Why do the blacks complain?

[bohica]

Candy, having lived the cities there are many components which I must disagree with you regarding.  It all depends upon a person's perspective and that which they seek to see.

[RVWITHME]

Even though it is said that "those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it", spending everyday looking back on past prejudices only serves to keep those who stoke those fires (The Al Sharpton's, etc) in control.

 

Why do not the Irish cry out and complain everyday about past slavery conditions? Maybe because they prefer to look forward instead of trying to drive by looking in the rearview mirror?

 

Whatever the problems are with various forms of discrimination, (real or imagined) there is really only One Solution... The Mind and what each person decides to do with theirs.

 

It is a proven fact that limitation is self-inflicted as people from all walks of life with every conceivable type of disability have found their way to prosperity, regardless of circumstances.

 

Maybe we can't always get exactly what we want, but like a flowing stream, we sometimes must learn to take a different path towards opportunity if the one ahead becomes blocked by the mental debris of the masses.

 

"As a Man (or Woman) Thinketh in their heart... So they are..."

 

For those who have read the book, (Atlas Shrugged) you may find this entertaining:

 

http://vodlocker.com/i1gy6udjm7or

Edited May 3, 2015 by RVWITHME

[George Hayduke]

Thanks Bohica for sharing your thoughts, don't be disheartened when your opinion is rejected, criticized or trivialized.  

 

One person's sense of entitlement is another persons claim to privilege and visa versa.  

 

The heart and soul have no color and Black Christians are no more blessed by God than White Christians.  Black Christians do not possess a 'Special'  spiritual insight given only to them just as White Christians have been not been refused the ability to see and understand other ethnic groups oppression.

 

Christ's command was to spread the Gospel, not make a perfect world as envisioned by man. He came to give dead humanity in this fallen world life through his atonement; He did not come as a community organizer to change the oppressive Roman Rule or the Pharisaical sanctimonious religious order.

 

He came to redeem mankind's soul from Satan's lawful possession.  And, any Christian who riots, loots, commits arson and throws stones at authorities is acting not as a vessel filled with the Holy Spirit but as one 'whose pride goeth before a fall'.

 

My prayer is that all Christians pray for 'Justice', not special justice, different justice, or unique justice but simple Justice where the truth is revealed by the hammer of inquiry and not massaged into a form of truth by opinion, political power or sense of entitlement.

 

My prayer is also for those Christian authorities tasked with this judicial process to seek HIS guidance and support, for without it, they will be buffeted and bent like saplings in a storm.  Mr. Grays family and all of America will benefit from such counsel.

 

And finally, my prayer is for those six police officers; that they speak the truth regardless the outcome to illustrate to all that the integrity, professionalism and commitment to protect and serve the citizens of Baltimore is the high standard they swore an oath to uphold.

 

GH 

[TrinityeXchange]

The heart and soul have no color and Black Christians are no more blessed by God than White Christians.  Black Christians do not possess a 'Special'  spiritual insight given only to them just as White Christians have been not been refused the ability to see and understand other ethnic groups oppression.

thanks for sharing your insights GH.  this particular portion of your post i find most intriguing.  i have attended black churches all of my life and never heard, seen or read anything like this mentioned.  please share where you read/heard this doctrine.  

 

on the contrary however, the Southern Baptist Church preached/taught for ages that blacks were divinely inferior to whites.  this Christian church taught this hierarchy or racism was approved of Jesus through the biblical reference "cursed be Ham" - Noah's son.  the understanding being that God cursed Ham for mocking Noah's nakedness and would serve his brothers Shem & Japheth.  They taught that the black race is a descendant of Ham and therefore can only survive under white dominion.   

 

supposedly the SBC is trying to reconcile for its long taught doctrine of racism.  so, sir, in all of my years of following the teachings of Jesus, the only time i have personally seen where "Christian" churches taught the doctrine of special divine access by skin color was from whites and not blacks.  for my own edification and study, i would love to know what church the doctrine you mentioned derived from?  please provide references.  thanks GH!

 

sample of my references:

Curse and mark of Cain 

Texas Monthly

SBC and Sin of Racism

[TrinityeXchange]

ps.  just to add clarity, i am conveying that i have never seen it preached or taught where blacks were "special" above other races in God's eyes.  on the contrary, i have read it preached where whites are divinely privileged.  

[MyLadiesDaddy]

Acts 10:34

[easy]

Acts 10:34

Agreed, precise and to the point.

[TrinityeXchange]

Acts 10:34

that is absolutely true in my book bro.  thanks for sharing LGD.  as clear as that scripture reference is, i am baffled to understand how protestant churches taught for years the Curse and Mark of Cain theology, that Cain was marked with the skin of the black man and equating dark skin with God's curse.  the danger in doctrine is the lasting and deep rooted effects it has on the indoctrinated well after its teachers have recanted.  

Edited May 4, 2015 by TrinityeXchange

[George Hayduke]

“The heart and soul have no color and Black Christians are no more blessed by God than White Christians.  Black Christians do not possess a ‘Special’ spiritual insight given only to them just as White Christians have been not been refused the ability to see and understand other ethnic groups oppression.” GH

 

 

thanks for sharing your insights GH.  this particular portion of your post i find most intriguing.  i have attended black churches all of my life and never heard, seen or read anything like this mentioned.  please share where you read/heard this doctrine.  

 

Your quite welcome Trinity, I am always blessed when Christians rightly divide the word of truth even when it may become contentious which, I suspect, this thread will. Hopefully, you will understand that I am presenting Orthodoxy that will challenge you without intending to insult you.

 

Now, back to the statement you find intriguing.

·         The heart and soul have no color.  (Agreed?)

·         Black Christians are no more blessed by God than White Christians.  (Agreed?)

·         Black Christians do not possess a ‘Special’ spiritual insight given only to them.  (Agreed?)

·         White Christians have been not been refused the ability to see and understand other ethnic groups oppression.  (Agreed?)

All of those statements are true and direct the observer to see Christ in Christians and not the color of skin or the influence of past or modern ethnic culture.  A practice St. Paul warned the Galatians about, but I’ll expound upon that a little further in Part Two.  

 

As for the doctrine to which you refer, please help me out here because I don’t know what doctrine you are extrapolating from my comment.

 

At this point I have to interject that my initial post was intended to encourage BOHICA and for Christians to pray for all involved in Mr. Gray’s murder as you call it, however, you chose to ignore that most likely one, if not all of the police officers you claim murdered Mr. Gray, are Christians and instead redirected the focus on White Christian racism.

 

 

on the contrary however, the Southern Baptist Church preached/taught for ages that blacks were divinely inferior to whites.  this Christian church taught this hierarchy or racism was approved of Jesus through the biblical reference "cursed be Ham" - Noah's son.  the understanding being that God cursed Ham for mocking Noah's nakedness and would serve his brothers Shem & Japheth.  

 

While I am familiar with the allegation that Joseph Smith and the Latter Day Saints taught blacks were ‘given the mark of Cain’ I am sure you are mistaken with your claim the SBC taught, “God cursed Ham for mocking Noah's nakedness and would serve his brothers Shem & Japheth.”

 

Scripture disagrees with you:

NKJ Genesis 29: (24) So Noah awoke from his wine, and new what his younger son had done to him. (25) Then he said: “Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brethren.” (26) And he said; “Blessed be the Lord, The God of Shem, and may Canaan be his servant.  (27) May God enlarge Japeth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant.

 

 

They taught that the black race is a descendant of Ham and therefore can only survive under white dominion.   

 

I’ve read the links you provided and could not find a single attribution or document in support of your claim.  Yes, the authors provided opinions and conclusions but no actual sermon or teaching.  If you have such documentation I would, just as you, appreciate having it for my own edification and study.  I am not saying racism (or any other sin) didn’t exist within the SBC congregation but so far you haven’t provided an example of a Statement of Faith or sermon that would support your claim of institutionalized and dogmatic doctrine of such racism.

 

 

supposedly the SBC is trying to reconcile for its long taught doctrine of racism.  

 

 

so, sir, in all of my years of following the teachings of Jesus, the only time i have personally seen where "Christian" churches taught the doctrine of special divine access by skin color was from whites and not blacks.  for my own edification and study, i would love to know what church the doctrine you mentioned derived from?  please provide references.  thanks GH!

 

As you are aware, there is no such doctrine of special divine access by skin color.  Either someone has misled you or you just made up a title for your opinion that Protestant churches, specifically the SBC, taught such nonsense.

 

However, back on point of my original and intriguing statement, what I can do is point you in the direction of the doctrines; The Particularity of African American Spirituality and Embodying African American Spirituality taught by Michael Battle, an Episcopalian Priest ordained by Desmond Tutu.  Mr. Battle, an Episcopalian Priest, teaches Black Christian Spirituality and, that in the Black Church, Black individualism and communalism are bound together.  He was an Assistant Professor of Spirituality and Black Church Studies at Duke University and Rector of St. Ambrose Episcopal Church in Raleigh, N. C.  While he is a respected scholar I find his teachings are not only exclusionary and black centric but fail the orthodoxy litmus test; He actually invites people to become black…  Nonetheless, he and his views are given unabashed support by the African American community:

·         “His major thesis is that a strong sense of community pervades African American spirituality, which comes from communal African religious traditions and the survival needs of enslaved Africans in a hostile American environment.”  Choice

·         “A radical gospel is needed more than ever, and it is to be hoped that this book will stimulate research to galvanize the churches into reflective action." Theological Book Review

 

The following table of contents is from his notable book, The Black Church in America.

1. Emergence of, What is African?

 

African Warnings.

 

What is African?

 

2. The Particularity of African American Spirituality.

 

3. The Black Church in the Shadow of Slavery.

 

The Scourge of Slavery.

 

The Survival of Africanism.

 

The Emergence of Black Denominations.

 

4. Communal Worship.

 

The Controversy of Emotionalism.

 

“Spiritual Song” and the Emergence of Black Denominations.

 

African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church.

 

Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.

 

African American Baptists Churches.

 

National Baptist Convention, USA.

 

African American Pentecostalism.

 

Black Worship.

 

5. Inviting Others to Be Black.

 

African vs. Black: Dialectic Tension.

 

James Cone and Desmond Tutu.

 

African and Black: Communal Synthesis.

 

6. The Black Church as the Beloved Community.

 

King’s View: Prophecy and Nonviolence.

 

African American Responses to King.

 

King’s Dream of the Beloved Community.

 

Communal Antithesis for King.

 

7. Embodying African American Spirituality.

 

A Churchless Black Church.

 

A Womanless Black Church.

 

The Full Embodiment of the Black Church.

 

Timeline of the Black Church.

 

Websites for Historic Black Denominations.

 

I hope the above information is of some help to you.  This is the end of Part One so may wish to refrain from response until you read Part Two; What is wrong with Part One?

 

GH

[George Hayduke]

Part Two: What is wrong with Part One?

 

First, is your redirection of topic, [My prayer is that all Christians pray for 'Justice'…] to a non-existent doctrine of ‘Special Devine Access by Skin Color’ and the unsupported allegation that the Southern Baptist Convention ‘preached/taught for ages that blacks were divinely inferior to whites.’ 

 

In support of your allegation you provided three links of opinion by third persons who offered points of view but without an attribution to an actual SBC document, Statement of Faith or sermon that supports your allegation.  The most notable link is to a sensational article by Emma Green titled: Southern Baptist and the Sin of Racism.  I found that a small portion of the article contained balanced journalism but the rest presented conjecture and opinion as evidence of your claim.  For the life of me, I am having a hard time understanding why the cover photograph included Travon Martin and Michael Brown; are they victims of the alleged SBC doctrine that ‘blacks were divinely inferior to whites’?  Were both the Security Guard and the Police Officer who shot and killed Martin and Brown members of the Southern Baptist Convention? 

 

While Emma Green does not directly support your allegation that,’ protestant churches taught for years the Curse and Mark of Cain Theology she supports that bias indirectly by presenting an article written in 1860 by the Southern Baptist Minister Thornton Stringfellow with the following:   

[stringfellow] “…defended the institution of forced enslavement of millions of African men and women in Cotton Is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments, with the full force of scripture: “Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command. … Under the gospel, [slavery] has brought within the range of gospel influence, millions of Ham's descendant's among ourselves, who but for this institution, would have sunk down to eternal ruin.”

 

Pretty ugly, huh?

 

I find it objectionable too, that a journalist, actually managing editor, would shoehorn a 2015 political position into a statement made in 1860 out of context and without definitions and comparisons of language used and the intent of the authors.  Author’s?  Yes, she failed to mention that the writings of “Cotton is King and Pro- Slavery Arguments are the works of eight authors, the primary author being E. N. Elliot, L.L.D., President of Planters College, Mississippi who wrote the forward:

“…In the following pages, the words slave and slavery are not used in the sense commonly understood by the abolitionists. With them these terms are contradistinguished from servants and servitude. According to their definition, a slave is merely a "chattel" in a human form; a thing to be bought and sold, and treated worse than a brute; a being without rights, privileges, or duties. Now, if this is a correct definition of the word, we totally object to the term, and deny that we have any such institution as slavery among us.”

“The word slavery is used in the following discussions, to express the condition of the African race in our Southern States, as also in other parts of the world, and in other times. This word, as defined by most writers, does not truly express the relation which the African race in our country, now bears to the white race. In some parts of the world, the relation has essentially changed, while the word to express it has remained the same. In most countries of the world, especially in former times, the persons of the slaves were the absolute property of the master, and might be used or abused, as caprice or passion might dictate. Under the Jewish law, a slave might be beaten to death by his master, and yet the master go entirely unpunished, unless the slave died outright under his hand. Under the Roman law, slaves had no rights whatever, and were scarcely recognized as human beings; indeed, they were sometimes drowned in fish-ponds, to feed the eels. Such is not the labor system among us. As an example of faulty definition, we will adduce that of Paley: "Slavery," says he, "is an obligation to labor for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant." Waiving, for the present, the accuracy of this definition, as far as it goes, we would remark that it is only half of the definition; the only idea here conveyed is that of compulsory and unrequited labor. Such is not our labor-system. Though we prefer the term slave, yet if this be its true definition, we must protest against its being applied to our [vii] system of African servitude, and insist that some other term shall be used. The true definition of the term, as applicable to the domestic institution in the Southern States, is as follows: Slavery is the duty and obligation of the slave to labor for the mutual benefit of both master and slave, under a warrant to the slave of protection, and a comfortable subsistence, under all circumstances. The person of the slave is not property, no matter what the fictions of the law may say; but the right to his labor is property, and may be transferred like any other property, or as the right to the services of a minor or an apprentice may be transferred. Nor is the labor of the slave solely for the benefit of the master, but for the benefit of all concerned; for himself, to repay the advances made for his support in childhood, for present subsistence, and for guardianship and protection, and to accumulate a fund for sickness, disability, and old age. The master, as the head of the system, has a right to the obedience and labor of the slave, but the slave has also his mutual rights in the master; the right of protection, the right of counsel and guidance, the right of subsistence, the right of care and attention in sickness and old age. He has also a right in his master as the sole arbiter in all his wrongs and difficulties, and as a merciful judge and dispenser of law to award the penalty of his misdeeds. Such is American slavery, or as Mr. Henry Hughes happily terms it, "Warranteeism."

 

Granted, the term ‘Slavery’ as defined in our modern culture, is abhorrent and, the authors and slaves of 1860 would probably ask, “What are you talking about?”  Reading all of the papers of ‘Cotton is King’ will provide insight on the secular as well as the religious views of slavery from Abraham forward as interpreted from 1860.

 

But back to Emma Green’s article and the Southern Baptist Sin of Racism, she opines; [stringfellow, a Baptist Minister] “…defended the institution of forced enslavement of millions of African men and women in ‘Cotton Is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments’, with the full force of scripture.

 

OK, but why would she leave out reference to:

T.J. Bowen, Baptist missionary, [see his work entitled Central Africa and Missionary Labors from 1849 to 1856, by T. J. Bowen, Charleston, Southern Baptist Publication Society, 1857,] who believed and taught that there is only a single species in the genus homo and that the N*groe, Indian and white men are human beings exactly alike.  In the very same source document she uses to eviscerate SBC by way of a Southern Baptist minister (Stringfellow) she fails to offer a counter point of view as published by the Southern Baptist Publication Society in 1857 by T.J Bowen, who disregarded as a fable, the thought that the descendants of Ham were to be slaves and, by inference black slaves in America.

 

So we can go back to 1860 to support a claim of present day institutionalized racism within the SBC but we can’t go back another three years to 1857 to read and consider a contrary view published by the very same Southern Baptists?  A lot must have happened during those three years...  I wondered what other anti-racial efforts have been made by the SBC that Green glossed over?

 

The New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833) VI.

Of the Freeness of Salvation We believe that the blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel; that it is the immediate duty of all to accept them by a cordial penitent, and obedient faith; and that nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth, but his own inherent depravity and voluntary rejection of the gospel; which rejection involves him in an aggravated condemnation.

 

SBC SOF (1925) 6.THE FREENESS OF SALVATION  
The blessings of salvation are made free to all by the gospel. It is the duty of all to accept them by penitent and obedient faith. Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Jesus Christ as teacher, Savior and Lord. 

 

SBC SOF (1963) IV. SALVATION

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.

 

SBC SOF (2000)  IV. Salvation

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

From its inception in 1844 until present day, the primary focus of Christ’s atonement and redemption for ALL mankind has been recognized and upheld by the SBC.

 

Again, why would Green paint the present day Christians of the SBC as partakers of the Sin of Racism when historically their overwhelming desire has been and is to glorify God, live a Holy Spirit filled life and spread the Gospel?

 

Apparently SBC’s official apology in 1995 is not sufficient for either you or Green: “We lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest,” the resolution read. “We apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime.”

  

Pretty straight forward Christian apology don’t you think? And yet, there’s Greens “and yet…” and, your “presumably…”

 

I can understand Green’s skepticism, or feigned skepticism, I don’t know if she is sincere or not but I do know she has an agenda as evidenced in the flowing admonishment: “Faith leaders and Christian musicians have taken issue with hip hop, a genre the church can't ignore if it wants to remain relevant.”

 

I have nothing against hip-hop as a means to praise God but I do have an issue with the demand and expectation Christ’s church must be culturally relevant.

 

Part Three coming next:  What is the ‘Church’ and why the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church won’t be found in Galatia.

 

GH

[darwinatridge]

bohica wrote:

"HOWEVER, leaders who teach violence is not the same as those teaching peaceful protest against perceived injustice.  i believe the constitution was founded on the premise that societal authority should be kept in line by peaceful critique of the people.  when people feel that an injustice has been served, it is their constitutional right to protest it.  this is what makes america great."

 

 

 

This is the crux of the problem. When the leaders of this nation do not believe in following the oath that they took to protect and defend the Constitution then we will have the social injustice that is occurring. America has leaders like Al Sharpton, who are nothing more than extortionist, who have exploited every opportunity to make themselves rich at the expense of not just the black community but all of America. These extortionist stir up hatred for their own personnel gain. Color is really not the issue but greed is. Nations have been destroyed because of these kind of leaders and as long as America continues to allow these kind of divisive tactics by these divisive people then we are headed down the same road.

Edited May 8, 2015 by darwinatridge

[TPSprayduster]

If you choose not to read his post just hit ignore then you want have to read his opinons or findings.  Easy fix.

[moose 57]

because they can