What do White Evangelicals owe liberal blacks?

[lilpixieofterror]

Your inability to understand the idea that two people being charged differently for the same crime because of their race being injustice is criminal.

So you have hard evidence that a white guy caught with crack is being charged with a lighter sentence than a black guy being caught with crack? As it has been pointed out, it was black leaders in congress and at the state level that pushed for harsher sentences associated with crack and these black leaders were driven by other blacks, in the community, to push for these laws. Congress and the states merely listened to what black leaders had told them and followed their lead. Can you please explaining how following the advice and will of black leaders and communities is now racist?

[Psychic Missile]

So you have hard evidence that a white guy caught with crack is being charged with a lighter sentence than a black guy being caught with crack? As it has been pointed out, it was black leaders in congress and at the state level that pushed for harsher sentences associated with crack and these black leaders were driven by other blacks, in the community, to push for these laws. Congress and the states merely listened to what black leaders had told them and followed their lead. Can you please explaining how following the advice and will of black leaders and communities is now racist?

LPoT, I do not wish to debate anything with you.

[seer]

If that additional crime is the fault of the person being charged, it would be a separate charge. If it's not their fault, then they are being sentenced for a crime they didn't commit. Either way, that's how the law works.

No PM, there was an across the board rise in crime, due to increased crack use. They were just trying to stem the the violence and crime. Actually to make inner city neighborhoods safer. It may have been wrongheaded but it was not racist. Anyway, you still have not made a compelling case for systematic government racism.

[Sparko]

Your inability to understand the idea that two people being charged differently for the same crime because of their race being injustice is criminal.

Sorry, but a white guy and a black guy will be charged the same for the same crime of selling Crack. You are upset because there are more black crackheads than white crackheads. Well then the solution is to stop blacks from becoming crackheads.

[Psychic Missile]

No PM, there was an across the board rise in crime, due to increased crack use. They were just trying to stem the the violence and crime. Actually to make inner city neighborhoods safer. It may have been wrongheaded but it was not racist. Anyway, you still have not made a compelling case for systematic government racism.

You're advocating increased sentencing to punish people for crimes other people committed. Doesn't that seem wrong to you? And as I said before, I am not making a case, just explaining a view.

[guacamole]

You cannot love someone from debt. That is merely lip service. When you have to love someone out of obligation, or debt, that merely breeds resentment, not love. Your quotes even back up what I said. Are you that desperate to defend your viewpoint that you will even twist scripture to try to rationalize it?

"8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."

That is using irony and hyberbole to say that you are to not be in debt, but you are to love each other. Love is not a debt. It is a blessing. It is a payment, both to the giver and the receiver. We should love others because God loves us. When he commands us to love one another, he means REALLY love, not just pretend love, out of some feeling of debt, but you don't really care about the person. When you do that, you are WORKING for your salvation. Thinking that you HAVE to do these "actions" to be saved. You help others out of selfishness, not love. You are worried about your own soul and not theirs. That is not love. That is debt.

I agree that it is metaphor--hyperbole, as you note, but I disagree that it is talking about love in some touchy-feely from the heart idea. I think the "owe" idea uses that financial metaphor to convey obligation--otherwise there are alternate metaphors to use that wouldn't carry an obligation that Paul does not want there; likewise with Paul calling himself "slave"--he could have used another metaphor that didn't carry the sense of obligation.

Furthermore, the NT develops the new commandment that "you love one another." Sometimes, when we love, we do it unhappily, crabbily, angrily, even--indeed, that is still love--Sometimes we do the right thing despite ourselves. It's expressed as a commandment precisely for those times. That's how I read Paul's exhortation to Philemon about Onesimus-- as if he's saying, "I could command you to do it, but I'm asking you to do it out of love." Nevertheless, the imperative remains above and beyond that. If the choice isn't given freely, then there is obligation lurking in the background. (cf. 1 John 4)

No. If we were in debt to God, then we would not be forgiven. When you forgive someone you don't keep them indebted to you. Paul is a willing slave. He WANTS to obey God, not because he has to, but because of love.

The volitional sense is captured in the decision to be slave. Once you've given yourself to your master, then it no longer is volitional. At that point we're getting into the question of if a person truly doesn't have love--that is if their lives do not fulfill the action implied in "They will know you are Christians by your love", can they even be said to be a disciple? No. The NT is clear on this. If you do not have love, you are violating a commandment. That's not fully volitional love.

Be clear, in every metaphor used to describe our relationship to God in the New Testament-- Master/slave, Father/son, Employer/employee, Ruler/subject, Teacher/student, Groom/bride, etc.-- the metaphor is teaching that when Christians surrender to God, then they enter into a relationship where He has real, objective authority over us, to command us and correct us, to impose obligation. You do not have to be in that relationship, but if you are in that relationship, a certain course of action is demanded. We are free from sin, but not free to sin (and here and elsewhere, I am not arguing a works-based salvation!). And if Love is a commandment, and we do not love, then we sin.

Yes, we WERE in debt. Our sin was our debt. Jesus paid the debt off. We are free of it. We have no debt. We "owe" him, But not as work, but out of gratitude, it is not a debt. It is nothing that if we don't pay it, we would lose salvation. Yes, it is metaphor. Jesus doesn't expect us to work off the debt he paid.

Logically it does not follow that if we have no debt to sin, that we likewise have no debt to anything or anyone else. In any case, then your statement here, if true about us to God is also true about what White Christians "owe" Christians of color: We "owe" them, but not as work, but out of gratitude.

It is like you dug yourself into a hole, and now you are too stubborn to climb out, Guac. Take my hand. Climb out.

You won't owe me a thing. :-)

I think you're working way too hard to justify that you have no obligation to black Christians. If anything, you're proving the point the article made in the OP.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Psychic Missile]

Sorry, but a white guy and a black guy will be charged the same for the same crime of selling Crack. You are upset because there are more black crackheads than white crackheads. Well then the solution is to stop blacks from becoming crackheads.

Sure, but in the meantime, it would have been better for legislators not to penalize one form of drug used primarily by black people more harshly than another form of that same drug used primarily by white people.

[Sparko]

I agree that it is metaphor--hyperbole, as you note, but I disagree that it is talking about love in some touchy-feely from the heart idea. I think the "owe" idea uses that financial metaphor to convey obligation--otherwise there are alternate metaphors to use that wouldn't carry an obligation that Paul does not want there; likewise with Paul calling himself "slave"--he could have used another metaphor that didn't carry the sense of obligation.

Furthermore, the NT develops the new commandment that "you love one another." Sometimes, when we love, we do it unhappily, crabbily, angrily, even--indeed, that is still love--Sometimes we do the right thing despite ourselves. It's expressed as a commandment precisely for those times. That's how I read Paul's exhortation to Philemon about Onesimus-- as if he's saying, "I could command you to do it, but I'm asking you to do it out of love." Nevertheless, the imperative remains above and beyond that. If the choice isn't given freely, then there is obligation lurking in the background. (cf. 1 John 4)



The volitional sense is captured in the decision to be slave. Once you've given yourself to your master, then it no longer is volitional. At that point we're getting into the question of if a person truly doesn't have love--that is if their lives do not fulfill the action implied in "They will know you are Christians by your love", can they even be said to be a disciple? No. The NT is clear on this. If you do not have love, you are violating a commandment. That's not fully volitional love.

Be clear, in every metaphor used to describe our relationship to God in the New Testament-- Master/slave, Father/son, Employer/employee, Ruler/subject, Teacher/student, Groom/bride, etc.-- the metaphor is teaching that when Christians surrender to God, then they enter into a relationship where He has real, objective authority over us, to command us and correct us, to impose obligation. You do not have to be in that relationship, but if you are in that relationship, a certain course of action is demanded. We are free from sin, but not free to sin (and here and elsewhere, I am not arguing a works-based salvation!). And if Love is a commandment, and we do not love, then we sin.



Logically it does not follow that if we have no debt to sin, that we likewise have no debt to anything or anyone else. In any case, then your statement here, if true about us to God is also true about what White Christians "owe" Christians of color: We "owe" them, but not as work, but out of gratitude.



I think you're working way too hard to justify that you have no obligation to black Christians. If anything, you're proving the point the article made in the OP.

fwiw,
guacamole

I am not talking "touchy feely" love. I am talking Agape and Plileo love.

I don't have any obligation to black christians, black non christians, or any one else because of them feeling bad about losing the election and Trump being President. THAT is what the article was claiming I had obligation for. YOU were the one ignoring all that and trying to claim the article is just arguing some generic type of obligation to black christians. Which I still disagree with. I don't OWE anyone a debt, I am obligated by the love of God to love my fellow man. But not to coddle them. Not to say "oh you poor poor black person, I am so sorry I voted for Trump and subjugated you to 4 years of horror" which is what the article is saying I should do in so many words. Stop ignoring what the article is talking about.

Nobody is arguing that Christians should care for their fellow man, no matter what color they are, when they are in actual NEED. Not some made up need.

[Sparko]

Sure, but in the meantime, it would have been better for legislators not to penalize one form of drug used primarily by black people more harshly than another form of that same drug used primarily by white people.

Why not? Crack is treated harsher than cocaine no matter what race is caught using or selling it. Because it causes more problems. Hash and Pot are basically the same drug, yet there are stronger penalties for having hash than pot. Because the effects on society and people are worse with hash. Crack is the freebase form of cocaine. It is much stronger and it causes a lot more violence among users. The law makers didn't just say "oh look, black people use crack more so let's make harsher penalties for it."

[lilpixieofterror]

LPoT, I do not wish to debate anything with you.

Of course not because you do not have the capacity to admit you were wrong. The bottom line is your 'example' is not an example of racism at all. You're just too pig headed and stubbron to admit to a mistake, just like all people focused on race and nothing else. Harsher sentences on crack were not pressed because whity wanted to punish black people, but were passed because blacks WANTED tougher sentence laws on crack dealers and users. This is all a matter of public record that you could have found it if you had spent 5 minutes researching your claims. You don't though because you don't care about truth. Run away coward and keep showing why nobody should take race baiters seriously.

[Psychic Missile]

Why not? Crack is treated harsher than cocaine no matter what race is caught using or selling it. Because it causes more problems. Hash and Pot are basically the same drug, yet there are stronger penalties for having hash than pot. Because the effects on society and people are worse with hash. Crack is the freebase form of cocaine. It is much stronger and it causes a lot more violence among users. The law makers didn't just say "oh look, black people use crack more so let's make harsher penalties for it."

You are advocating what is effectively charging someone for crimes other people might commit. Also, harsher sentencing doesn't prevent drug use. All it does is punish one group of people more than another group of people. Nothing of value is gained by that policy.

[KingsGambit]

The Bible seems to endorse the idea of corporate responsibility and corporate punishment, with the judgment of entire nations in total. So the idea that "I didn't do this so I'm exempt" doesn't fly with me. However, I am also unconvinced that it's white evangelicals that got Trump elected. They do not have the political power they think they do. Evangelicals as a whole seemed clearly uncomfortable with Trump in any event.

[Sparko]

You are advocating what is effectively charging someone for crimes other people might commit.

eh? No I am not. Each person is charged for the crime they commit. Whether they are black or white or green.

Also, harsher sentencing doesn't prevent drug use. All it does is punish one group of people more than another group of people. Nothing of value is gained by that policy.

So then argue for legalizing all drugs. That still doesn't show your original claim that harsher punishment for certain drugs is racist. That's just dumb.