is following the American cultural/political view of racism" can be taken several different ways by the readers.

My comment to you was based on your 'thumbs down' emoticon to my post to another. It had nothing to do with any of your past posts.

At the heart of the matter is that you and others refuse to answer my questions because in doing so you know exactly what I am saying, and you don't want that to be said.

Don't blame me. I have been clear, and I believe I have answered any questions directed to me.

My position has been clear. See posts #(6), (7), and (9). No, American cultural/political view of racism cannot be taken several different ways. Only one way. Racism involves the white race. I gave you an example, which of course you ignore as you know it is true.

So, if you really are interested in the subject, go back to my post #28 and answer my questions. Address my example of the 'Trumpet Awards honoring black excellence" in post #(43).

See, I have been clear and you ignore it. I have to ask you to address it.

Lees

 

[Albion]

My comment to you was based on your 'thumbs down' emoticon to my post to another. It had nothing to do with any of your past posts.

And you think that was being "clear?"

Don't blame me. I have been clear, and I believe I have answered any questions directed to me.

Enough of this. If you want to go on being confusing, keep writing ambiguous messages about posts other than the one your reply appears to reference. Then you can follow that up by acting aggrieved when you aren't understood--and not by this reader only. There is a better way.

 

[Lees]

And you think that was being "clear?"

Enough of this. If you want to go on being confusing, keep writing ambiguous messages about posts other than the one your reply appears to reference. Then you can follow that up by acting aggrieved when you aren't understood--and not by this reader only. There is a better way.

I'm not aggrieved. I understand what is behind your claim of confusion and ignorance. The Church in America is so in lock step with the American cultural/political view of race or racism, that when confronted with it, they cannot and will not deal with it.

The American cultural/political view of race or racism has so permeated the Church in America, that to confront it is not just un-American, but anti-christian.

Just makes me want to break forth in song. "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.....Glory, glory, hallelujah"

Lees

 

[Albion]

I'm not aggrieved. I understand what is behind your claim of confusion and ignorance.

I didn't say you are confused and ignorant. I said that your posts are confusing/unclear and you get testy when people don't know how to take your claims, simply because they ARE unclear.

The Church in America is so in lock step with the American cultural/political view of race or racism, that when confronted with it, they cannot and will not deal with it.

The American cultural/political view of race or racism has so permeated the Church in America, that to confront it is not just un-American, but anti-christian.

Haven't you noticed, after all the urging, that what you've written here doesn't identify what you think the American view of race or racism IS?

It's no wonder that a detailed and specific response often doesn't come back...and then you are upset that, in your mind, the readers dodged your point.

Anyway, I hope you have a nice day.

 

[Lees]

I didn't say you are confused and ignorant. I said that your posts are confusing/unclear and you get testy when people don't know how to take your claims, simply because they ARE unclear.



Haven't you noticed, after all the urging, that what you've written here doesn't identify what you think the American view of race or racism IS?

It's no wonder that a detailed and specific response often doesn't come back...and then you are upset that, in your mind, the readers dodged your point.

Anyway, I hope you have a nice day.

I know, you said you are. As I said...understandable. I am not aggrieved.

If what I have written doesn't identify with what I think, how do you know what I think? I have written exactly, not just what I think, but the truth of what is.

Go back to post #(28) and tell me what is confusing about my questions. Then answer them.

Then go to post #(43) and comment on my example of the 'Trumpet Awards', or the whole post for that matter. Tell me what is confusing to you there.

Just to let you know, feigning confusion is an old tactic on forums. It's used when you no longer can support your position.

Thanks, I will.

Glory, glory....hallelujah,

Lees

 

[Albion]

I know, you said you are.

Of course I did not, so we're through here.

 

[Lees]

Of course I did not, so we're through here.

Yeah...I've heard that before. We'll see. You pick one small sentence to reply to, ignoring the rest, and yet wonder why you are confused and ignorant. Well, wonder no more. But...don't reply, because remember, we are through, according to you.

But, going forward. @Faith asked of me a question in post #(40). To which I responded in post #(43). Yet I have not heard back from her. A response would be appreciated.

At this stage of the discussion, with believers in Christ in America, I am left with only one conclusion. And how can I describe it? I think there is a line in an old movie that best describes it. Hopefully there are some here who still remember it.

The movie is "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence". John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin, Vera Miles. Great classic. If you have'nt seen it, get it and watch it. It's one of my favorites.

At the end of the movie, Jimmy Rogers has been giving his truthful accurate account, of things that happened that are in question, to news paper reporters, as he was there. But, his story differed from what the story had been passed down was.

What was the reaction from the reporters. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" They rejected the truth. Google it.

That is what America, that is what the Church in America does with the race question. Keep believing the lie, the legend, the propaganda.

Lees

 

[Faith]

Yeah...I've heard that before. We'll see. You pick one small sentence to reply to, ignoring the rest, and yet wonder why you are confused and ignorant. Well, wonder no more. But...don't reply, because remember, we are through, according to you.

But, going forward. @Faith asked of me a question in post #(40). To which I responded in post #(43). Yet I have not heard back from her. A response would be appreciated.

At this stage of the discussion, with believers in Christ in America, I am left with only one conclusion. And how can I describe it? I think there is a line in an old movie that best describes it. Hopefully there are some here who still remember it.

The movie is "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence". John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin, Vera Miles. Great classic. If you have'nt seen it, get it and watch it. It's one of my favorites.

At the end of the movie, Jimmy Rogers has been giving his truthful accurate account, of things that happened that are in question, to news paper reporters, as he was there. But, his story differed from what the story had been passed down was.

What was the reaction from the reporters. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" They rejected the truth.l Google it.

That is what America, that is what the Church in America does with the race question. Keep believing the lie, the legend, the propaganda.

Lees

I just think that you kind of sound a little bit racist, yourself.

 

[Lamb]

I just wanted to chime in (since I created the thread but haven't given input) that we shouldn't address the members here in any way personally.

 

[Lees]

I just think that you kind of sound a little bit racist, yourself.

I am...and I understand your statement. See my post #(9). But, I have given my definiton of racism. See post #(13). If you believe me to be 'racist', you must give your definition. Which I think I know what it is since you accuse me as one who is in the wrong, but I can't assume anything.

I responded, as you wished, in my post #(43). Yet you ignore it. Why? Don't feel alone. So did everyone else. Respond to my post #(28) also, as no one else does either.

Understand my definition of racism. Post #(13). Give me yours.

Answer me this: Is it wrong to be racist?

Don't nobody jump the gun here and start throwing stones...unless you give your definition of a racist. Then you and I can throw all we want.

Lees

 

[Nazareth]

So your church is a mixture of all races. A glimpse of what Heaven will be like. Pictured as a solution to racism. But then you define racism as evil without giving a definition of racism.

What about an all black church, or all white church, or all Mexican church? Is that a problem? Are you saying those are not a picture of Heaven?

Lees

There is at least 1 all black church that I know of. AME.
In my hometown there's an all Korean church. Korean language only sermons.

When we leave this plane and enter Heaven, racial identities will be cast off into the grave. Returned to the dust from whence we sprang.

For now, colors among our race,the human race, are what we make of it.
And I think whatever that is, it shows us who we are inside.

Imagine if we divide because of opinion about what colors our surface.
Imagine what that says if/when we then say we love a Spirit we call God, that we cannot see.

 

[Lees]

There is at least 1 all black church that I know of. AME.
In my hometown there's an all Korean church. Korean language only sermons.

When we leave this plane and enter Heaven, racial identities will be cast off into the grave. Returned to the dust from whence we sprang.

For now, colors among our race,the human race, are what we make of it.
And I think whatever that is, it shows us who we are inside.

Imagine if we divide because of opinion about what colors our surface.
Imagine what that says if/when we then say we love a Spirit we call God, that we cannot see.

I understand what you're saying. And, (Gal. 3:27-28) is clear. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

But, that doesn't mean we cease to be male and female, bond or free, Jew or Greek. It means we who are in Christ, the Church, are all equal before God. Our race, our postion in society, our gender, plays no role in our position in Christ.

Will those racial distinctions carry over in eternity? I ask myself, why wouldn't they? Do they not identify you and me as to who we are? Will you cease to be a woman and I a man? I don't think so. That too identifies us as to who we are.

I view the division of the races just as I do the division of man through the languages and nations. God caused it for the purpose of division. Prior to the flood, it doesn't appear that there was any such divisions. Man was man living a long time and multiplying over the earth. (Gen. 6:1) And wickedness multiplied with him. (Gen. 6:5) The solution was the flood, the destruction of all but 8 souls.

After the flood God began dividing. The Gentile nations would be divided. (Gen. 10:5) The earth itself would be divided, speaking to the division of the oceans and natural barriers. (Gen. 10:25) Man would be divided due to languages. (Gen. 11:9) And to mankind a division was made between the three sons of Noah. Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Gen. 9:24-27)

It is interesting to me that man loves to unite and God loves to divide. Why did God divide? To curb the growth of wickedness. Fallen mankind united is a terrible thing.

Lees

 

[Nazareth]

I understand what you're saying. And, (Gal. 3:27-28) is clear. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

But, that doesn't mean we cease to be male and female, bond or free, Jew or Greek. It means we who are in Christ, the Church, are all equal before God. Our race, our postion in society, our gender, plays no role in our position in Christ.

Will those racial distinctions carry over in eternity? I ask myself, why wouldn't they? Do they not identify you and me as to who we are? Will you cease to be a woman and I a man? I don't think so. That too identifies us as to who we are.

I view the division of the races just as I do the division of man through the languages and nations. God caused it for the purpose of division. Prior to the flood, it doesn't appear that there was any such divisions. Man was man living a long time and multiplying over the earth. (Gen. 6:1) And wickedness multiplied with him. (Gen. 6:5) The solution was the flood, the destruction of all but 8 souls.

After the flood God began dividing. The Gentile nations would be divided. (Gen. 10:5) The earth itself would be divided, speaking to the division of the oceans and natural barriers. (Gen. 10:25) Man would be divided due to languages. (Gen. 11:9) And to mankind a division was made between the three sons of Noah. Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Gen. 9:24-27)

It is interesting to me that man loves to unite and God loves to divide. Why did God divide? To curb the growth of wickedness. Fallen mankind united is a terrible thing.

Lees

I believe if Jesus told us there are no gender or racial distinctions among his faithful while on earth, it would be strange for those to be present once we've left here.

Look at what is afoot in the church now, among some, in those matters.

People claiming God would never call women to teach. Some churches believing Caucasian are the Elect of God for his Salvation alone, etc...

Besides, when we die our souls return to God who gave it. The flesh returns to the dust from whence it sprang.

 

[Lees]

I believe if Jesus told us there are no gender or racial distinctions among his faithful while on earth, it would be strange for those to be present once we've left here.

Look at what is afoot in the church now, among some, in those matters.

People claiming God would never call women to teach. Some churches believing Caucasian are the Elect of God for his Salvation alone, etc...

Besides, when we die our souls return to God who gave it. The flesh returns to the dust from whence it sprang.

Where did Jesus say that?

I personally am not aware of those who believe a woman cannot have the gift of teaching. As to who she can teach, yes.

I personally am not aware of any who believe that Caucasian, or white folk, are the elect of God. That they are privilaged due to the blessing given in (Gen. 9:24-27), yes.

The resurrection speaks to the body. Not the soul and spirit. And that 'body' will reflect and identify you. Else who will recognize you? Do you think we become some totally different person? Not a woman. Not a man. Not white. Not black. Not Mexican.

How do you think Jesus Christ is seen in Heaven. Is He a man, woman, transgender, or nothing but spirit? Makes me wonder why He still bears the scars on His body. (John 20:24-29) (Rev. 5:6)

In other words...the flesh is resurrected.

Lees

 

[Nazareth]

Where did Jesus say that?

I personally am not aware of those who believe a woman cannot have the gift of teaching. As to who she can teach, yes.

I personally am not aware of any who believe that Caucasian, or white folk, are the elect of God. That they are privilaged due to the blessing given in (Gen. 9:24-27), yes.

The resurrection speaks to the body. Not the soul and spirit. And that 'body' will reflect and identify you. Else who will recognize you? Do you think we become some totally different person? Not a woman. Not a man. Not white. Not black. Not Mexican.

How do you think Jesus Christ is seen in Heaven. Is He a man, woman, transgender, or nothing but spirit? Makes me wonder why He still bears the scars on His body. (John 20:24-29) (Rev. 5:6)

In other words...the flesh is resurrected.

Lees

Ecclesiastes 12: 6 before the silver cord is snapped, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, 7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher; all is vanity.

 

[Lees]

Ecclesiastes 12: 6 before the silver cord is snapped, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, 7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher; all is vanity.

How does that provide explanation? It doesn't.

You.. .yes you...ignore my quesitons. Go back to post #(59) and respond to my questions.

Lees