For those wondering about me...

Smellin Coffee said:
I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy. The only problem is those of us that carry the disease and spread it, don't even realize we are infected, much less contagious.

Can we now just say that he is insane?
 
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
Smellin Coffee said:
BTW, Hyles and fundamentalist extremism is overt in their predation. Evangelicalism is just as predatory, but does so in a more passive-aggressive demeanor. You know this to be true but cannot bring yourself to leave your seat of influence, circle of friends and "ruin" a reputation build over decades. You don't want to be treated the way you and other Evangelicals treat me. I get it. I'm having to separate myself from that predatory and colonizing religion and it is very gradual and extremely difficult. My drift is gradual and not downright rebellion. And without a livelihood attached, I don't have as much to lose as you do.

But when you are ready to admit the fraud Evangelicalism really is and make efforts to undo the harm you've experienced and inflicted on others, we who have "drifted" will understand and even accept you in your growth. :)

I've never treated you with anything other than mutual respect.  I don't have "a livelihood to protect" as a motive for my belief in "evangelical" thought, and I've NEVER sought to use "predatory religion" on you or anybody else (nor do I know of anybody like that in the personal sphere I am associated with), so put away your overly broad generalizations.

You are absolutely correct. You have treated me with dignity and respect which I greatly appreciate. My words were directed specifically to Tarheel. It isn't a universal perspective for every single Evangelical or even Fundamentalist. I'm sorry I didn't specify in my response to Tarheel.

Just because some sheep are protectors of the wolf king doesn't mean ALL sheep are guilty of the wolf king's predation. But to those who know it is harmful yet continue to "take" from the sheep to "gain power", whether that power be financially, socially, politically or even within religiosity, the words can be applied. This means not only Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, but other religions as well such as Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, etc. There are "wolf kings" and "protector sheep" as well as "innocent" sheep in those sects as well.

Much (not all) of what Jesus' record of teaching shows his being contrary to other Pharisees (of which he probably was one). His "fights" in Pharisaical realms wasn't meant as universal mandate or even morality, for all cultures at all times.

Modern day example: while working for a Dutch Reformed company, I learned some Reformed people today fight over whether or not it is "morally right" to pump gas on Sundays. But the ones who argue against that "right" don't criticize or expect conformity from all Christians but rather expect if of other Reformed folks. It is just a sect debate, not universal piety. In the same way, my post can be directed toward those who do prey on the sheep and is not about every single person who believes in the fundamentals of the faith of Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism or Catholicism or Islam or Mormon or Scientology, etc.

I've become a pluralist in that I believe in the freedom to practice any religion that does no harm to others. I condemn those that use any particular faith to condemn  those who don't practice their specific faith or prey on those who do.

I hope that clarifies that I don't feel that applies to you, ALAYMAN. :)

Gee-whiz...let?s sing kumbaya with the apostate!
I watched your downward spiral as you added up the numbers Hyles did on you.
I have no respect for you or your inane and ignorant posts.

So while you sing another chorus, I?ll weep because an apostate has no respect for me...IF you had respect for me, I?d lose all respect for me. ;)
 
Twisted said:
Smellin Coffee said:
I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy. The only problem is those of us that carry the disease and spread it, don't even realize we are infected, much less contagious.

Can we now just say that he is insane?

Heretic or apostate will do...
 
Twisted said:
Smellin Coffee said:
I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy. The only problem is those of us that carry the disease and spread it, don't even realize we are infected, much less contagious.

Can we now just say that he is insane?

Say what you want but even in Colonial Virginia, race and evangelism was problematic for those in that colony.

In the Colonial Museum in Williamsburg, VA, therein hangs a plaque with the heading "Key Slavery Statutes of the Virginia General Assembly" about law enacted in September, 1667.

European Christians were not evangelizing their slaves because they believed spiritual brothers and sisters were not to enslave one another. However, they needed to keep the economy going so they needed the slave labor. If they evangelized their slaves, then they would lose their workforce as they would be required to free their "spiritual brethren".

So the Virginia Assembly, mostly Anglican men, took action. They declared:

It is enacted and declared by this grand assembly, and the authority thereof, that the conferring of baptisme doth not alter the condition of the person as to his bondage or freedome; that diverse masters, ffreed from this doubt, may more carefully endeavour the propagation of christianity by permitting children, though slaves, or those of growth if capable to be admitted to that sacrament.

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/religion/docs1.html

So early colonial, religious capitalists got their cake and were able to eat it too! They could convert their slaves, count them as converts and still be allowed to enslave them because, Hey! Rich Christian Capitalism Rules!

Frederick Douglass adds another piece of Christianity and racism:

While America is printmg tracts and Bibles; sending missionaries abroad to convert the heathen; expending her money in various ways for the promotion of the Gospel in foreign lands, the slave not only lies forgotten?uncared for, but is trampled under foot by the very churches of the land. What have we in America? Why we have slavery made part of the religion of the land. Yes, the pulpit there stands up as the great defender of this cursed institution, as it is called. Ministers of religion come forward, and torture the hallowed pages of inspired wisdom to sanction the bloody deed (Loud cries of ?Shame!?) They stand forth as the foremost, the strongest defenders of this ?institution.? As a proof of this, I need not do more than state the general fact, that slavery has existed under the droppings of the sanctuary of the south, for the last 200 years, and there has not been any war between the religion and the slavery of the south.
Whips, chains, gags, and thumb-screws have all lain under the droppings of the sanctuary, and instead of rusting from off the limbs of the bondman, these droppings have served to preserve them in all their strength. Instead of preaching the Gospel against this tyranny, rebuke, and wrong, ministers of religion have sought, by all and every means, to throw in the background whatever in the Bible could be construed into opposition to slavery, and to bring forward that which they could torture into its support. (Cries of ?Shame!?) This I conceive to be the darkest feature of slavery, and the most difficult to attack, because it is identified with religion, and exposes those who denounce it to the charge of infidelity. Yes, those with whom I have been labouring, namely, the old organization Anti-Slavery Society of America, have been again and again stigmatized as infidels, and for what reason? Why, solely in consequence of the faithfulness of their attacks upon the slaveholding religion of the southern states, and the northern religion that sympathizes with it. (Hear, hear.)

https://glc.yale.edu/american-slavery-american-religion-and-free-church-scotland

The religious pro-life movement came about because Christians were failing to politically unite over racism ( in response to *at that time* impending Bob Jones vs. United States).

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133?o=3

By their own admission, Southern Baptists started out as a result of racism:

WHEREAS, Our relationship to African-Americans has been hindered from the beginning by the role that slavery played in the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention...

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/resolution-on-racial-reconciliation-on-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention

Since Western Christianity is rooted in racism in this country, it is a simple conclusion to assume "I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy."

Yep. Insane. But methinks it isn't me...
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Twisted said:
Smellin Coffee said:
I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy. The only problem is those of us that carry the disease and spread it, don't even realize we are infected, much less contagious.

Can we now just say that he is insane?

Heretic or apostate will do...

Apostate of the Slaveholder's Religion ... Works for me!
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Twisted said:
Smellin Coffee said:
I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy. The only problem is those of us that carry the disease and spread it, don't even realize we are infected, much less contagious.

Can we now just say that he is insane?

Say what you want...

Don't take it the wrong way, it's just that I don't like having competition.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
Anon1379 said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Walt said:
Smellin Coffee said:
... led me out of the Bible...

This really says it all.

Yep. God isn't contained in a canon, especially not in a singular interpretation of a specific canon. :)
So where do you draw the line between yourself and Joseph Smith? Both claimed to be driven by the Spirit. Well we can tell Joseph Smith was wack cuz his belief contradicted scripture. We can tell you are wack cuz you reject Scripture. Show me anywhere in Jesus words where he departed from Scripture. He always said it is written. He said man shall not live by bread, but every word of God. He repeatedly referred back to the Old Testament. Can you show me anything of Christ that contradicts the OT? People like departing from Scripture, cuz that removes the standard and allows them to do what is right in their own eyes.

Isaiah 5:19?21 (ESV): 20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!

These verses describe your mindset. You call what is evil in the Bible good, and what is good evil. The Bible does not matter you are wise in your own eyes.

And there it is. You attribute "the Bible" as the source. Sorry, "the Bible" is nowhere in the text, much less the canon you adhere to. So it seems this passage of the Scripture isn't "good enough" for you so you have to add your own context to it.

I also notice how you neglected to add the next two verses:

Woe to men mighty at drinking wine,
Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink,
23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away justice from the righteous man!
Anon1379 said:
Isaiah 5:24 (ESV):
...for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts,
and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

Curious how do you know the law of the Lord and the words of the Holy One if you don't use the Bible? How do you even know the God of the Bible is true if you reject his written word?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

To quote Reagan, "And there you go again." In Isaiah, the BIBLE HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN. You are applying universal context to a canon that wouldn't be even written until hundreds of years later. But then again, you've already established context doesn't matter to you, even though you hold others to accept YOUR relative application of text.
So where do you draw the line between what is wrong and right. Scripture tells me. Why is it wrong to let's say kill my neighbor or rob him? Because you feel like it's wrong? Or because you know God in His word says so.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 
Anon1379 said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Anon1379 said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Walt said:
Smellin Coffee said:
... led me out of the Bible...

This really says it all.

Yep. God isn't contained in a canon, especially not in a singular interpretation of a specific canon. :)
So where do you draw the line between yourself and Joseph Smith? Both claimed to be driven by the Spirit. Well we can tell Joseph Smith was wack cuz his belief contradicted scripture. We can tell you are wack cuz you reject Scripture. Show me anywhere in Jesus words where he departed from Scripture. He always said it is written. He said man shall not live by bread, but every word of God. He repeatedly referred back to the Old Testament. Can you show me anything of Christ that contradicts the OT? People like departing from Scripture, cuz that removes the standard and allows them to do what is right in their own eyes.

Isaiah 5:19?21 (ESV): 20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!

These verses describe your mindset. You call what is evil in the Bible good, and what is good evil. The Bible does not matter you are wise in your own eyes.

And there it is. You attribute "the Bible" as the source. Sorry, "the Bible" is nowhere in the text, much less the canon you adhere to. So it seems this passage of the Scripture isn't "good enough" for you so you have to add your own context to it.

I also notice how you neglected to add the next two verses:

Woe to men mighty at drinking wine,
Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink,
23 Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away justice from the righteous man!
Anon1379 said:
Isaiah 5:24 (ESV):
...for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts,
and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

Curious how do you know the law of the Lord and the words of the Holy One if you don't use the Bible? How do you even know the God of the Bible is true if you reject his written word?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

To quote Reagan, "And there you go again." In Isaiah, the BIBLE HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN. You are applying universal context to a canon that wouldn't be even written until hundreds of years later. But then again, you've already established context doesn't matter to you, even though you hold others to accept YOUR relative application of text.
So where do you draw the line between what is wrong and right. Scripture tells me. Why is it wrong to let's say kill my neighbor or rob him? Because you feel like it's wrong? Or because you know God in His word says so.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

No, Scripture doesn't tell you; your interpretation thereof does.

I bet you are OK with killing your neighbor if he is a mass murderer and in jail. Or killing your poor neighbor by taking away his medical care because your taxes will go up. Or killing your immigrant neighbor child by sending him back to a murderous gangland or regime. Or killing your neighbor by going to war. Or killing the unborn because of our refusal to deal with climate issues today. Or maybe you use your hermeneutics to justify doing those things that bring about death to others.

Most Right-wing Evangelicals are FOR killing their neighbor if the neighbor's situation could potentially impact their own long-term safety, security or their current paycheck. And you wonder why I don't trust the Bible for drawing that line of demarcation for me? Simple: ethics; i.e., not overstepping into another's autonomy.

Besides, if you have to have a Bible tell you murdering somebody is wrong and you shouldn't do it and that the Bible is what is keeping you from committing murder, then you have some serious issues...
 
Smellin Coffee said:
That is another part to religious domination which the Pharisees sought, not only over the lost sheep of Israel, but other religious groups as well such as the Sadducees.

?Domination?, oppression, tyranny and a host of other poor leadership qualities doesn?t nullify the proper interpretation and execution of ANY given philosophy, ethical, or moral system.  A clear reason for Jesus rebuke to those in power was that they were carrying out their beliefs in a way contrary to His teachings, AND they did so with an attitude of self-righteous pride.  Evangelicals as a group should not be characterized as folk who fit your broad brush, at least not any more than any other significantly large ?Christian? group.

Smellin Coffee said:
Who says it is wrong to have these kinds of conversations? Where it goes wrong is where you tell them "they ARE violating the will of God" when that entire premise is based on a personal belief or faith and not on fact, without their understanding your context. So in you attempt to help them, to push them beyond an option to think about, I believe (yes, my opinion) it would be bringing harm in demanding they are being forced to be conformed to your religious bias, even if/when that bias is correct.

But yes, determining what constitutes harm is relative. But a good rule of thumb is when someone says they are being harmed, believe them. 

Feeling harmed or vicitimized ought to be substantiated by facts of what causes the ?harm?.  Merely pointing out somebody?s errors (logical or moral) should not ordinarily constitute a legitimate basis for a person to express a feeling of ?harm?.

Smellin Coffee said:
Tell that to the slaves. Tell that to Black Christians all around this country. "Baptists" are fractured. I highly doubt white Baptists agree much with Black Missionary Baptists. There maybe some Baptists that have done such championing but hardly the White Evangelical Baptists (historically).

<In my best Ronnie Reagan voice?.with no intent to *harm* you or anyone reading :D> ?There you go again?.  The misappropriation of ethical teachings is an invalid rationale to overthrow the philosophical framework altogether.  Put another way analogously, simply because the Roman Catholics conducted the crusades is no legitimate basis to deny the reality of the command of Christ to love our neighbors.  Some professors of Christ are fake, some are misguided, but that doesn't make their profession the epitome of the belief system they claim to represent.

Smellin Coffee said:
Why did you move from my condemnation (i.e. criticism) to Jesus' condemnation (eternal damnation)? Was moving the goalposts an attempt to obfuscate or manipulate the conversation toward another direction?

No moving goalposts intended.  You were referencing the idea that people shouldn?t pigeon-hole other folk into their own particular ?religious? sect.  I was pointing out that Jesus was an exclusivist who said that unbelief in One way will condemn you.  Sounds pretty judgmental to me (at least by postmodern relativistic moral dogma). 
Smellin Coffee said:
I personally DO believe it is within the worldview. It really became obvious in the last election when Christians found their champion to help them achieve political power. It has moved beyond church walls, past communities and even shores to figurative palaces and literal courtrooms. And the idea is to bring eventual conformity to a singular religious practice, which is in opposition of religious/soul liberty.

I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy. The only problem is those of us that carry the disease and spread it, don't even realize we are infected, much less contagious.

Jesus authorized the legitimacy of the rule and role of government to carry out His will, so the participation in the realms of our republic is a legitimate expression of carrying out that ?ministry?.  I don?t have white guilt over what my great-great-great-grandfather?s did.  I try to abide by MLK jr?s ideal of judging a man by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin, without special privilege merely because you are born a certain way.  No contagion to be quarantined here. And if you deny that Baptists pioneered the concept of soul liberty in our colonialization of America then I think you are being intentionally ignorant of the facts of written history.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
<snip>

Since Western Christianity is rooted in racism in this country, it is a simple conclusion to assume "I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy."

I would just like to point out that your broad brush completely ignores those who opposed the racial motivations of the times. The very reason that there is a group known as the "southern" baptists is because of the rejection of their positions regarding race by other baptist groups. 

BTW your theory about motivation for modern mission work goes directly against your point about the laws of Virginia. Why would white people be motivated to introduce "people of color" to Jesus if their foundational belief is that those they are trying to reach are not worthy of being part of the family they are being invited to join?
 
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
<snip>

Since Western Christianity is rooted in racism in this country, it is a simple conclusion to assume "I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy."

I would just like to point out that your broad brush completely ignores those who opposed the racial motivations of the times. The very reason that there is a group known as the "southern" baptists is because of the rejection of their positions regarding race by other baptist groups. 

There is broad brush in my thinking, sure, but not to brush ALL into that picture. I believe that racism is the norm and the motivation behind Western Evangelical theology. That doesn't mean everyone who believes, practices or teaches that theology is racist. I would say our justice system is also racist at its roots, along with capitalism itself.


subllibrm said:
BTW your theory about motivation for modern mission work goes directly against your point about the laws of Virginia. Why would white people be motivated to introduce "people of color" to Jesus if their foundational belief is that those they are trying to reach are not worthy of being part of the family they are being invited to join?

That's a good point. Where I think the difference is, white Virginia had the ability to "whiten" slaves, forcing them into their white churches and disallowing Black theology (which actually grew out of slavery in spite of being forced otherwise). Exporting Western theology tries to "civilize the heathen". I witnessed it first hand in the Hammond bus ministry, going into specifically Black and Hispanic areas "to convert" and bring to "white church" (yes, there was a sub-congregation that was Hispanic). The goal was to remove them from their "urban chaos" by forcing our religious belief system, making them nothing more than prey for our hunt.
 
ALAYMAN said:
And if you deny that Baptists pioneered the concept of soul liberty in our colonialization of America then I think you are being intentionally ignorant of the facts of written history.

So what did they do when it came to Native Americans and the genocide perpetrated by Christians? Where was the outrage recorded on the historical pages? How about constant condemnation of the KKK? Where are they now championing in fixing our racist justice system? I don't recall white Baptist preachers interviewed on the newscasts to defend the message of BLM.

Where are they on allowing women and open gay folks behind the pulpit?

"Soul liberty" is only a theoretical, theological construct. (In general.) It is "liberty" only within accepted boundaries by that particular religious peer group.

Me on Facebook: "My son got his driver's license! He now has the liberty to go anywhere he wants!"

Me to my son: "You now have your driver's license. You can only operate your vehicle in our subdivision. You have liberty but only within this neighborhood. You may not have liberty to go elsewhere."


In essence, my son does NOT have the liberty I publicly claim if I restrict to a confined geography and he has no choice to go outside my personal perimeter. So "soul liberty" is only when confined within a certain sect of Christianity. So no, I don't see how Baptist even practice "soul liberty" in their churches. I'm sure some do, but not in the ones to which I have been exposed for sure.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
subllibrm said:
Smellin Coffee said:
<snip>

Since Western Christianity is rooted in racism in this country, it is a simple conclusion to assume "I believe most (not all) Western missionary work is about colonization of white supremacy."

I would just like to point out that your broad brush completely ignores those who opposed the racial motivations of the times. The very reason that there is a group known as the "southern" baptists is because of the rejection of their positions regarding race by other baptist groups. 

There is broad brush in my thinking, sure, but not to brush ALL into that picture. I believe that racism is the norm and the motivation behind Western Evangelical theology. That doesn't mean everyone who believes, practices or teaches that theology is racist. I would say our justice system is also racist at its roots, along with capitalism itself.


subllibrm said:
BTW your theory about motivation for modern mission work goes directly against your point about the laws of Virginia. Why would white people be motivated to introduce "people of color" to Jesus if their foundational belief is that those they are trying to reach are not worthy of being part of the family they are being invited to join?

That's a good point. Where I think the difference is, white Virginia had the ability to "whiten" slaves, forcing them into their white churches and disallowing Black theology (which actually grew out of slavery in spite of being forced otherwise). Exporting Western theology tries to "civilize the heathen". I witnessed it first hand in the Hammond bus ministry, going into specifically Black and Hispanic areas "to convert" and bring to "white church" (yes, there was a sub-congregation that was Hispanic). The goal was to remove them from their "urban chaos" by forcing our religious belief system, making them nothing more than prey for our hunt.

Sub, in researching historical context about racism in the church today, I recommend reading "The Color of Compromise: The Truth about the American Church's Complicity in Racism" by Jemar Tisby (who has his MDIV from Reformed Theological Seminary).

https://www.thecolorofcompromise.com/

The Color of Compromise is not a call to shame or a platform to blame white evangelical Christians. It is a call from a place of love and desire to fight for a more racially unified church that no longer compromises what the Bible teaches about human dignity and equality.

*side note: In it, you will see the reference to the Virginia Assembly I mentioned in a previous post. :)
 
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
And if you deny that Baptists pioneered the concept of soul liberty in our colonialization of America then I think you are being intentionally ignorant of the facts of written history.

So what did they do when it came to Native Americans and the genocide perpetrated by Christians? Where was the outrage recorded on the historical pages? How about constant condemnation of the KKK? Where are they now championing in fixing our racist justice system? I don't recall white Baptist preachers interviewed on the newscasts to defend the message of BLM.

Where are they on allowing women and open gay folks behind the pulpit?

"Soul liberty" is only a theoretical, theological construct. (In general.) It is "liberty" only within accepted boundaries by that particular religious peer group.

Me on Facebook: "My son got his driver's license! He now has the liberty to go anywhere he wants!"

Me to my son: "You now have your driver's license. You can only operate your vehicle in our subdivision. You have liberty but only within this neighborhood. You may not have liberty to go elsewhere."


In essence, my son does NOT have the liberty I publicly claim if I restrict to a confined geography and he has no choice to go outside my personal perimeter. So "soul liberty" is only when confined within a certain sect of Christianity. So no, I don't see how Baptist even practice "soul liberty" in their churches. I'm sure some do, but not in the ones to which I have been exposed for sure.

It sounds like you want Baptists everywhere to take up your cause(s).  Evangelicals, by nature, are more concerned with spending their time, well, erm, uh, evangelizing, than taking up social/political causes (though history gives us examples of "Christians" and Baptists who likewise do rally to the afore-mentioned causes), though maybe not to the degree of your expectations.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
And if you deny that Baptists pioneered the concept of soul liberty in our colonialization of America then I think you are being intentionally ignorant of the facts of written history.

So what did they do when it came to Native Americans and the genocide perpetrated by Christians? Where was the outrage recorded on the historical pages? How about constant condemnation of the KKK? Where are they now championing in fixing our racist justice system? I don't recall white Baptist preachers interviewed on the newscasts to defend the message of BLM.

Where are they on allowing women and open gay folks behind the pulpit?

"Soul liberty" is only a theoretical, theological construct. (In general.) It is "liberty" only within accepted boundaries by that particular religious peer group.

Me on Facebook: "My son got his driver's license! He now has the liberty to go anywhere he wants!"

Me to my son: "You now have your driver's license. You can only operate your vehicle in our subdivision. You have liberty but only within this neighborhood. You may not have liberty to go elsewhere."


In essence, my son does NOT have the liberty I publicly claim if I restrict to a confined geography and he has no choice to go outside my personal perimeter. So "soul liberty" is only when confined within a certain sect of Christianity. So no, I don't see how Baptist even practice "soul liberty" in their churches. I'm sure some do, but not in the ones to which I have been exposed for sure.

It sounds like you want Baptists everywhere to take up your cause(s).  Evangelicals, by nature, are more concerned with spending their time, well, erm, uh, evangelizing, than taking up social/political causes (though history gives us examples of "Christians" and Baptists who likewise do rally to the afore-mentioned causes), though maybe not to the degree of your expectations.

So the Baptist model is that to treat the cancer, they are passing out band-aids and first-aid kits.

Yes, there have been Christian influences against racism going back to Wilberforce and before him, John Newton. No denial some Christians have taken that stance and even have been ridiculed by the church itself. But when the Christian faith is so appealing to the KKK that they claim to have the same faith principles, that besmirches the reputation of what the Christian faith is all about. Christianity should be so appalling to the KKK, they should not want anything to do with the Christian church.

Spreading "the good news" is not the same as being "the good news" to the oppressed. IMHO.
 
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
Smellin Coffee said:
ALAYMAN said:
And if you deny that Baptists pioneered the concept of soul liberty in our colonialization of America then I think you are being intentionally ignorant of the facts of written history.

So what did they do when it came to Native Americans and the genocide perpetrated by Christians? Where was the outrage recorded on the historical pages? How about constant condemnation of the KKK? Where are they now championing in fixing our racist justice system? I don't recall white Baptist preachers interviewed on the newscasts to defend the message of BLM.

Where are they on allowing women and open gay folks behind the pulpit?

"Soul liberty" is only a theoretical, theological construct. (In general.) It is "liberty" only within accepted boundaries by that particular religious peer group.

Me on Facebook: "My son got his driver's license! He now has the liberty to go anywhere he wants!"

Me to my son: "You now have your driver's license. You can only operate your vehicle in our subdivision. You have liberty but only within this neighborhood. You may not have liberty to go elsewhere."


In essence, my son does NOT have the liberty I publicly claim if I restrict to a confined geography and he has no choice to go outside my personal perimeter. So "soul liberty" is only when confined within a certain sect of Christianity. So no, I don't see how Baptist even practice "soul liberty" in their churches. I'm sure some do, but not in the ones to which I have been exposed for sure.

It sounds like you want Baptists everywhere to take up your cause(s).  Evangelicals, by nature, are more concerned with spending their time, well, erm, uh, evangelizing, than taking up social/political causes (though history gives us examples of "Christians" and Baptists who likewise do rally to the afore-mentioned causes), though maybe not to the degree of your expectations.

So the Baptist model is that to treat the cancer, they are passing out band-aids and first-aid kits.

Yes, there have been Christian influences against racism going back to Wilberforce and before him, John Newton. No denial some Christians have taken that stance and even have been ridiculed by the church itself. But when the Christian faith is so appealing to the KKK that they claim to have the same faith principles, that besmirches the reputation of what the Christian faith is all about. Christianity should be so appalling to the KKK, they should not want anything to do with the Christian church.

Spreading "the good news" is not the same as being "the good news" to the oppressed. IMHO.

non-sequitur

The Mormons use the King James Version.  I don't believe I am going to be a god of any celestial body, EVER. 


The man who is largely given the credit for founding the colonial Baptist experience actually, per the soul competency doctrine, fought for Native American rights to their land, and avoided forced conversions.  That is the mold of Baptist pioneering on the subject I follow.
 
Top