Social Southern Baptists: "We Have Been Guilty of a Sinful Absence of Historical Curiosity."

[cooks1]

I'm glad you said this. Because it highlights leftist thought today.

That white people need to apologize for being white cause maybe some ancestors were racists.

And now the SBC under liberal leadership believes that they need to keep apologizing every year because of what happened in the SBC 170 years ago.

And this apology won't be enough. They will call another conference again soon, draft another statement, and do it all over again.

Like I said, with the left, you need a continual apology for the sins of ancestors.

You are the one using the word apology. Not me. I said acknowledge and own up to. You keep talking about apologizing.

In fact you are going to need to point to me where, precisely, anywhere in this report the word apology, or even 'regret' is used. This was a highly accurate 71 page summary of fact, complete with documentation.

History is history. It happened and it will always have happened. There is no escaping it. And there is no reason to hide it.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I'm perfectly biblically literate. Certainly enough to recognize when you cherry-pick scripture to support whatever bullshit notions you want to propogate. I did that for a long time, I should know.

Jesus doesn't approve or disapprove of anything. He hasn't in about 2000 years.

To the third and fourth generations, boss. Take it up with Yahweh. I'm just the messenger.

 

[ShadBo]

You can be sorry for the way black people were treated back in the day. But, you can't repent of your ancestors sins. You can only repent of your sins.

What is your position on original sin, RIP?

 

[ultramanhyata]

Children do suffer from their fathers sins, but the Bible does not say they need to repent for their father’s sins. They cannot do that.

The passage is not concerned with what the children do or do not do. It is only stating that God will punish the children for the sins of their forebears to the third and fourth generation.

Now, assuming I was a Southern Baptist and my great great grandfather owned slaves, I don't have to worry about being punished for it. Since the God of the bible clearly approves of slavery and even gives moral guidance to those participating in the institution.

 

[WhiteMousse]

To the third and fourth generations, boss. Take it up with Yahweh. I'm just the messenger.

You want to play this game? Fine. Let's recite scriptures that deal with blame.

Deuteronomy 24.16. "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezekiel 18.20. "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of wht wicked shall be upon himself."

The key difference is the interaction between god and man, and man and man. The passage you're quoting, along with others with similar sentiements, declares that God will judge His people and when they serve other gods He will allow the punishment of His choosing to transcend generations. However his commandment to men is to limit punishment for sin to the one who has sinned (unless explicitly commanded). Joshua having Achan's whole family murdered comes to mind.

As I said, the Bible contradicts itself. What I initially said is true.

It also doesn't matter what the Bible has to say about it, because it's obvious to anyone with a working brain that punishment for crime should be limited to the people who commit the crime.

Stay in your own lane. Funny.

 

[Ripskater]

You are the one using the word apology. Not me. I said acknowledge and own up to. You keep talking about apologizing.

In fact you are going to need to point to me where, precisely, anywhere in this report the word apology, or even 'regret' is used. This was a highly accurate 71 page summary of fact, complete with documentation.

History is history. It happened and it will always have happened. There is no escaping it. And there is no reason to hide it.

I agree we can acknowledge that it happened. I can feel sad that it happened. But there is nothing for us to own up to that happened to black people 200 years ago. We weren't alive.

I agree we should not hide it.

But the SBC is beating a dead horse with this. They've already expressed regret for slavery and mistreatment of slaves dozens maybe hundreds of times.

 

[ultramanhyata]

You want to play this game? Fine. Let's recite scriptures that deal with blame.

Deuteronomy 24.16. "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."

Ezekiel 18.20. "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of wht wicked shall be upon himself."

The key difference is the interaction between god and man, and man and man. The passage you're quoting, along with others with similar sentiements, declares that God will judge His people and when they serve other gods He will allow the punishment of His choosing to transcend generations. However his commandment to men is to limit punishment for sin to the one who has sinned (unless explicitly commanded). Joshua having Achan's whole family murdered comes to mind.

As I said, the Bible contradicts itself. What I initially said is true.

It also doesn't matter what the Bible has to say about it, because it's obvious to anyone with a working brain that punishment for crime should be limited to the people who commit the crime.

Stay in your own lane. Funny.

Nothing I wrote to you was meant seriously. Chill out.

 

[Ripskater]

What is your position on original sin, RIP?

I'm not qualified to address that at this time.

 

[ShadBo]

I'm not qualified to address that at this time.

lol you duckin.

Thanks for coming out.

 

[cooks1]

"Owning Up" is a misnomer. I'm not preoccupied with blame or apologies. I'm preoccupied with precision in words and you're not being precise. This is demonstrated when you conflate "Owning Up" with "Acknowledge". You know the difference, don't be coy.

I do know the difference, and I am not being coy. You are being a sensitive bitch. In fact you win today's Pamprin award.

Acknowledge and own up to are 2 different things. Acknowledging means to accept that something happened or exists. Owning up to it means accepting or admitting it was wrong. Nothing more or less. It is not an apology. It can be an acceptance of guilt or blame, but it does not have to be. A person can own up to things not done by their own hand.

In fact, I can tell you right now that my Great, Great, Great Grandfather owned slaves. Several slaves in fact. And I admit that was wrong. See how easy that was?

 

[jefferz]

There was a time where I liked NPR and they weren't so heavily slanted. I miss those times once in a while.

At least Car Talk is still available.

Do you get the Thomas Jefferson hour on your local NPR?

 

[WhiteMousse]

I do know the difference, and I am not being coy. You are being a sensitive bitch. In fact you win today's Pamprin award.

Acknowledge and own up to are 2 different things. Acknowledging means to accept that something happened or exists. Owning up to it means accepting or admitting it was wrong. Nothing more or less. It is not an apology. It can be an acceptance of guilt or blame, but it does not have to be. A person can own up to things not done by their own hand.

In fact, I can tell you right now that my Great, Great, Great Grandfather owned slaves. Several slaves in fact. And I admit that was wrong. See how easy that was?

Own up implies personal responsibility.

 

[Arashikage4Life]

There are people that want to denounce Gen. Stonewall Jackson. He was a Christian man who fought for the South. He owned slaves and treated them well. In fact other slaves begged for him to buy them. That was the best option they had back then.

A "real" Christian man wouldn't own another person.

 

[WhiteMousse]

I do know the difference, and I am not being coy. You are being a sensitive bitch. In fact you win today's Pamprin award.

Acknowledge and own up to are 2 different things. Acknowledging means to accept that something happened or exists. Owning up to it means accepting or admitting it was wrong. Nothing more or less. It is not an apology. It can be an acceptance of guilt or blame, but it does not have to be. A person can own up to things not done by their own hand.

In fact, I can tell you right now that my Great, Great, Great Grandfather owned slaves. Several slaves in fact. And I admit that was wrong. See how easy that was?

Just because I'm being precise doesn't make me a sensitive bitch.

Sounds like you're realizing that you were wrong, and are now doubling down. I see this a lot on the internet.

I like how you tried to tweak the definition of the phrase. I like it because it gives me another opportunity to correct you, especially when you were being so snooty. I also like it because you thought I wouldn't notice.

So just to clarify you're wrong again. You can't own up to something you haven't done because owning up means admitting to having done something wrong. You can't not do something you did.

 

[Ripskater]

In fact, I can tell you right now that my Great, Great, Great Grandfather owned slaves. Several slaves in fact. And I admit that was wrong. See how easy that was?

The Bible actually never condemns slavery, or says that owning slaves is a sin, it only condemns the harsh treatment of slaves.

 

[Ripskater]

A "real" Christian man wouldn't own another person.

Many Christian men did though.

 

[WhiteMousse]

EDIT: Whoops

 

[cooks1]

The Bible actually never condemns slavery, or says that owning slaves is a sin, it only condemns the harsh treatment of slaves.

Well RIP, all I can say is this is one area where your Sky-Boss and I disagree. I believe slave ownership is wrong. But Thank You for making clear.......to everyone.......that owning people is not condemned by your Deity of choice. I really think that explains a lot.

 

[Ripskater]

Well RIP, all I can say is this is one area where your Sky-Boss and I disagree. I believe slave ownership is wrong. But Thank You for making clear.......to everyone.......that owning people is not condemned by your Deity of choice. I really think that explains a lot.

Well think about this. If your great, great great Grandfather treated his slaves well, then the social contract between them in that period of time may have been the slaves only way to have food and a roof over their head.

And I'm a person that's glad that blacks have equal rights today. But in that era, being a slave for some men was the best way that they could be taken care of.

 

[cooks1]

Just because I'm being precise doesn't make me a sensitive bitch.

Sounds like you're realizing that you were wrong, and are now doubling down. I see this a lot on the internet.

I like how you tried to tweak the definition of the phrase. I like it because it gives me another opportunity to correct you, especially when you were being so snooty. I also like it because you thought I wouldn't notice.

So just to clarify you're wrong again. You can't own up to something you haven't done because owning up means admitting to having done something wrong. You can't not do something you did.

You need to own up to the fact that your comprehension 'own up to' is somewhat limited.