Reconciling the imposition of the "White Man's" religion

[Freddie53]

The only person (in my opinion) of African descent who has addressed the question I really asked with any sense of real detachment and understanding and without a Christian-based bias is Lex.

Stronzo,

Part of the problem is that many understand what you are asking, but we are not of African descent. So we can't really answer it

Lex is not a traditional Christian in the sense of being in church every Sunday and can give an answer better.

But to me the answer has to do with the religion of Christianity itself. According to Christianity, it is the Holy Spirit that comes and ask people to become Christians. The Holy Spirit doesn't have a race. It is not human. If Christianity is correct that God comes down and talks to each person individually, then it would make sense that people everywhere would be accepting, though not all.

To me that Holy Spirit of God represents God. Some may see that spirit as something other than Christian, yet they accept what they see.

My point is that peoople of all colors and backgrounds don't see God as belonging to anyone culture. They see God has inclusive of EVERYONE.

One theme that I know is there in African-American beliefs was the belief that God would come and save them from slavery. So they didn't think of God as a White God or Christianity as a White Man's Religion.

 

[ChocolateLuvuh]

I'm white. But I live in a small southern town. I've played at predominently black churches for weddings, funerals and other special occassions. One of the first things to notice upon entering a black church is the face of Jesus. Jesus is not white. Maybe not full blood African, but nevertheless black.

Black theologians have known the truth about Christianity for decades or longer. The black congregations my my area are fully aware of the larger world and know the stories that there were Jews that were black. Moses himself had a black wife and God said it was good.

So, the answer is that blacks at least here in the south do not think of it as white man's religiion. They look at it as the larger picture. More of the culture in Africa made it over here to America than many white people realize. Many of those blacks sold into slavery by their black peers who had defeated them in war, knew about Christianity.

So I believe that is the answer. The average black doesn't see it as a white man's religion. They see Jesus as one of them. Black.

About women. In general, women have higher standard of living and more rights compared to men in nations with Christian heritage backgrounds than nations with non Christian backgrounds. There are a few exceptoins. Not many.

Wouldn't the Hebrews and later on Jesus and his disciples, look like more like modern day Palestinians? Also, didnt the Arabs originate the slave trade AND impose Islam upon those subject peoples before the advent of Europeans and Christianity?

 

[Freddie53]

Wouldn't the Hebrews and later on Jesus and his disciples, look like more like modern day Palestinians? Also, didnt the Arabs originate the slave trade AND impose Islam upon those subject peoples before the advent of Europeans and Christianity?

Yes most church historians would say Jesus probalby looked like a modern day Palestinian. And yes some blacks were taken into slavery by Arabs and were subjected to Islam before Christiantiy. Many were sold into slavery by black Kings who had won wars with opposing tribes and the conqueered tribes became slaves.

In the ancient and mediival world, slavery was found in all cultural, racial and ethnic groups around the world.

 

[dreamer20]

... Also, didnt the Arabs originate the slave trade AND ....

No. Slavery has been present for as long as the existence of man and was a worldwide phenomenon.

lol dreamer20.

 

[solong]

Then why didn't you? You wasted an entire post to tell me to prove something that you have already demonstrated so readily.



Actually, it was one accusation with five (or six if we are being picky) qualifiers. Your posts in this section of the board evinced the qualifiers IMHO and as I am celarly not the only person to have watched them emerge--I think YOU may want to go about disproving your own words (it's called backtracking).



What does honesty have to do with handling a difference on opinion? For my part, I am almost always brutally honest on this forum and in person. I speak my mind quite freely and openly. Also, apologies are SO overrated. I apologize only when I feel that I have done something I am sorry for. I won't feel bad for calling you the person you appear to be. Nope.



What is this: high school debate club? Sorry, not a member. I have objected to your posts on several occassions and in several threads. I'm over it and you, actually. SNORE.

Still arguing? I gave you a challenge. So be a "man," and either answer it, or ignore it. I've got nothing more to say to somebody who just harrangues, accuses, and heel-bites, but leaves it at that.

I haven't back-tracked on ONE THING. Not here, and not in any other panel, so don't play the game with me. It just doesn't work. I don't accuse anybody of things that I don't already have a copy of. If you're a moderator and supposed to be setting some kind of "smart" example, then I suggest you start doing the same thing.

 

[dreamer20]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]From http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 3[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]

​

Overview:

The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been "sanctioned in the Bible." They argued that:
[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4 [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as an extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in "the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained. [/FONT]

dreamer20
​

[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]​

 

[Lex]

Still arguing? I gave you a challenge. So be a "man," and either answer it, or ignore it. I've got nothing more to say to somebody who just harrangues, accuses, and heel-bites, but leaves it at that.

I haven't back-tracked on ONE THING. Not here, and not in any other panel, so don't play the game with me. It just doesn't work. I don't accuse anybody of things that I don't already have a copy of. If you're a moderator and supposed to be setting some kind of "smart" example, then I suggest you start doing the same thing.

Let's not go down that "You're a Moderator and here is what you are supposed to be doing" path, because those calls are made by the board owner, not members. Mods are all members first and Mods second. And I set many examples here daily by being open, honest, relflective and good-spirited.

No, you haven't backtracked. Your comments are the same as they ever were. Hence my point, which you missed: if you can prove you are not what I think you are you WOULD be backtracking.

I suppose I could copy and paste all the things you've said in these fora that are offensive and obnoxious to so many and (not but) the reality is, that is why we have the search post feature. I am not here, really, to debate your existence.

Telling me to jump through any kind of hoop is the quickest way to NEVER see me jump through it.

Here is the beauty of LPSG: We don't have to like each other (As much as we know and interact). We also, don't have to be silent in our ("our" in the sense of the many members who find your comments unacceptable or vice versa) disagreement and/or dislike.

When people took exception to your comments, you attacked them. A serve and volley ensued. When people tried to move on, you jumped into threads with the sole purpose to attack them still (I called you on it a few times and you ignored those comments).

But as you said, you aren't angry, or homophobic, or shleterd, or whatever.

It's all us. Every single member who has read your posts and said "Whoa. What's up with THAT dude?!" (DC DEEP, Me, Stronzo, dong20, dreamer20, Naughty, Prepstud, Freddie, and the list goes on...) Yup. We're all having a shared moment of consciousness where we think you're something that is in direct contrast to what your words show that you are.

At some point, I guess we can all expect to wake up and see you as this inclusive, loving person. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[B_Stronzo]

One theme that I know is there in African-American beliefs was the belief that God would come and save them from slavery. So they didn't think of God as a White God or Christianity as a White Man's Religion.

Freddie my love,

You do Christians proud my man. I swear... you truly bear witness. If we knew one another in person I'd pay careful attention to every word you say. You're a credible man.

I read and understood your entire post in its context. Thank you

But I singled out this portion because I think it's so germane to the original premise of my thread. I believe that's exactly why these first Africans were drawn to the Christains church. Thank you for putting it so directly and simply.

See? Lex isn't the only one who "gets it". :wink:

 

[mainer1]

Lex, thanks for your articulate and thought provoking responses to this nosy and impolite, possibly stupid and racist, thread.

 

[Lex]

...

My point is that peoople of all colors and backgrounds don't see God as belonging to anyone culture. They see God has inclusive of EVERYONE.

...

This is the beauty of Christianity and the downfall of followers of said religion. This is the heart of all these recent religious threads:

How can people use something that is meant to be SO inclusive to EXCLUDE in the name of a God who most believe loves EVERYONE?

It's all too exhausting and illogical in the end. For me, at least.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Lex, thanks for your articulate and thought provoking responses to this nosy and impolite, possibly stupid and racist, thread.

Excuse fucking me.

I'm assuming you're not calling the premise of this thread 'stupid' or 'racist'. It was decidedly not its intent and had it been so I'm ultimately certain Lex would have landed on me in a New York minute.

In fact he and I have had due conversation about its subject matter in private to that end.

There's nothing 'nosy' or 'impolite' about trying to understand what motivates people. It's a point of unending interest to this writer and I think key in the understanding between all the differences among us.

If that's how you read this thread's premise I suspect you lack the ability to comprehend its intent. Go back and reread the intitiating thread post and perhaps you can rethink your stance.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Lex, thanks for your articulate and thought provoking responses to this nosy and impolite, possibly stupid and racist, thread.

You need to go back and read this. The only one who has taken it that was is Solong. Stronzo is trying to get a grasp on a concept and asked a question. The only way to learn is to ask. Those of us who have some part of the answer have given our insight.

 

[Lex]

If that's how you read this thread's premise I suspect you lack the ability to comprehend its intent. Go back and reread the intitiating thread post and perhaps you can rethink your stance.

Or he could do so and agree to disagree, right?

HUGS.

Lex, thanks for your articulate and thought provoking responses to this nosy and impolite, possibly stupid and racist, thread.

Thanks and I did not see it as such.

I actually prefer to be directly asked questions and have an opportunity to explain than for people to haphazardly form ill-conceived opinions (at least of me and my stance).

While I do not agree with Stronzo's thread title, I think the questios he has attempted to get at and some of the dialogue has been excellent.

I pride myself on being open to questions about a lof of things and most of my experiences. I do not fear exposing hidden communal truths. Unspeakable things, unspoken as Toni Morrison would say (Matthew, that was for you, baby).

And really, am saddened that the person who made the comments that perplexed Stronzo so much did not feel the need to elaborate. That is exactly how ill-conceived notions propagate.

Education through shared experiences is what I like to call it.

 

[prepstudinsc]

Two more points here--
Historically--One point that we've all left out was that Moses was born in Egypt and was raised by Pharoah's daughter. (well, his real mother did the raising as his nursemaid, but you get the picture) Read Exodus 2.
Clearly people in Africa were no strangers to Judaic culture and religion.
When Christianity began to spread, Alexandria, Egypt was one of the first places it spread, due to the efforts of St. Mark. We also must not forget that the early Egyptian Christians were proud of the fact that Jesus was brought to Egypt for safekeeping when Herod was trying to kill the infant.

Also, the slaves in the US probably felt like the Hebrew slaves in Egypt did. That God was with them despite the cruelty shown to them by their owners.
They knew that if they perservered, that God would rescue them somehow.
It was their faith that kept them going. The words to American spirituals clearly show this. The parallels between 19th century slavery and the Hebrew slaves are demonstrated in song.


Just a few more points to ponder...

 

[B_Stronzo]

prepstud and Lex thanks.

You guys are less knee-jerk than I. I realized I'd get harangued for what other people imposed on my intent here. You both expressed precisely what I meant. And Lex that's why I put 'White Man's Religion' in quotes in the thread title.

I was detaching myself from the reference in doing so.

 

[DC_DEEP]

prepstud and Lex thanks.

You guys are less knee-jerk than I. I realized I'd get harangued for what other people imposed on my intent here. You both expressed precisely what I meant. And Lex that's why I put 'White Man's Religion' in quotes in the thread title.

I was detaching myself from the reference in doing so.

I suspected from the outset that your intent was to understand what could appear on the surface to be something of an oxymoron, or perhaps exhibiting what many call "self-loathing." Sort of like asking questions about "Log Cabin Republicans." Regardless of how repugnant the subject material, there is nothing wrong with (honestly) trying to understand apparently incongruous juxtapositions.

 

[Matthew]

Also, the slaves in the US probably felt like the Hebrew slaves in Egypt did. That God was with them despite the cruelty shown to them by their owners.
They knew that if they perservered, that God would rescue them somehow.
It was their faith that kept them going. The words to American spirituals clearly show this. The parallels between 19th century slavery and the Hebrew slaves are demonstrated in song.

I think that's an important point. We can't underestimate the role of hope and faith in a community that is fighting for survival. Not to mention a spiritual world where justice was triumphant, unlike the real world they were living in.

Also, in many cases christian gatherings among slaves served not only as community-building, but also as chances to plan for protection, resistance and ultimately escape ("Wade in the Water"). There's a whole history about christian churches' role in this.

 

[solong]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]From http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]

Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).[/FONT]



[FONT=arial,helvetica]"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 3[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]

​

Overview:

The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been "sanctioned in the Bible." They argued that:
[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4 [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism. [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica]Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as an extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in "the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained. [/FONT]

dreamer20



[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT]

​

Good QUOTES!! Glad you found those, because it shows what a pre-bias will do to peoples' thinking and their private interpretation of the Bible. This is exactly what the South was doing.

As far as biblical is concerned, there were 3 kinds of slaves. chattel, indentured, and indebted. In those days they didn't have banks as we know them today. Babylon was the closest nation with a "bank," as such. So if I owed you money, I could indebiture myself out to you, or I could indenture my son or daughter to you. Chattel were slaves sold on the open market.

Now let me ask you, would you rather go to debtor's prison for up to 20 years, or hire out to your note holder for just a few? Whose system of justice suits you better, Dreamer?

As far as Paul not mentioning slaves, neither did anybody else, until John-- referring to them in REV18 as "souls of men" and property of Babylon the Great. Other than that, all we read about in the NT is "servants," (Gr. pais,) and it is not a key word. It can mean lots of things, a slave, a minister, a young boy, etc.

That means, you have to go back to the history books and do a little digging.

 

[solong]

Let's not go down that "You're a Moderator and here is what you are supposed to be doing" path, because those calls are made by the board owner, not members. Mods are all members first and Mods second. And I set many examples here daily by being open, honest, relflective and good-spirited.

No, you haven't backtracked. Your comments are the same as they ever were. Hence my point, which you missed: if you can prove you are not what I think you are you WOULD be backtracking.

I suppose I could copy and paste all the things you've said in these fora that are offensive and obnoxious to so many and (not but) the reality is, that is why we have the search post feature. I am not here, really, to debate your existence.

Telling me to jump through any kind of hoop is the quickest way to NEVER see me jump through it.

Here is the beauty of LPSG: We don't have to like each other (As much as we know and interact). We also, don't have to be silent in our ("our" in the sense of the many members who find your comments unacceptable or vice versa) disagreement and/or dislike.

When people took exception to your comments, you attacked them. A serve and volley ensued. When people tried to move on, you jumped into threads with the sole purpose to attack them still (I called you on it a few times and you ignored those comments).

But as you said, you aren't angry, or homophobic, or shleterd, or whatever.

It's all us. Every single member who has read your posts and said "Whoa. What's up with THAT dude?!" (DC DEEP, Me, Stronzo, dong20, dreamer20, Naughty, Prepstud, Freddie, and the list goes on...) Yup. We're all having a shared moment of consciousness where we think you're something that is in direct contrast to what your words show that you are.

At some point, I guess we can all expect to wake up and see you as this inclusive, loving person. I won't be holding my breath.

Hey, I agree with you. An inclusive, loving person I'm only trying to be. I'll never be it, though. But...I'll always be trying.

Now Lex, I gotta hand it to you-- when you said I am not homophobic, you made my day (just kidding, of course). I think you and everybody here can see that, right? And I'm not angry, but also I'm not vengeful, and I'm also a happy kind of guy.

The thing that clobbered me was when you said I had back-tracked. And then I see that you said just the opposite?? Well let me ask your forgiveness, because I must have read it all wrong, there!

So I'm sorry if you said just the opposite, and that's because I guess I never learned to read. I really don't know how I could have misconstrued that so badly, but I'm happy to tell you I goofed, and want to thank you for correcting me.

Just keep doing it. That way, I take something away from these discussions, too.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I suspected from the outset that your intent was to understand what could appear on the surface to be something of an oxymoron, or perhaps exhibiting what many call "self-loathing." Sort of like asking questions about "Log Cabin Republicans." Regardless of how repugnant the subject material, there is nothing wrong with (honestly) trying to understand apparently incongruous juxtapositions.

Your perception and understanding is broad and your ability to express it appreciated. I knew I'd "flame" some (as I privately discussed with Lex) but he knew the spirit of my intent. I'm glad you do too.