Burl

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

Now here is some great propaganda!  Surely you don't agree with what she is saying?

You are not a racist if you say all lives matter - the point the likes of BLM are trying to make is that by trying to diminish BLM with ALM is like trying to say all cancer kills when people are trying to draw attention to breast cancer.  Of course all lives matter, but the movement is trying to get people to notice that black deaths are over-represented as a percentage of your population.  But I would say, there is a wide range of opinions (on both sides) that take things to extremes.

You don't have to apologize for standing for your flag, but there are some extremist who might hate you for it.

You are allowed to go to church and no, you are not 'allowed' to burn churches to the ground.  This is getting ludicrous.

You are not allowed to go and loot other business just as much as you are not allowed to go and murder or rape people - but there are some who do that!

Police are not all considered racist pigs - but some are.

etc etc etc

'The' young speak out - God, I hope not, or you guys are in much, much worse shape than it already seems!

Bright young woman in that clip, but lots of hyperbole.  She exaggerates to make her point.  Reminds me of the Antitheses in Matthew. 

Contrast with Lord Jamar‘s interview where he explains why BLM is a sexist & white controlled organization co-opting black concerns to raise money for white people, push unrelated agendas and paint black activists as vandals.  

The ‘all lives matter’ trope was 2016.  Lord Jamar is on point for 2020.

6 hours ago, JosephM said:

The young speak out.

Saw a video by a young black man who was furious that BLM, Inc. tried to prevent him from using the phrase “black lives matter” because he was not authorized by BLM.

Also this: Lord Jamar on BLM, Inc.  Scrub to 3:30.  Contains profanity.

It’s not about statues.  It’s about street theatre and

Biden
 Laundering
 Money

3 hours ago, thormas said:

Yet some of us and others have already made the point that there is a difference between those depicted above and those who committed treason in the service of slavery.

 

Interesting that there are no legal bills with the images of those that committed treason. 

Even more interesting is that all of those FRN’s are slave script.  They have no asset content but are debt notes which, at the Federal minimum wage, are iou’s on roughly 6 minutes of labor per $1.

3 hours ago, PaulS said:

Australia has similar programs and positive-discrimination policies to help indigenous Australian's.  These are good steps forward compared to what was in place (i.e. nothing) only several decades ago.  It's not an issue that will be progressed or solved overnight or even within generations.  I think we need to keep moving forward and I think removing barriers and obstacles such as monuments and memorials to white people who did their very best to keep black people down (and in the US's case in slavery), just shows blacks, and maybe more importantly, other whites, that we are trying harder to move forward and heal as a people.  I don't think it's a big ask myself, but each to their own.

Paul, you are basing your opinion on American propaganda.  I spent 25 adult years in New Orleans and was professionally involved with many organizations and issues.
 

I could tell stories for days.  Obviously you have a good heart but you are low info on American race issues and the war of Northern aggression, which puts you on par with most Americans.

The statue thing today is an organized PR stunt.  It will be gone shortly after the election.  

You want to tear down a monument?

https://www.dinosaurkingdomii.com
A Virginia attraction documenting the Union Army’s battle against the dinosaurs.

I think this is going to be a memorable Fourth of July.

14 minutes ago, thormas said:

1816?

The economy was built on slavery and as put it in the Landrieu speech, "the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy. He said in his now famous ‘cornerstone speech’ that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

 

You fight a losing cause  as did the condereracy.

Grasping at out of context proof texts? 😶

Google causes of the civil war.  Especially note the role of tariffs.  Historians understand this period well.  There was plenty of documentation.

And the condereracy WAS in 1816 😉

I worked beside Mitch on Hunger Project stuff and the anti-David Duke campaign.  Makes me miss the old New Orleans.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Exactly, for what other reason? The civil war was about slavery - all other 'reasons' are an attempt to rewrite history. This heritage was wrong in itself, this heritage was defeated, yet this heritage still has 'hangers-on' who see this heritage as glorious, its generals sterling examples of honorable gentlemen - yet it is all a mirage for those who broke their oath, who committed treason and who were defeated and their way of life judged to be a failure.

The confederate flag is symbolic of nothing more than this failed heritage and support for slavery. I applaud the SEC and the NCAA in their stance toward those colleges that fly and honor such a flag: they will never be honored with highly visible, financially rewarding Championship games. Let's see how fast those flags change.

No, the history you learned about 1816 is incorrect but widely taught in middle schools.   Read up. The causes were the economy and the desire to grab geopolitical power, as is the case in all wars.   
 

2 hours ago, thormas said:

There are efforts to remove statues beyond the direct intervention of protestors but what is a statue compared to the the defeated heritage and support for slavery that has continued to give space to violence against black men and women (again when were this 'heritage' constructed?). Sometimes protestors, of necessity, go the extra mile. I'm sure the British didn't like our tea party but did it make the protestors a mob? was it a necessary step in their process? was it merely reveling in destruction or did the  destruction have a larger purpose? 

Are some over zealous? Are they human beings who are flawed and make mistakes? Yet, their instinct to remove the staues of a treasonous heritage that fought to continue to enslave human beings, statues that were put up in a Jim Crow era (unless you support that stuff) is on the mark. And it is inevitable: the day will come when all such statues are removed, when forts are named for those who fought for the union/the constitution and when the entire confederate movement will be looked on as a low point in US history and the history of the world.  

Southern cities handled this well years ago with public meetings, removal and repositioning of statues, etc.  All legal and with full and engaged public discussions.  No problems.  New Orleans is a good example.

The vandalism now foist upon us is centered in a few northern liberal cities.  Slavery was not legal in Seattle or Minneapolis but still churches are burnt and synagogues defaced there while the mayors refuse to enforce the law.  No Confederate statues or schools of course so terrorists tear down statues of Lincoln, women and abolitionists because they were white.

The Christian churches and the abolitionists ended slavery yet they are attacked?  Jews were leaders in the civil rights movement.  This is criminality, not protest.

8 minutes ago, PaulS said:

So if the South had won, slavery would have ceased?  Of course not.

Who exactly is the 'current mob'?  Which state are you referring to?  Are you referring to every single individual that is protesting?

Putting people in boxes and groups like that serves no purpose in understanding the issues.  It is way too simple to lump violent anarchists in with peaceful protesters and lose understanding of the underlying issues in your society.

Slavery was universal in 1861.  It stopped only in the west; mostly because of Protestant Christian abolitionists.  Christianity and Western civilization uniquely stopped slavery, but some people think we started it.  

BLM is a registered corporation.   It is a Democratic party PAC.  They made their own box.

47 minutes ago, PaulS said:

This is not a lucid comparison at all.  This video is about the destruction of religious icons and religions by other cultures.  These acts are intended as harm and aggression toward those religions.

What I am talking about is the real life hero worship of actual people who for a large part of your society, were effectively evil.  Again, because it is the most succinct example, towns demonstrating the heroic General Lee are saying to black people - we don't care that he wanted to keep you enslaved!  For what reason other than white supremacy is their value in displaying memorials of General Lee?

It's wrong and society should be mature enough to consider redressing such in this modern and progressive age.  In my opinion.

Maybe this might help you understand a little better:

https://time.com/5849184/confederate-statues-removed/

The 1816 conflict was not about slavery at all.  It was about the perfectly legal secession of Southern states of the Republic who were being pressed to pay the banking debts of the Northern industrialists.  Slavery was practiced in Northern states.  New York had more slaves than the entirety of the South, and Lincoln was careful to keep Northern slavery legal in the Emancipation Proclamation.

There have been public announcements by the current mob that they intend to start vandalizing Christian churches.  They have proudly admitted being trained Marxists, and they are clearly Maoist and not Leninist.

Lee is considered a hero because he turned down Lincoln’s offer to lead the Union army as it would cause Him to war against his State of Virginia.

2 hours ago, thormas said:

I do like fantasy.

 

The protestors and those who support them aren't deatroying 'their own culture' - they are removing statues and wanting to rename the remnants of a 'lost and defeated culture that committed treason in the name of slavery' that was imposed on the USA during the Jim Crow era - when the 'losers' yet again sought to ignore and do harm the the country, its citizens and the Constitution. 

BS.  It’s vandalism and reveling in the joy of destruction.  Targets included statues of Lincoln, two abolitionists and “Lady Progress”, a tribute to women.

This is a mob, not protestors.  

Lucid comparison of the religious aspect of Cancel Culture.

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

Nobody is saying that all black Americans hold such a view (hence why I questioned what it may mean to certain people).  I think even you would have to concede that many, i.e. a lot of black Americans, do hold this view, as has been made evident over the last several weeks of protests, interviews, and news articles.  So do you just ignore the issue because it's not a homogeneous opinion held by all black Americans, or do you discuss it because it is an issue for many?  I don't think ignoring it will make it go away.

What do you think, Paul?  It’s your thread.

55 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Agreed, so should we try and discuss, like mature adults, what it may mean to people who wish certain elements of culture to be 'cancelled' or be addressed in a more balanced fashion e.g. memorials in the names of people who have typically caused harm to blacks in history?  If for instance the South had won the American civil war, then blacks may still be in slavery to this day.  So what does a statue commemorating General Lee for instance say to black Americans?  And what does it say to black Americans when white Americans argue that such monuments are essential?  

Black Americans do not have a homogenous opinion about anything.  Including monuments. 

No.  “Cancel Culture” is a modern euphemism for bigotry.  It is an intolerance of those with different political, ideological or religious beliefs.

We should love each other and avoid flawed or emotionally leveraged actions which break us up into sub groups and pit us against each other.

4 hours ago, CoExist said:

Hello everyone,

I am a thirty-something kindergarten teacher from Germany who has always struggled with faith and has always had a complicated relationship with her own faith. I have always been curious and open about Christianity, but ever since I was a teenager I have been bumping into walls.  This has really stalled my growth as a person and even hurt it.

For the longest time I thought something was wrong with me and my character and my beliefs. Everybody else seemed to have a completely opposite idea of what Christianity was, and we could only find common ground when it came to Jesus - and here not even in all aspects.

I have struggled with fundamental Christians and their ideas, with prosperity-gospel Christians, and with ideas that made me go "if THIS is what Jesus taught, I guess I am not a follower." I felt completely shattered, lost, and alone.

Since I had rarely found inclusive Christians, I thought they rarely existed.  I still believed something was wrong with me. But a while ago I first heard the term "progressive Christianity" and I stumbled over the 8 Points that define it. I was sitting at my desk and I was just laughing. This was it. This was me. People like me. Incredible. So, safe to say, I am immensely happy to have found this place.

Finally I can continue to grow in my spiritual journey, and that is such a gift. I am like a sponge these days, on fire for God like I used to be when I was younger. I am seeking and reaching out, enlarging my faith, and I find so much joy in doing so.

Thanks for being a part of my journey.

Welcome !

10 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Jenson,

Please regard this as a first and final warning about being rude in your recent posts across the Forum.  It can be difficult to manage a subject when we vehemently disagree with others, but calling people names is unacceptable here, even when we address them as a group rather than specific individuals.

If you are interested in genuine, good-will discussion here, I encourage you to politely invite others to address your questions rather than insult or attack.  If you cannot do so you will be suspended or banned from participating here.

Peace and goodwill

Paul

(As Administrator)

Jenson is perfectly polite, Paul.  You just have a difficult time with people who take Jesus and the bible seriously.

I believe God progressively reveals himself directly and through Scripture.  

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Don't leave us hanging Burl, spell it out. How has Paul's model come full circle to theism? So too Steiner and anthroposophy?

The existence of god as a being is implicit in the language.  Experience vs. non-experience points to individuality.  So do the other terms.

PaulS’ pantheism is a variety of theism, as is your panentheism.  You guys are playing language games.  

I can’t get through Steiner.  Physical bodies, astral bodies, etheric bodies and whatnot.  But it seems related.  Maybe not, but it came to mind.

Manley P. Hall is in the general domain of this god=man thinking too.  Better than Steiner imo and lots of public domain recordings of his lectures on yt and in text.

To use the word god at all points to something capable of creating matter.  If it cannot create matter god is the wrong concept.