Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Did Rosa Parks sin by refusing to go to the back of the bus?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
    I don't believe that the government has the authority to spend our tax money on public transportation. And if the government does spend our tax money on public transportation, I don't believe that it has the authority to demean the black passengers.
    I reckon Caesar spent people's money on more frivolous things than that with Paul's blessing.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      I don't think anybody is going to argue that point.
      I don't think they should do it as a matter of decency but I do think they have the authority to do what they did in the OP (and I don't believe they did it to demean the black passengers, I think that was just a side-effect). Matthew 20:15 comes to mind.
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        I don't think it has anything to do with your Catholic heritage or appreciation for Christian humanist philosophers. I think most Protestants on this forum probably disagree with DE's views on liberty, and racism (or, at least, I hope they do).
        I did not mean to imply that most Protestants do not also support human rights, but, in my case, I think it does have to do with my Catholic heritage, specifically Catholic papal social teaching, and my own philosophical education in Catholic schools.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          I don't think they should do it as a matter of decency but I do think they have the authority to do what they did in the OP (and I don't believe they did it to demean the black passengers, I think that was just a side-effect). Matthew 20:15 comes to mind.
          There is nothing in that parable to indicate that the decision was based on race.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            There is nothing in that parable to indicate that the decision was based on race.
            Christ is saying it's His money so He can do whatever He wants with it, even if it's "unfair" to pay some workers the same money for less work.
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
              Christ is saying it's His money so He can do whatever He wants with it, even if it's "unfair" to pay some workers the same money for less work.
              Well, actually, He was saying it was the lord of the vineyard's money. And the alleged inequity was to the number of hours they worked, not the color of their skin.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Well, actually, He was saying it was the lord of the vineyard's money.


                And the alleged inequity was to the number of hours they worked, not the color of their skin.
                What difference does it make? He never denied it was unequal, He said He can do whatever He wants with His money. Just like the state can do whatever they want with their bus. The inequity is irrelevant to His argument.
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Well, Catholics are just pagans with Jesus's name stamped on the "Jupiter wuz here" graffiti.

                  I used to be of this opinion. However, in my experience, anti-racism has become synonymous with evil. And not trivial evil either, I've seen this ideology turn otherwise decent people into complete monsters as a result of picking up even a light amount of anti-racist activist fervor. And I'll admit I'm perplexed. With many questionable ideologies I can tell why people are horrible regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I can understand Hitler, I can understand Stalin, I can understand Genghis Khan. This, however, I still don't quite comprehend. Maybe it will be revealed to me in time.
                  If you are not opposed to racism, then you are neutral or racist. Which racist policies do you think should be supported or tolerated?

                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Yes, which is why I endorsed the boycott.
                  Which boycott?

                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Israel also didn't have the type of multi-ethnic large scale conflict the US did.
                  Does this justify racist governmental policies in the US? If so, again, which ones? If not, this seems like an irrelevant comment.

                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  What if there are fundamental differences in the way the minds of the two races work? And one of them is far more prone both to committing violent crime and tolerating it? What should the racial group that doesn't want to put up with this do? Basically, what should two groups with fundamentally different and contradictory outlooks on life do?
                  First order of business: find out what causes and perpetuates these demographic issues. If racial oppression and diminished opportunity is a significant factor, and I think it is, do not exacerbate the issue with additional oppression and chronic lack of opportunity. Reparations in terms of educational opportunity would probably be the best way to address the issue head-on.

                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Totalitarian here, don't care about votes. The franchise should have been further restricted, and eventually eliminated, not expanded.
                  I suggest you move to a totalitarian state that restricts your access to free speech on the Internet.

                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  What if one wants to live in an active volcano? Is the volcano violating his civil rights?
                  Yep, wasting my time with you.

                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  What is your stance on gay marriage?
                  Freedom of religion.

                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Why are white schools better than black schools? Are you saying black people cannot compete with white people in this area?
                  At this time in history, they were not allowed to compete with white people. It will take significant time before African-Americans, as a whole population, will be able to perform competitively.

                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  What do you think of the benefits this policy had on preventing ethnic conflict?
                  Long term. None. Probably an overall negative effect. Short term, it allowed groups like the KKK to operate relatively freely at the periphery of society with little opposition.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                    What difference does it make? He never denied it was unequal, He said He can do whatever He wants with His money. Just like the state can do whatever they want with their bus. The inequity is irrelevant to His argument.
                    The lord of the vineyard's money truly was his own, to do with as he wished.

                    The state's money is really the people's money, and the state has a fiduciary responsibility to spend it accordingly. (not that they ever do)
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      If you are not opposed to racism, then you are neutral or racist.
                      You can be opposed to something without being an activist for it. I'm opposed to jeans, but I can't really be bothered to do anything about it.

                      Which racist policies do you think should be supported or tolerated?
                      Repeal the Equal Protection cause. Create a black state that mandates that all upper level political positions be held by Americans of African descent (the exact % of the latter can be negotiated, anything upwards of 50% is good enough for me). I recommend fusing several north-eastern states together into one then hand the keys over to Sheila Jackson Lee or whoever wants to be the first governor. Throw in a mandate for a mostly black police force to avoid future Fergusons. Then observe what happens.

                      Which boycott?
                      Of the buses.

                      Does this justify racist governmental policies in the US? If so, again, which ones? If not, this seems like an irrelevant comment.
                      I don't know if it justifies them, I was not in a position to manage the

                      First order of business: find out what causes and perpetuates these demographic issues. If racial oppression and diminished opportunity is a significant factor, and I think it is, do not exacerbate the issue with additional oppression and chronic lack of opportunity.
                      What if it's not a significant factor at all (and it probably isn't)?

                      Reparations in terms of educational opportunity would probably be the best way to address the issue head-on.
                      What if there are genetic differences? For example:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

                      "An association between the 2R allele of the VNTR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found."

                      "5.5% of Black men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele"

                      How would "reparations in tems of educational opportunity" make this go away?

                      I suggest you move to a totalitarian state that restricts your access to free speech on the Internet.
                      I already live in one.

                      Freedom of religion.
                      What does that mean? Do you think the state should sanction gay marriage?

                      At this time in history, they were not allowed to compete with white people.
                      Even at that time in history many blacks achieved success in black-only communities. IE: Greenwood neighbourhood in Tulsa (before white rioters destroyed it) was called the "Black Wall Street". The claim that oppression prevents success is dubious at best. The claim that it does so 50 years later after taking a break in the 80s enters the realm of the laughable.

                      It will take significant time before African-Americans, as a whole population, will be able to perform competitively.
                      Could you calculate this time, for predictive purposes? And significant time has passed with some areas getting worse, not better.

                      Long term. None. Probably an overall negative effect. Short term, it allowed groups like the KKK to operate relatively freely at the periphery of society with little opposition.
                      What does segregation have to do with the KKK? Seems to me that the KKK was anti-segregationist as they kept sticking their nose in black people's business. I'd say the KKK was more a product of the fact that many white people were limited by the constitution rather than because they were encouraged by segregation laws they thought were too soft.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        The lord of the vineyard's money truly was his own, to do with as he wished.

                        The state's money is really the people's money, and the state has a fiduciary responsibility to spend it accordingly. (not that they ever do)
                        You'd have a pretty hard time claiming the government wasn't doing the will of "the people" in this case.
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          You'd have a pretty hard time claiming the government wasn't doing the will of "the people" in this case.
                          That doesn't mean the parable you cited makes the case.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            That doesn't mean the parable you cited makes the case.
                            Sure it does.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • I'm frustrated. Did Rosa sin by refusing to move back? Or would moving back be a sin? I try to remember the mish-mash in the thread and my mind is empty.
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                                Sure it does.
                                Whatever you say.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                119 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                71 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X