American Christianity�s White-Supremacy Problem

[RumTumTugger]

Remember seer claims to be a 'White Nationalist.'

nope I suspect he said Nationalist you added the White so you could dishonestly assassinate his character Apologize

[Cow Poke]

seer said, "I am not 'White Supremacist. I am a White Nationalist'. I will let seer respond.

You really need to use the quote function, because I don't think anybody here trusts your memory or your representation of what he actually said.

[seer]

seer said, "I am not 'White Supremacist. I am a White Nationalist'. I will let seer respond.

I never said I was a White Nationalist Shuny, stop lying...

[seer]

Let's see the quote.

I am a Nationalist, but that is not race specific. You could be brown, black, yellow or purple and believe that we should put the needs of our citizens first.

Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people) especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.

[shunyadragon]

Let's see the quote.

seer said, "I am not 'White Supremacist. I am a White Nationalist'. I will let seer respond.

[seer]

Well, . . . ah not the point of my posts, and no I have not addressed this issue. I could document that White privilege did give a huge economic advantage to the whit population of America, but I cannot bring that down to the individual level.



Again, I never referred to individual responsibility nor guilt. I said:

You are a liar please don't talk to me until you apologize.

[Gondwanaland]

Remember seer claims to be a 'White Nationalist.'

Let's see the quote.

[shunyadragon]

But in your example I would have directly benefited from stolen money.

Well, . . . ah not the point of my posts, and no I have not addressed this issue. I could document that White privilege did give a huge economic advantage to the white population of America, but I cannot bring that down to the individual level.

That is not my case, or probably yours. So it would be specific to particular a case. You can't generalize. Which you did: We are responsible for the legacy of what was done, the impact of it. No we are not all responsible for a legacy that neither we or our ancestors had any part in.

Again, I never referred to individual responsibility nor guilt. I said:

No one is proposing that take responsibility for the sins of others. What is important is to acknowledge the racist history of the USA, and the devastating impact it has had on the blacks, their society and culture. But yes, the sins of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors and many today is brutal and immoral.

Your family heritage had the Anglo-Saxon advantage. All whites in the USA have the Anglo-Saxon advantage it is a fact of history.

[Gondwanaland]

No it is not. The blood libel is a later medieval conception premised on certain specific texts found in the New Testament

It's literally blood libel. That the term itself was introduced later does not make it magically not blood libel, just as transgenders have existed for a long time before the term was invented. Etc.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I just know I'm probably going to regret this being how much of an ignorant novice you are on the subject.

We don't know explicitly who wrote the gospels (though that's a subject of much debate)

Part of that sentence is correct we do not know who wrote the gospels and there is no rational debate or dissension about that.

but we know based on the content that the two authors were Jewish.

We know nothing of the kind. There is a theory that the writer of Matthew may have come from a Hellenised Jewish background but it is by no means an established fact. Among various NT scholars it remains a matter of speculation and discussion.

The gospel of John and Matthew closely resemble Judaic prose of that day

In what specific respect, in what particular details, and which precise prose texts?

especially the the content found in the Qumran scrolls.

You will need to specify definitive texts. Which precise Qumran document [s] are you referencing?

What makes you think John is "rabidly anti-Judaic?"

Examine it for yourself and apply a modicum of critical and objective textual analysis to the prose.

[seer]

No CP, its just an attempt to see if we can agree on that basic moral example. Seer has said we are not obligated to what our ancesters have done. He said that as an absolute. My example creates a clear case where we ARE morally obligated by what our ancestors have done. It is hypothetical in that neither of us specifically is faced with that directly, but nevertheless it is a counter example that shows we can be obligated by what our ancestors have done.

But in your example I would have directly benefited from stolen money. That is not my case, or probably yours. So it would be specific to particular a case. You can't generalize. Which you did: We are responsible for the legacy of what was done, the impact of it. No we are not all responsible for a legacy that neither we or our ancestors had any part in.

[Cow Poke]

No CP, its just an attempt to see if we can agree on that basic moral example. Seer has said we are not obligated to what our ancesters have done. He said that as an absolute. My example creates a clear case where we ARE morally obligated by what our ancestors have done. It is hypothetical in that neither of us specifically is faced with that directly, but nevertheless it is a counter example that shows we can be obligated by what our ancestors have done.

To what end?

[oxmixmudd]

I don't know what he is getting at...

I'm getting at the fact there are conditions where we could be obligated by what our ancestors did.

[oxmixmudd]

I think it's a slippery slope type argument. In SPECIFIC cases.... therefore, in GENERAL.....

No CP, its just an attempt to see if we can agree on that basic moral example. Seer has said we are not obligated to what our ancesters have done. He said that as an absolute. My example creates a clear case where we ARE morally obligated by what our ancestors have done. It is hypothetical in that neither of us specifically is faced with that directly, but nevertheless it is a counter example that shows we can be obligated by what our ancestors have done.

[seer]

Will not back up nor apologize.

Then you are a bold faced liar...