Racism in America - How should we address it?

[otseng]

George Floyds Murder Shows Once More That We Cannot Wait For White America to End Racism

George Floyd was murdered, and it was captured on camera. Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin had his knee pinned against Floyds neck for close to eight minutes. We heard a haunting repetition of the words "I cant breathe." Floyd cried out for his deceased mother and called out for his children as he desperately clung to life. Chauvin sat there, smug, hand in his pocket, with little regard for the man dying underneath the pressure of his knee. All of this over someone allegedly trying to use a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill at a local deli.

For debate:
- How should we address the racism in America?

[Elijah John]

Does anything in the Post article justify the beatings, arson and looting by Black Lives Matter, Antifa and their affiliates?

Nothing justifies doing illegal things. Yes, it was wrong for the police to strangle to death Floyd. Yes, it's wrong for people to arson and loot.

Isn't there an immediate need to put a stop to anarchy right now?

Shoot rubber bullets? Use tear gas? Implement martial law? These would only compound the problem.

Even some stores are not really demanding an end to the looting or prosecuting them (which is good and bad). Of course, stores are closing and boarding up windows, but this is not really going to stop the looters.

Then how do you think we should stop them?

Are you suggesting society allow looters (thieves and vandals is what they are) destroy what law-abiding citizens worked so hard to build all their life? What is "good" about allowing looters to take things they didn't earn (thou shalt not steal) and destroy the business in the process? And sometimes savagely beat anyone who tries to stop them? What gives them the "privilege" to do this?

What is your solution to put an immediate stop to the vandalism, which is sometimes committed with unspeakable violence? One man was beaten almost to death (I don't know if he survived) because he was about to call the police to stop the looters who were about to trash his friend's store.

When can a case ever be made for the police to use force, sometimes deadly, against violent thugs who beat people in the streets and destroy property? Remember, businesses are not simply material things, they are people's actual livelihoods.

Liberal polticians who allow their cities to be destroyed by violent thugs are like weak parents who let their children throw tantrums in public. Only worse, usually the weak parent will draw the line at destruction.

Black Lives Matter is now advocating defunding the police. Defunding really means abolishing, doesn't it?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/

If they succeed, (and God forbid they do) then what would they do to keep law and order? Or would they?

[koko]

I have never seen blacks call God a racist. Ditto for Antifa. Let us see probative examples to justify this claim.

That's because blacks and people like you teach a PC Christianity. Just tell them God blessed the white people in Christianizing Europe when Paul wanted to go to Asia. (Acts 16:6-10)And point out how Africa is from Noah's son Ham, who received no blessing and a curse. Point out that Europe is from Noah's son Japheth, who received blessing from God along with Shem. (Gen. 9:24-29)

Don't forget how God chose the Jews over all other peoples. So much for 'equality'. And lest I forget, tell them about how God institutionalized slavery.

So, what do you think about these truths I just gave you? Do you believe God did these?

Quantrill

You failed to answer my question.

I'll repeat: where is you proof that black called God a racist?

[William]

Does anything in the Post article justify the beatings, arson and looting by Black Lives Matter, Antifa and their affiliates?

Nothing justifies doing illegal things. Yes, it was wrong for the police to strangle to death Floyd. Yes, it's wrong for people to arson and loot.

Isn't there an immediate need to put a stop to anarchy right now?

Shoot rubber bullets? Use tear gas? Implement martial law? These would only compound the problem.

Even some stores are not really demanding an end to the looting or prosecuting them (which is good and bad). Of course, stores are closing and boarding up windows, but this is not really going to stop the looters.

Then how do you think we should stop them?

Are you suggesting society allow looters (thieves and vandals is what they are) destroy what law-abiding citizens worked so hard to build all their life? What is "good" about allowing looters to take things they didn't earn (thou shalt not steal) and destroy the business in the process? And sometimes savagely beat anyone who tries to stop them? What gives them the "privilege" to do this?

What is your solution to put an immediate stop to the vandalism, which is sometimes committed with unspeakable violence? One man was beaten almost to death (I don't know if he survived) because he was about to call the police to stop the looters who were about to trash his friend's store.

When can a case ever be made for the police to use force, sometimes deadly, against violent thugs who beat people in the streets and destroy property? Remember, businesses are not simply material things, they are people's actual livelihoods.

Liberal polticians who allow their cities to be destroyed by violent thugs are like weak parents who let their children throw tantrums in public. Only worse, usually the weak parent will draw the line at destruction.

Black Lives Matter is now advocating defunding the police. Defunding really means abolishing, doesn't it?

https://blacklivesmatter.com/defundthepolice/

If they succeed, (and God forbid they do) then what would they do to keep law and order? Or would they?

The whole problem is one of ownership and disparity. Those things you mention are not a cause but a symptom.

Remove the cause [disparity] and you remove all symptoms of said cause [disparity].

It is difficult for for any who believe in the biblical idea of God, to come to terms with this way of thinking, because ownership is written directly into the highest laws which are said to derive from said God.
While they may have proved adequate in another time and place, they need to be changed to adapt to present times.

Indeed, taking into account what we are told Jesus said regarding these laws, the first two are the only ones which actually matter, so theoretically we can have a system of Parity and still keep them all, even if ownership eventually becomes a thing of the past.

I created a video briefly outlining an idea of a System of Parity. As long as we use religion or culture or politics or science to argue for disparity, we will continue - as a species - down the path to destruction.

[koko]

otseng,

Shoot rubber bullets? Use tear gas? Implement martial law? These would only compound the problem.

Police shoot disabled man:





They physically attack another old man and pretend he tripped:





Police use car to plow into crowd and cause injury:


https://tinyurl.com/y9zqv7gl


None of these vicious acts of violence were justified in any way.


For years right wingers have been touting Second Amendment rights as a means to avert government tyranny. Strangely they are silent now in view of these government attacks on the citizenry. This is hypocrisy of the worse order.

[Quantrill]

You failed to answer my question.

I'll repeat: where is you proof that black called God a racist?

No I didn't. Reread. You failed to answer my question.

Quantrill

[emilynghiem]

Dear Quantrill
I have found Muslims and even Atheists who, because they did not reject Jesus,
but agreed to follow Scripture and receive Children of God,
operate as equal neighbors in Christ although not identifying as Christian literally.

Do you see "secular gentiles" who agree with and reconcile with Christians
but may not adopt Jesus and the laws directly
as Neighbors in Christ?

That is what I call "secular gentiles" who live by Natural Laws and believe
in Peace and Justice, or Restorative Justice, but may not call this "Jesus."

Would you accept to treat such people as Neighbors in Christ
who believe that Jesus means JUSTICE and believe in that principle
as Secular Gentiles following Natural Laws governed by Jesus as "Authority of Justice"?

Had you only asked me if I could be 'neighbor' to a Muslim or Atheist, the answer is yes, to the best of my ability. But you have included so many oxymorons and descriptions that it is impossible to answer.

You say, 'Muslims and Atheist's who do not reject Jesus'. But, they do reject Jesus.
You say, 'Muslims and Atheist's who agree to follow Scripture'. But they don't agree to follow Scripture.
You say, 'Muslims and Atheist's who agree to receive the children of God'. What does this mean?
You say, these 'Muslims and Atheists operate as equal neighbors in Christ'. Each can be a neighbor, but each is not in Christ.

As I said, I can be a 'neighbor' to any. But my being a 'neighbor' doesn't include them as Christian. Why should it need to?

As far as 'natural laws, peace, and justice', I don't call them Jesus either.

As I have said, I can be neighbor to any. But I do not treat them as 'in Christ' as they are not 'in Christ'. They can believe as they wish, but they would not be 'in Christ'.

I do not say these things to 'offend'. Yet I have learned these things are offensive to many. But I cannot deny my faith in Christ and the Bible.

Quantrill

Thank you Quantrill for your response and clarifications.
A. So you don't know any Muslims, Atheists etc. who
accept Jesus, agree to follow Scripture, etc.
but your understanding of these is that they reject Jesus and don't follow Scripture.

B. as for receiving children of God
What I mean by this are neighbors that don't reject Christians
but are able to work with you and other believers and children of God
without conflict or rejection.

The reason I ask this is there are different steps to receiving God through Jesus
1. First is receiving a child or witness who comes in the name of Jesus
And Jesus explains whoever receives such a child also receives him
2. Second is receiving Jesus and agreeing to live by the laws, embracing
these in our hearts by receiving Jesus who fulfills these laws
And Jesus explains whoever receives the Son receives the Father who sent Him
3. Last whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

My understanding is a lot of these "secular gentiles" (including Atheists, Buddhists
as well as Muslims who are not politically religious but follow the Bible like nontheists do,
and Jehovah's Witness types who follow the Bible but don't see Jesus as divine like God)
receive Jesus "indirectly" and more tenuously by receiving a CHILD OF GOD.
This isn't the same as receiving Jesus directly and becoming a believer.

Some of my friends who started off at stage 1 move to become believers directly receiving Jesus
and actively working on their relationship with God.

Some of my friends do not, but remain at step 1 where just interacting
with believers is the extent of their understanding and relationship.

I cannot control if someone moves to step 2 or 3 or not.
What I can work on is making sure we work through step 1,
where agreeing to work in relationship with each other,
then we can agree to have Jesus govern that relationship.

For secular gentiles, just this first step is plenty of work.
I find that the same issues of "forgiveness and unforgivness"
as necessary to reconcile with God through Christ Jesus for step 2,
these issues ALSO come up just trying to work together on step 1!

Whatever people cannot forgive will cause rejection,
so it's better to start with step 1 in addressing these BARRIERS
causing rejection. Work that out first, then it makes it easier
to work on the other steps of understanding Jesus
and understanding God.

Do you find this same difference, with rejection of you?
Do you find that people who are FORGIVING are more able to accept you.
And those who are UNFORGIVING more likely to reject you.

[Elijah John]

otseng,

Shoot rubber bullets? Use tear gas? Implement martial law? These would only compound the problem.

Police shoot disabled maThey physically attack another old man and pretend he tripped:




Police use car to plow into crowd and cause injury:


None of these vicious acts of violence were justified in any way.


For years right wingers have been touting Second Amendment rights as a means to avert government tyranny. Strangely they are silent now in view of these government attacks on the citizenry. This is hypocrisy of the worse order.

You really want to go down this road? Comparing isolated instances of violence by police to deliberate acts of arson, violent looting etc by the likes of BLM and Antifa? Really??

Citing police misteps in a vacuum conveniently ignoring the larger context of police at these "peaceful protests" getting pelted by bricks, bottles filled with cement, shot at, and stabbed, AND run over by SUVs?

It's war out there, and sometimes there's unintended causalties when police try to save more lives and businesses. Whose side are you on? The forces of chaos? Or the forces of law and order. Don't forget, the side of law and order includes justice for George Floyd, who's killers have already been charged, under the legal system!

What do you think the mob would do to those 4 killers? Give them due process? I doubt it.

[koko]

You really want to go down this road? Comparing isolated instances of violence by police to deliberate acts of arson, violent looting etc by the likes of BLM and Antifa? Really??

Citing police misteps in a vacuum conveniently ignoring the larger context of police at these "peaceful protests" getting pelted by bricks, bottles filled with cement, shot at, and stabbed, AND run over by SUVs?

It's war out there, and sometimes there's unintended causalties when police try to save more lives and businesses. Whose side are you on? The forces of chaos? Or the forces of law and order. Don't forget, the side of law and order includes justice for George Floyd, who's killers have already been charged, under the legal system!

What do you think the mob would do to those 4 killers? Give them due process? I doubt it.

There is no proof BLM or Antifa committed any of the violence. On the contrary, links I have previously supplied indicate violence has been committed by police agent provocateurs, some white supremacists, and unorganized rabble.

None of the urban violence we have seen would have taken place if the police had not murdered George Floyd in cold blood. Furthermore, the anger and frustration people feel against criminal police has been going on for ages since those corrupt cops have been killing and abusing people all that time. And don't forget as Frank Serpico said nearly 50 years ago, we would not have massive drug trades (drugs which kill people by the thousands) if police did not control and spread drugs for their selfish profits. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, police are responsible for an on going racialist holocaust in the urban centers. While the violence we have seen in the recent news is abhorrent, it is pale in comparison to the holocaust created by the police.

Due process to those 4 cops? The Christian Bible says a life for a life. It's time to apply this Divine law so that we may have justice and a more peaceful society.

[Quantrill]

Thank you Quantrill for your response and clarifications.
A. So you don't know any Muslims, Atheists etc. who
accept Jesus, agree to follow Scripture, etc.
but your understanding of these is that they reject Jesus and don't follow Scripture.

B. as for receiving children of God
What I mean by this are neighbors that don't reject Christians
but are able to work with you and other believers and children of God
without conflict or rejection.

The reason I ask this is there are different steps to receiving God through Jesus
1. First is receiving a child or witness who comes in the name of Jesus
And Jesus explains whoever receives such a child also receives him
2. Second is receiving Jesus and agreeing to live by the laws, embracing
these in our hearts by receiving Jesus who fulfills these laws
And Jesus explains whoever receives the Son receives the Father who sent Him
3. Last whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

My understanding is a lot of these "secular gentiles" (including Atheists, Buddhists
as well as Muslims who are not politically religious but follow the Bible like nontheists do,
and Jehovah's Witness types who follow the Bible but don't see Jesus as divine like God)
receive Jesus "indirectly" and more tenuously by receiving a CHILD OF GOD.
This isn't the same as receiving Jesus directly and becoming a believer.

Some of my friends who started off at stage 1 move to become believers directly receiving Jesus
and actively working on their relationship with God.

Some of my friends do not, but remain at step 1 where just interacting
with believers is the extent of their understanding and relationship.

I cannot control if someone moves to step 2 or 3 or not.
What I can work on is making sure we work through step 1,
where agreeing to work in relationship with each other,
then we can agree to have Jesus govern that relationship.

For secular gentiles, just this first step is plenty of work.
I find that the same issues of "forgiveness and unforgivness"
as necessary to reconcile with God through Christ Jesus for step 2,
these issues ALSO come up just trying to work together on step 1!

Whatever people cannot forgive will cause rejection,
so it's better to start with step 1 in addressing these BARRIERS
causing rejection. Work that out first, then it makes it easier
to work on the other steps of understanding Jesus
and understanding God.

Do you find this same difference, with rejection of you?
Do you find that people who are FORGIVING are more able to accept you.
And those who are UNFORGIVING more likely to reject you.

You're quite welcome.

Yes, I am saying the Muslim and Atheist rejects Jesus and the Scripture. I know the Muslim will speak well of Jesus, but that is Jesus of the Koran. Not the Bible. And, they are not the same. Much can be said about this but for the moment I will just say the identity of Who Jesus Christ is now becomes the key question. Thus Jesus asked the disciples the questions, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matt. 16:13) "But whom say ye that I am?" (Matt. 16:15) And salvation will hinge on the answer to this question. Peter gives that answer. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". (Matt. 16:16)

When you say 'neighbors who don't reject Jesus' I think we are not saying the same thing. I am saying to not attribute what Peter has said in (Matt. 16:16), is rejecting Jesus. In other words, if they see Jesus just as a good teacher of morals and right living, then they have rejected Jesus. Of course I can live as a neighbor to them, peaceably, if they are willing also. But it doesn't make them, 'in Christ'.

I disagree with your 'steps of salvation'. Concerning the children coming to Christ, this involved believers. The disciples were arguing about who was the greatest in the Kingdom. The children were already in the Kingdom. But, they would be there because they had child-like faith. (Matt. 18:1-6) To receive the Son, means to believe as Peter said. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

I believe this 'indirect faith in Christ' you speak of doesn't accomplish what you think it does. If anything, it becomes a stumbling block to the direct faith in Christ. It acts as an antidote does to a disease. Gives one just enough to make them immune to the real thing. Of course I can still live peaceably and as a neighbor, but I would never make them believe that their view of Christ is acceptable.

Concerning anyone's rejection of me, and the forgiveness and unforgiveness you speak of, I attribute all of that to Jesus Christ. In other words, their rejection is not of me, but of Jesus Christ. (Luke 10:16) To identify with Christ today, is to identify with Him in His rejection. And Jesus now warned the disciples, due to the rejection of Himself by Israel, that He was now headed to the Cross. (Matt. 16:21) And to identify with Him now means you will identify with One who will be counted as a common criminal. (Matt. 16:24-25)

Quantrill

[Elijah John]

You really want to go down this road? Comparing isolated instances of violence by police to deliberate acts of arson, violent looting etc by the likes of BLM and Antifa? Really??

Citing police misteps in a vacuum conveniently ignoring the larger context of police at these "peaceful protests" getting pelted by bricks, bottles filled with cement, shot at, and stabbed, AND run over by SUVs?

It's war out there, and sometimes there's unintended causalties when police try to save more lives and businesses. Whose side are you on? The forces of chaos? Or the forces of law and order. Don't forget, the side of law and order includes justice for George Floyd, who's killers have already been charged, under the legal system!

What do you think the mob would do to those 4 killers? Give them due process? I doubt it.

There is no proof BLM or Antifa committed any of the violence. On the contrary, links I have previously supplied indicate violence has been committed by police agent provocateurs, some white supremacists, and unorganized rabble.

None of the urban violence we have seen would have taken place if the police had not murdered George Floyd in cold blood. Furthermore, the anger and frustration people feel against criminal police has been going on for ages since those corrupt cops have been killing and abusing people all that time. And don't forget as Frank Serpico said nearly 50 years ago, we would not have massive drug trades (drugs which kill people by the thousands) if police did not control and spread drugs for their selfish profits. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, police are responsible for an on going racialist holocaust in the urban centers. While the violence we have seen in the recent news is abhorrent, it is pale in comparison to the holocaust created by the police.

Due process to those 4 cops? The Christian Bible says a life for a life. It's time to apply this Divine law so that we may have justice and a more peaceful society.

You really trust the BLM and Antifa mob more than the police? Who do you suppose did all the looting, who would you call if it happened to you? Your local community organizer? A social worker? Your local gang leader?

Why do you think Antifa wears black ski-masks during their violent protests? What are they hiding? (this is before the pandemic, when it is now fashionable and often required to wear masks)

I saw footage of the looting. It was not committed by the men and women in blue. It was committed by black youth, with very few exceptions. What gives them the right? Who do they think they are?

Why is the Justice department now taking action against Antifa? Because they are choir boys?

By the way, criminal as they may be, I see no evidence at all that "white supremacists" are causing the trouble at protests. Only your unfounded charges and those on CNN. No evidence. The Left has an amazing propensity to shift the blame, and evade responsibility. And the inflammatory rhetoric on CNN, MSNBC and weak liberal politicians are a major part of the problem.

One NYC councilmen Levine said that if we now see a spike in Covid 19, don't blame the protests, blame racism. Amazing propensity to evade and shift responsibility. Wow, great science, "racism" causes the Coronavirus. Who knew!