More Leftist Intolerance....

[Faber]

(Incidentally, James Meredith, who was the first black student to attend Ole Miss in the 60s, was upset when the campus later put a statue of him on campus. He is a devout Christian and feels that statues are idolatry.)

I remember the Meredith incident, but never heard that. Thanks.

[guacamole]

Of course. Anyone talked today like Jesus talked to that woman and there wouldn't be even the slightest doubt that the individual is a racist. You have to pretend otherwise because you've been convinced by liberals that Jesus was actually just like a modern person and just so happened to hold onto mid 20th century ideologies like anti-racism (and support for gay marriage).

Do you even read the Bible? Listen, stop reading this right now, go down to the Basilica, and ask for your money back because your Biblical education is not one of the finer moments of the Orthodox Church. The god you're meaning to describe is Odin.

If that were the only passage where Jesus interacts with non-Jews or if you hadn't ripped that quote from its textual and cultural context, you might have a point. But unfortunately for racists such as yourself, the Jew Rabbi Jesus ends up being a bit more inclusive than you'd like. Here is the story, to establish context. I've no doubt you'll find it fascinating:



So the first point to note is the start of the story here: "After leaving that place..." which indicates that this story links back to an earlier story from the text. In that story Jesus is teaching his disciples and calling them dullards because they are worried about his offending the Pharisees

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Oh my goodness! Jesus must have been an anti-Semite too!

before this event, then his declarations here would not make literal sense given that he had already healed a non-Jew. Surprisingly, Racist Alt-White Jesus actually heals a non-Jew well before (textually speaking) he heals the Canaanite woman here. In Matthew 8, he heals a member of a Centurion's household--that is, a member of the occupying military force, yet another deed that would have been odious at first glance to his disciples.

It might be that people distort Jesus into being a 20th century person, but your alt-right inspired perversion of scripture is odious and wrong, and, ironically, given your complaint, no less a creation and distortion of Christ's character by modern thought.

I never defended Spencer, my beef with you is that I find it intolerable that people like you who don't know anything about a subject fancy yourselves experts, especially when your stupid, ignorant ideas are gonna get a lot of people killed.

You defend Spencer by association, in your challenging my assessment of his character. Your "beef" with anyone comes down to the fact that other people have opinions that contradict your pet idiocy and it rankles you to see opposing ideas spread.

It's obvious because you don't understand any of these people or why they believe what they believe even in the slightest. If I knew french, and someone else claimed they knew french, then proceeded to talk jibberish it would be accurate to conclude the person does not speak french, even if they claim otherwise.

I don't know what's more half-witted; your intentional and insipid broad brush (as if all racists think and believe like you do ) or your "christianity."

But being openly racist is almost like being a pedophile, they have a very reasonable case to make that their fate is not in their hands.

So, you're arguing now that pedos and racists are born with it? Your ideas are a bizarre mish-mash of semi-literate ad hoc nonsense.

So you think most blacks and latinos are filth? Then what is your beef with Spencer? You seem to have more in common than you like to admit.

:LOL: I see. Can't read and process an argument. Is this your brain on drugs? Don't do drugs, Darth.

Especially when God endorsed the things you critique.

Really? Everything moral for God is moral for humanity? Do you really intend to make that argument? That because God gives a one time commandment for human judgement of wickedness, you believe that anyone can do that? Or because God establishes spiritual separation for his people you think it means racial and ethnic separation?

It is, in fact, racist. Just about everything on the topic fits the definition of racism since it's so broad in the first place.

No it's not. You want it to be racist because it's reasonable and now that I'm shinning a light into the cesspool of your soul, you're scurrying around cockroach like to find a reasonable position to cling to.

The eurotrash immigrants didn't immigrate to open up the country to the entire planet either.

When exactly did I argue that?

They're all bad, but if I had to start somewhere I'd start with wherever the heck you came from.

And your argument is nonsensical. How does being an immgirant mean you have to support all future immigration? Why is loyalty owed to complete strangers over your hosts? This issue aside, your logic is demented. It's pretty much an apologia for treason.

Where did I say I support all future immigration? I owe compassion as Christ (the real one, not the Alt-right racist one) commanded me to grant compassion. If it's apologia for treason, I'd rather be treasonous to trash like the alt-right than to Christ.

The Nazis started off as street thugs too. We all saw how things ended for their domestic enemies. I hope you'll remember these conversations when some Mengele wannabe is shoving needles in your eyeball trying to turn them blue one day.

I'd say, "Darth, stop foolin' around." Seriously though, leave me out of your demented fantasies.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Sparko]

um Since the Son created all races, it would be pretty odd that he was racist.

[Darth Executor]

um Since the Son created all races, it would be pretty odd that he was racist.

No odder than making one group of people his Chosen People.

[Darth Executor]

Do you even read the Bible? Listen, stop reading this right now, go down to the Basilica, and ask for your money back because your Biblical education is not one of the finer moments of the Orthodox Church. The god you're meaning to describe is Odin.

I know next to nothing about Odin. You seem to be an expert on him though. Feel free to take discussion of him somewhere else.

If that were the only passage where Jesus interacts with non-Jews or if you hadn't ripped that quote from its textual and cultural context, you might have a point. But unfortunately for racists such as yourself, the Jew Rabbi Jesus ends up being a bit more inclusive than you'd like. Here is the story, to establish context. I've no doubt you'll find it fascinating:

Not only do I know more about the textual and cultural context (a supremely ironic statement, in that you don't even understand what I'm saying, which is that the context of ethnic favoritism was nearly universal until a small group of white people invented anti-raycissm in the last century or two), you seem to have a low IQ, binary brain, that processes "Jesus was racist" as "Jesus was a NAZI who couldn't stand anyone of any other ethnicity in any context whatsoever).

So the first point to note is the start of the story here: "After leaving that place..." which indicates that this story links back to an earlier story from the text. In that story Jesus is teaching his disciples and calling them dullards because they are worried about his offending the Pharisees

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Oh my goodness! Jesus must have been an anti-Semite too!

Wrong, this is simply your addition to the text. Nowhere is there any evidence that Jesus is providing a lesson to the disciples, and even if he was (and you don't get this point because you're an idiot) it doesn't change the fact that racially degrading a woman to make a point to your buddies is, in fact, racist behavior and would get you (pardon the pun) crucified today. (IE: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...ng-dong-tweet/)

The side by side contrast of the faith of the Canaanite woman and the foolishness of the Pharisees is meant to make a point that you, to this point, have been too daft to grasp despite it being easily mastered by any child in Sunday School, but because you have been bewitched, I have to explain it to you again. Empty ritual and right of birth (RACE! OMG!) have no bearing on faith. God can save anyone. Not just Jews. (Lucky for you, eh?) And not just White People.

Nobody said God can't save anyone, or that salvation is limited to white people. In fact it doesn't even make sense to accuse me of this (except in the sense that you are stupid and can't put a coherent thought together) to suggest I am claiming Jesus was a white supremacist when I'm quoting Him showing JEWISH favoritism.

Let me restate my argument, in the simplest form I can put it without resorting to crayons:

1. Jesus was a Jew.
2. Jesus showed favoritism to Jews because He was a Jew, and actively justified this favoritism in the same manner modern racists do (IE: they are kin). This is not the only time this logic is used. Jesus uses similar logic to say He doesn't have to pay the temple tax. Ethnic/family loyalty is taken for granted repeatedly, like in this case.
3. Jesus made an EXCEPTION in this particular case because the woman in question used His own logic to get Him to admit He still has a responsibility towards her, on account that even the lesser races are supposed to receive something.
4. Jesus came FIRST for the Jews. Since most of them rejected Him, He bypasses them and extends the franchise to everybody.
5. Jesus's actions easily qualify as racism today, when you think that not even insulting someone else and merely being proud of your own people constitutes a "disease" to evil pieces of crap like you. By your own standard, which will be used to damn you on judgement day,

I bolded a passage above for you so that you wouldn't miss it: "The things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them." The pharisees were so hung up on hand-washing (If you knew the Gospels, you would recognize the portentous foreshadowing in that image) and the disciples were so impressed by the Pharisaical displays of righteousness that Jesus took them on a little field trip. They still didn't get it. They wanted him to send her away. You can interpret the following passages as virulently racist if you want, but facts are facts--Jesus wouldn't have healed the woman's daughter if he were serious about his objection.

Actually He would have, He had no choice. A master feeds His dogs.

Additionally, there are other passages that clarify whether or not we think he was being literal there. For example, were Jesus to have another healing event with a gentile before this event, then his declarations here would not make literal sense given that he had already healed a non-Jew. Surprisingly, Racist Alt-White Jesus actually heals a non-Jew well before (textually speaking) he heals the Canaanite woman here. In Matthew 8, he heals a member of a Centurion's household--that is, a member of the occupying military force, yet another deed that would have been odious at first glance to his disciples.

What are you babbling about you incoherent cretin? Obviously He didn't LITERALLY think she was a dog, idiot. The argument I'm making (which you don't get, because again, and it bears repeating, you're a very stupid person) is that ethnic favoritism was, in fact the norm. In fact it's funny you mention the Centurion story, in your rush to quote the abridged Matthew version you forgot there's a more detailed one in luke:

"The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him

It might be that people distort Jesus into being a 20th century person, but your alt-right inspired perversion of scripture is odious and wrong, and, ironically, given your complaint, no less a creation and distortion of Christ's character by modern thought.

Ethnic favoritism far predates modern thought, so calling my proper interpretation of scripture "alt-right inspired" and a "perversion" because it doesn't adhere to racial harmony kumbayah delusion invented by crazy liberals almost two thousand years after Christ is a sign of severe mental damage.

You defend Spencer by association, in your challenging my assessment of his character. Your "beef" with anyone comes down to the fact that other people have opinions that contradict your pet idiocy and it rankles you to see opposing ideas spread.

I don't challenge your assessment of his character, I have absolutely no respect or love for him. In fact other than being racist (against non-whites that is) he's 100% liberal. I probably have more in common with you than with him (you OTOH almost guaranteed have more in common with him than with me). I challenge your broad brushing of anyone who doesn't bow to made-up equality nonsense.

I don't know what's more half-witted; your intentional and insipid broad brush (as if all racists think and believe like you do ) or your "christianity."

I'm broad brushing? Do you have any self awareness whatsoever?

So, you're arguing now that pedos and racists are born with it? Your ideas are a bizarre mish-mash of semi-literate ad hoc nonsense.

I'm talking about the fact that there's nothing a small number of individuals can do if the rest of society turns against them completely. It has nothing to do with whether pedos and racists are born with it (in the case of racists we are all born racist).

:LOL: I see. Can't read and process an argument. Is this your brain on drugs? Don't do drugs, Darth.

I can read and process just fine, traits you find disgusting in "white supremacists" are perfectly fine when found in non-whites. Don't stop self-flagellating anytime soon.

[/quote]Really? Everything moral for God is moral for humanity? Do you really intend to make that argument? That because God gives a one time commandment for human judgement of wickedness, you believe that anyone can do that? [/quote]

When I say "God endorses things you critique" I mean demands (or enacts, as God incarnate) of his followers, stupid. God could personally order burning crosses on black people's lawns and you'd still find a way to claim he was "actually" providing some sort of abstract lesson for bigots.

Or because God establishes spiritual separation for his people you think it means racial and ethnic separation?

God didn't establish just SPIRITUAL separation for his people, He also established racial and ethnic separation, idiot. The Jews were established as an ethnic group descended from Abraham.

No it's not. You want it to be racist because it's reasonable and now that I'm shinning a light into the cesspool of your soul, you're scurrying around cockroach like to find a reasonable position to cling to.

I don't want it to be racist, I really couldn't care less one way or the other. If God wasn't a segregationist who split up the nations in the first place, and was instead a radical inclusivist who demanded the eradication of ethnic favoritism, I'd just firght for the eradication of ethnic favoritism, except unlike you I wouldn't let non-whites get away with it just because I'm scared of them/hate myself.

When exactly did I argue that?

Don't play dumb, your entire (stupid) line of thought revolves around the idea that because some people's descendants were immigrants, they should all support all immigration. Otherwise your argument makes absolutely no sense.

Where did I say I support all future immigration? I owe compassion as Christ (the real one, not the Alt-right racist one) commanded me to grant compassion. If it's apologia for treason, I'd rather be treasonous to trash like the alt-right than to Christ.

You owe compassion to the people around you first and the endless hordes of savages second (if at all). I'm not sure how the alt-right factors in, except in the sense that they're shining a light on your den of cockroaches.

I'd say, "Darth, stop foolin' around." Seriously though, leave me out of your demented fantasies.

It's not a fantasy, it's a thing that actually happened. Ignore history at your peril.

fwiw

It's not worth anything.

[JimL]

If we erase history, then it's like it never happened, and we can all feel better about ourselves!

How is the removal of monuments that are nothing to be proud of, the erasing of history?

[Darth Executor]

How is the removal of monuments that are nothing to be proud of, the erasing of history?

ISIS would ask the same question. After all, they are doing exactly that.

[Tassman]

No odder than making one group of people his Chosen People.

Obviously, when a nomadic tribe is devising their tribal god, he will favour the tribe that created him. He's hardly going to choose a rival tribe as his "chosen people", is he? That would be unfair.

[Starlight]

Obviously, when a nomadic tribe is devising their tribal god, he will favour the tribe that created him. He's hardly going to choose a rival tribe as his "chosen people", is he? That would be unfair.

The evolution of the nomadic Israelite's tribal god who is one among many gods, and not all that powerful, into The God of All over the course of the bible is quite an interesting study in the shifts of religious thought.

One of the passages that always amused me is:

Yahweh was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. - Judges 1:19

By the time we get to the middle ages, the god who loses to iron chariots has been recast as the Omnipotent and Omniscient Creator of All.

[JonathanL]

One of the passages that always amused me is:

Yahweh was with Judah; and drove out the inhabitants of the hill country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. - Judges 1:19

By the time we get to the middle ages, the god who loses to iron chariots has been recast as the Omnipotent and Omniscient Creator of All.

The "he" in this verse obviously refers back to Judah, and not Yahweh. And "Yahweh was with Judah" is a pretty ambigious statement to begin with, so it's not like the text is necessarily saying that God was personally defeating Judah's enemies for him, at most it requires that God was somehow giving his blessing to Judah's conquest endeavours as a whole.

[Leonhard]

I don't think the statue should be removed. I do think a plaque should be added that describes historical awareness of the fact that Jefferson Davis had a plantation, owned slaves and fully supported slavery, which he considered right and proper due to the 'superiority of the white race', considered the black people savages and brutes who could only be made 'docile' as slaves. He was angry with the North who wanted to hurt 'innocent slave-owners' who were simply trying to recover their 'property' (read slaves).

He was every bit the stereotypical picture of a white, plantation running slave owner. As, sadly, were many good people in the History of the US. We shouldn't diminish this, or ignore it. Even as we understand that these men were products of their time. Adding a plaque that at least acknowledges this would be proper.

And better than removing the statue in my opinion.

[Tassman]

I don't think the statue should be removed. I do think a plaque should be added that describes historical awareness of the fact that Jefferson Davis had a plantation, owned slaves and fully supported slavery, which he considered right and proper due to the 'superiority of the white race', considered the black people savages and brutes who could only be made 'docile' as slaves. He was angry with the North who wanted to hurt 'innocent slave-owners' who were simply trying to recover their 'property' (read slaves).

He was every bit the stereotypical picture of a white, plantation running slave owner. As, sadly, were many good people in the History of the US. We shouldn't diminish this, or ignore it. Even as we understand that these men were products of their time. Adding a plaque that at least acknowledges this would be proper.

And better than removing the statue in my opinion.

Certainly the statue should not be discarded, it has historical significance as you say. But the right place for items of negative historical awareness is a museum (as Star said) not in a public place of honour.

[Sparko]

No odder than making one group of people his Chosen People.

Chosen to lead the rest of the nations to salvation. And the point of his choosing was not that they were better than anyone else. In fact, he chose some of the worst of the bunch over and over. The murderer Moses, for instance. And had him lead a group of slaves.

[Meh Gerbil]

Chosen to lead the rest of the nations to salvation. And the point of his choosing was not that they were better than anyone else. In fact, he chose some of the worst of the bunch over and over. The murderer Moses, for instance. And had him lead a group of slaves.

I think we have to be careful with not mixing two concepts:
1: God working through people.
2: God approving of their behavior.

One doesn't seem to have a great deal of bearing on the other.

[Tassman]

Chosen to lead the rest of the nations to salvation. And the point of his choosing was not that they were better than anyone else. In fact, he chose some of the worst of the bunch over and over. The murderer Moses, for instance. And had him lead a group of slaves.

Tribal gods will obviously reflect the tribal values of those who invent them. E.g. Moses was a xenophobic murderer, so it's no surprise that his "god" encouraged him to lead his tribe in the slaughter the Midianites et al.