I thought he said he wouldn’t post there anymore because people were being so disrespectful to him?
Star-Spangled Banner confusion
- Thread starter Chris Harmon
- Start date
I thought he said he wouldn’t post there anymore because people were being so disrespectful to him?
I do my part on disrespecting him, but that was just another one of his empty/soft threats.
Have you really been to their homepage? I believe my life matters but I also believe ALL LIVES MATTER!!!!!! They state clearly on their page the want to destroy the capitalist system along with the family structure. I don’t believe in destroying the capitalist system and replacing it with communism or destroying the family structure. The only common ground I find with this group is the word Black!
Shon is correct. The idea of "Black Lives Matter" as a support slogan for our brothers and sisters of color in instances they are being mistreated is a very different thing than the actual BLM organization. Unfortunately they get easily intertwined because it's the same words. The video I'm posting here does a good job of taking exact quotes from the BLM website and discussing them. It's from Allen Parr, so it's from a Christian perspective, but regardless, he does a great job explaining the message of the BLM organization.
So, his main points:
1. Don't support BLM because it supports defunding police as that idea allegedly negatively promotes a generalization that police are bad.
2. Don't support BLM because they support gays and that's not Christian.
3. Don't support BLM because they support reducing the necessity for the traditional two parent family structure.
1. I'll argue that on point #1 this man's contention (and other conservative contentions regarding the issue) is that BLM is advocating for a near total eradication of police funding. I wouldn't be surprised for their belief in this due to the politicizing of the zone in Seattle. However, if you look at the actual BLM website, the video commentary they have on the issue by their managing director mentions that a 5% in reduction would make for a significant increase in mental health funding which would in turn help the community. I don't think BLM gets their messaging right on this issue, but I think most sane people would support a slight reallocation of funds if it improved the equality of the justice system while also addressing societal problems that aren't being addressed, and are often a symptom of crime in our communities. I wouldn't support 100% defending of police departments, but I would certainly be open to thoughts about how state and local funds could better serve our communities while still attempting to promote safety.
2. This is a fringe argument and one that's being less and less supported over time by most of society. The same area in the bible that most specifically referencse homosexuality being an offense against God (Leviticus) is the same one that allow slavery of non-israelites (also Leviticus). Faith based judgments of morality can be perilous when it comes to persecution of minorities. You're dealing with opinions of tribes of people 2000+ years ago and not addressing how their religious philosophy was shaped by the biases of everyday life in their ancient society.
3. Probably the toughest point to address in all of BLM's manifest. I won't try to defend this idea's messaging because I think it's flawed but I do think it's important to address the reasoning behind it in greater depth. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the African American community is trying to deal with the effects of children in fragmented family structures. The BLM contention is that to help their community, the fractured family structure needs to be more supported is understandable given the context of what their society is dealing with at large. I'm sure we would all appreciate more children growing up with two parents, but the degree to which that's plausible in the current African American community is extremely small.
We have to accept the fact that the AA community is lagging behind in its development due to the cultural and economic restraints it was saddled with after slavery ended.
Their community was subjugated civilly and economically for decades and that subjugation had lots of negative repercussions that we're still dealing with today. For the longest time, interracial marriage wasn't even a reality for African Americans and in some parts of the country it's still that way today. So, we're already talking about a community with limited options in terms of procreating partners. They're also dealing with unfair incarceration practices and the results that life in poverty or the criminal justice system (or both) has had on an disproportionately large number of African American males.
It's hard to expect AA families to suddenly coalesce into a two-parent format when so many are dealing with the limited number of available black fathers being economically / morally unfit or unable to support those families; not because they are naturally bad people, but because they themselves were victims of a flawed society that tended to make them underprivileged simply because they were more likely to be brought up in an economically strained single-parent household.
It's a viscous circle. The single mother can't give her son the support he needs to promote his success due to his father being out of the picture, which tends to lead to more frequent bad life decisions and almost inevitably another underprivileged child, born to repeat the cycle. That's where the advocacy of BLM comes in... at least some of them are smart enough to recognize that you're not going to break this cycle by simply preaching at people to get married and to stop doing criminal things. You have to actually provide some sort of a foundation for an improved family structure to rest upon. Promoting the idea that single-parent families should have greater structural support from the community at large (and from the government) is an effort to build that foundation.
It's really difficult to express these interwoven ideas in just a few simple lines of political platform, and that's why I say they have bad messaging... but the issues that this is trying to address is actually something that I think most conservatives should actually support, so we (society at large) can eventually get to a point where we DO have more 2 parent homes.
1. Don't support BLM because it supports defunding police as that idea allegedly negatively promotes a generalization that police are bad.
2. Don't support BLM because they support gays and that's not Christian.
3. Don't support BLM because they support reducing the necessity for the traditional two parent family structure.
1. I'll argue that on point #1 this man's contention (and other conservative contentions regarding the issue) is that BLM is advocating for a near total eradication of police funding. I wouldn't be surprised for their belief in this due to the politicizing of the zone in Seattle. However, if you look at the actual BLM website, the video commentary they have on the issue by their managing director mentions that a 5% in reduction would make for a significant increase in mental health funding which would in turn help the community. I don't think BLM gets their messaging right on this issue, but I think most sane people would support a slight reallocation of funds if it improved the equality of the justice system while also addressing societal problems that aren't being addressed, and are often a symptom of crime in our communities. I wouldn't support 100% defending of police departments, but I would certainly be open to thoughts about how state and local funds could better serve our communities while still attempting to promote safety.
2. This is a fringe argument and one that's being less and less supported over time by most of society. The same area in the bible that most specifically referencse homosexuality being an offense against God (Leviticus) is the same one that allow slavery of non-israelites (also Leviticus). Faith based judgments of morality can be perilous when it comes to persecution of minorities. You're dealing with opinions of tribes of people 2000+ years ago and not addressing how their religious philosophy was shaped by the biases of everyday life in their ancient society.
3. Probably the toughest point to address in all of BLM's manifest. I won't try to defend this idea's messaging because I think it's flawed but I do think it's important to address the reasoning behind it in greater depth. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the African American community is trying to deal with the effects of children in fragmented family structures. The BLM contention is that to help their community, the fractured family structure needs to be more supported is understandable given the context of what their society is dealing with at large. I'm sure we would all appreciate more children growing up with two parents, but the degree to which that's plausible in the current African American community is extremely small.
We have to accept the fact that the AA community is lagging behind in its development due to the cultural and economic restraints it was saddled with after slavery ended.
Their community was subjugated civilly and economically for decades and that subjugation had lots of negative repercussions that we're still dealing with today. For the longest time, interracial marriage wasn't even a reality for African Americans and in some parts of the country it's still that way today. So, we're already talking about a community with limited options in terms of procreating partners. They're also dealing with unfair incarceration practices and the results that life in poverty or the criminal justice system (or both) has had on an disproportionately large number of African American males.
It's hard to expect AA families to suddenly coalesce into a two-parent format when so many are dealing with the limited number of available black fathers being economically / morally unfit or unable to support those families; not because they are naturally bad people, but because they themselves were victims of a flawed society that tended to make them underprivileged simply because they were more likely to be brought up in an economically strained single-parent household.
It's a viscous circle. The single mother can't give her son the support he needs to promote his success due to his father being out of the picture, which tends to lead to more frequent bad life decisions and almost inevitably another underprivileged child, born to repeat the cycle. That's where the advocacy of BLM comes in... at least some of them are smart enough to recognize that you're not going to break this cycle by simply preaching at people to get married and to stop doing criminal things. You have to actually provide some sort of a foundation for an improved family structure to rest upon. Promoting the idea that single-parent families should have greater structural support from the community at large (and from the government) is an effort to build that foundation.
It's really difficult to express these interwoven ideas in just a few simple lines of political platform, and that's why I say they have bad messaging... but the issues that this is trying to address is actually something that I think most conservatives should actually support, so we (society at large) can eventually get to a point where we DO have more 2 parent homes.
Last edited:
Due to living in New Testament times, most Christian leaders discuss current events based on New Testament scripture. Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, 1 Timothy 1:9–10 and Jude 1:7 all discuss homosexuality, as well as sexual immorality in general.
Convenient that, as we've talked about ad nauseam, Jesus made a new covenant with his followers from that of the Israelites, however; he never really spoke about homosexuality (though he did mention people who were "born as eunuchs") . It was Paul that dug it up again, as he was a Jewish convert trying to win over Roman Jews (speaking directly to them in Romans 1) by saying the Romans were heathens because they didn't follow Old Testament Jewish law (From Leviticus!) , but then also chastising the Jews for being hypocrites about their own laws.
He was trying to convert Jews, so he was using their ancient laws as a jumping off point. If you compare Paul's message in Romans to that of Christ in earlier books, a lot of the ideas don't jib. Considering Paul never actual (physically) knew Jesus, this doesn't surprise me.
I think Paul was saying what he thought was morally just, but I don't support attributing that viewpoint to Christ.
Paul, when he mentions that issue in his letters is referring to Old Testament scripture though. That's the point. You have a self professed Pharisee (and persecuter of those in the early church) who was learned in old testament law, talking about old testament law like it was something that Jesus had professed, even though he didn't actually know what Jesus professed. Unless you think that he was taught, in secret, by Jesus in Arabia which I call shenanigans on.
I didn't say anything about Paul...I mentioned current Christian leaders relying on New Testament scripture. Of course Paul knew the old testament law, but he wrote and/or contributed to half of the New Testament, which was after the crucifixion of Jesus. The death and resurrection of Jesus changed everything, and Paul's letters were based in that change. So regardless of whether or not Paul was referring back to Leviticus, he wrote it in the New Testament era.
But you are only mentioning what is written in Romans. I also mentioned scripture in Jude, which was written by one of Jesus' brothers. Regardless, I'm not really interested in having a theological discussion about homosexuality. I posted the video because it gave a good example of items on the BLM website that most people don't know about.
If this guy is what passes for a current Christian leader, then it's a sad day for Christianity, both in terms of Dogma and in terms of critical thinking regarding current events.
P.S. The Jude passage doesn't address homosexuality specifically, just sexual hedonism. (Which I'm sure you know). The only times the New Testament explicitly refers to homosexuality (Paul's Epistles + Timothy) it refers to it in the context of adherence to Mosaic Law , which I've been told on this board, doesn't always apply to Christians anymore (though that was actually a much debated issue among the early apostles).
Last edited:
The book of Jude addresses homosexuality in a broader sense, as it is using the example of what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah. There are those that attempt to argue God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah due to the people being inhospitable rather than sexually immoral, which is hilarious. Regardless, Jude's account snuffs out that argument. Paul's Epistles include Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, which all specifically discuss homosexuality.
Allen Parr is just a guy with a Youtube ministry, and the majority of his discussions are aimed toward Christians, people who are already believers. This is very different than someone delivering a message to non-believers. Just as the Bible teaches love and compassion rather than judgment toward non-believers, the Bible also teaches believers to hold each other accountable. Parr's video is discussing how Christians should view the BLM organization in a Biblical context. That's why I prefaced the post with "it's from a Christian perspective" in hopes of avoiding this conversation.
Wow. This discussion really wandered off in the weeds. I don’t usually see misinterpretation of the Bible on these boards, especially when most theologians agree that attributing Romans or other passages as discussing homosexuality is incorrect.
I completely agree that the discussion wandered off in the weeds. However, I've seen misinterpretation of the Bible on these boards before...I usually stay far away from those discussions. Interpreting the Bible can be a tricky and dangerous thing, which is why I'm not big on jumping into theological discussions. However, I don't mind commenting on it when discussing scripture that is fairly clear and needs no interpretation.
While Biblical experts have differing opinions, I personally agree with those that take Romans, Corinthians and Timothy at face value without trying to interpret it to make it say something else. The text is clear whether you are reading something newer like the International Version or something older like King James. I don't think it's correct to say "most theologians" agree one way or the other. There certainly isn't a mass conclusion that the text isn't discussing homosexuality...mainly because it specifically mentions it.
But I do agree there are many that say these texts should be interpreted and applied in our own time. However, I don't view it as an evolving or progressive text. It is what it is, and what it was meant to be...then, now and forever. The things these passages discuss were happening then, just like they're happening now.
Again, go back to the founder and listen to what she says. She is a feminist who doesn’t believe in the male role in the family. The best thing about this years election and census is that the black vote will be irrelevant moving forward due to the Latino population overtaking it. There will be no more pandering, no more coddling, and even better no more excuses bc the politicians wont need the black vote to win an election! If these supposed solutions from BLM are adopted, they will have the Afro American population on the brink of extinction equal to the America Indians in 20 yrs. This movement is a poison to my people and after the election it will be defunded and defunct until Soros or the globalist need more proxies to cause chaos and destruction.
That’s exactly what pisses me off... because the Bible can be interpreted one of a thousand ways... and to say that you shouldn’t support XYZ group because of your specific interpretation of the Bible (None of which is actually what Christ said btw) is presuming that you’re right about not only the opinions of the group (which he’s not), but also the interpretation of the Bible (which he’s also not - at least according to several denominations who don’t use the Bible as an excuse to persecute gays)
His take just seemed reactionary and a tad bit disingenuous. There is plenty for conservatives to be upset with BLM about without having to mischaracterize their philosophies.
Last edited:
It's not meant to be interpreted a thousand ways, but it certainly gets twisted up all the time.
I definitely agree. I don't think their philosophies need to be mischaracterized in order to see how flawed some of them are.
If it wasn't meant to be interpreted differently there wouldn't be 100's of different denominations, 1000's of different translations (in the same language). There would have never been a protestant reformation, or Heugonots, or Anglicans, or Puritans, or Quakers, or Baptists etc.. etc.. etc...
I mean... the amalgamation of all of the religions NOT associated with the apostle Peter's church is literally called PROTESTatnsim. Your brand of religion unless you're, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, literally has protest in the name and you're trying to argue that you're not supposed to 'protest' someone's interpretation.
Last edited:
Not what I said at all, and translations aren't interpretations, but I'm pretty well done with this conversation.
These are all great discussions about the Bible but they are very very superficial. Living in the UK has given me the Unique opportunity to study ancient test and to study Hebrew and really delve deep into the history of King James and how he hijacked the original religion we call Christianity. Learning Hebrew and then translating the original Hebrew text to English has taught me that there are many misinterpretation in the King James Bible but each is not really a misinterpretation but very intentionality misinterpreted. The gnostic teachings are the purest form of Christianity before it was stolen from us. The early Christians believed that we were born into a world of evil because this world was created by a lesser and in pure God called Demiurge. (Demiurge means "public craftsman" in Greek.) This lower God is sometimes called Yaldabaoth or Ialdabaoth Jaldabaoth -- from Aramaic words meaning "begetter of the Heavens." This is Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). This knowledge was widely accepted and known before the Romans stole this knowledge from the library of Alexandria and brought it back to Rome where it was manipulated and the knowledge of alchemy was used to dominate the world. Books like the Nag Hammadi, The Urantia Book, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Enuma Elish, the Mahabharata were all studied at in Alexandria and the Emerald Tablet are just a few books worth reading. There you will find the answers to the questions of issues like homosexuality.
Yeah, the Gnostics are considered heretical by most Christian religons. The Catholics most certainly, most of the ones that split post Martin Luther, and don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly certain even the Eastern Orthodox Church.(Although that wouldn't be official, because the Eastern Orthodox Church only consider the first seven Ecumenical Councils, which would have been before most of the Gnostic heretical stuff was considered by either church.)
You even picked an easy one to dispute. The religious attributes of Christianity you are discussing is a dualistic sect that recognizes more than one creator and perfect God. You can't have more than one PERFECT God. Christianity and the Jewish religion are both monotheistic. That which you are discussing is anathema to monotheism. Most of the Gnostic sects are literally considered Dualistic, especially the one you are specifically addressing. It harkens back to polytheistic religions of an earlier time.
Those weren't intentional misinterpretations, they were intentionally correct interpretations. You are reading the wrong texts.
Last edited:
The real questions you should be asking yourself is why did Christianity and Judaism both change? What role did King James play in molding the Bible and what was his reasoning? Why were some books added and changed in the Bible and others not? If you base your whole eternity on this one book, you should know every inch of it and the history behind it. How can you understand the present and move forward if you don’t understand your past? I was taught that exploring and other religion or even delving in the historical past of Christianity was heretical. Why? If the story is how they tell it, wouldn’t they want transparency? Who wrote the gospels of the Bible, when were they written, and what was changed from the original text to present day? Why was the misinterpretation of rapture added to the Bible by John Darby in 1830 but yet the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi? If you call yourself a true Christian, I encourage you to learn your history and come back and have a real discussions. Beware, once you start researching, it’s the equivalent of taking the Red pill and escaping the Matrix. You can never unknow what you learn!
Christianity changed long, long, long, long before King James. It's even written IN THE BIBLE how it changed in the generation after Christ's death. The simple fact that the apostles had a summit to decide if gentiles need to be circumcised is an instance of it changing.
That's not to mention the fact that scores of books written early on-after Christ's crucifixion were omitted by the Catholics while adopted by the Eastern Orthodox, Eritreans, etc...
I mentioned King James due to him ordering the stolen books from the library of Alexandria to be further manipulated to consolidate his power under a monolithic religion
Last edited:
just curious...are you guys that are arguing all Christians?
If so: I'm going to spend a little more time with the Lord and little less time reading any more "experts" here or elsewhere. Please join me.
If not: then why do you spend so much time on the issue? You are too well learned. Go do a fantasy football draft or something??? Looking for answers from men is not going to get you closer to God - only prayer will and I hope you will consider joining me too.
If so: I'm going to spend a little more time with the Lord and little less time reading any more "experts" here or elsewhere. Please join me.
If not: then why do you spend so much time on the issue? You are too well learned. Go do a fantasy football draft or something??? Looking for answers from men is not going to get you closer to God - only prayer will and I hope you will consider joining me too.
Gag me with a spoon.
I talk about the intent behind Biblical passages because conservatives in our society tend to hold them up as moral imperatives when supporting / making / interpreting the laws and policies of our society. If I'm going to be expected to support and abide by a law that was written to conform to some ancient religious imperative then I absolutely want to know that we've interpreted the ancient imperative correctly and that it's not being misinterpreted after centuries of monks, kings, preachers, and Sunday school teachers playing the world's longest-running game of telephone with it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
