Featured Show Me Diversity

I realized that when I visited my place of birth - East Boston

I saw a few Hispanic cultural things as we drove through and my daughter commented that East Boston had flipped from its decades old Italian culture to Puerto Rican. I am not easily shocked anymore but this rattled me.

No I dont think I am a racist (well not anymore than any one else) but how I wondered could this happen inside of the temporal boundaries of my life.

Later in my research I found that the Puerto Rican sector of Boston was involved with the New England drug cartel along with Dominicans and Mexicans.

So it seems a different MAFIA culture switch - except many of the old pizza and Italian sub sandwich shops remained.

Odd blending of cultures.

 

Consider the current political climate and the actual article posted. The timing of the event, the context of it, and the way it was presented in the cited article are all germane. They talk of leading the way, but it appears they are way behind. It looks for all the world like merely following the world. The world does not need "racial reconciliation"--it needs reconciliation with God.

 

It isn’t just whites, or even mainly whites, that are behind it. I won’t explain that further, but if you contemplate it a bit, I think you can figure out the underlying shades of meaning. You could also point out how crazy it is that the vast majority of blacks allow themselves to be bullied into voting as a bloc. Of course it isn’t just bullying but brainwashing, and, as you surely know, it works.

 

Unofficially already a minority. But even if it becomes official, don't expect any minority benefits.

 

I am 1/4 Jewish
(Yiddish Vet Helfin (will that help?) - וועט העלפן

 

I really don't think it's necessary to get so far into the weeds with what MO Baptist did. Any racial reconciliation will come from the unity found in the cause of Christ. That was clearly their message. There is no hidden liberal secular agenda.

Again, this was sound, biblical Christian reasoning to reconcile with your brother (Christian) so that your worship of God will not be hindered.

We don't have to find fault or see secular forces at work in everything we do. Otherwise, we become paralyzed with suspicion and critical of what we perceive to be other Christian's motives.

 

Secular forces?
1 John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one.

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

 

How are the MO Baptists efforts to find unity in Christ part of "false prophets" or "ravenous wolves"?

 

No doubt they think they are doing right. But their Resolution No. #8 is clearly political in nature. The wording is racially charged and inaccurate according to what I have been able to find. Do you have access to that Missouri Supreme Court decision of March 22, 1852? Does it deny that Dred is a person?

 

I cant know that without the ability to read their hearts and minds.

We are however warned to be cautious in any case.

2 Corinthians 11
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

I am not saying that is the case with these men HOWEVER we have enough warnings to be CAUTIOUS.
And commendations as well:

Revelation 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars

Again CAUTION. I personally would question them as to their position concerning LBGTQ before I would endeavor to work with them.

All social groups need salvation but there is the doctrine of separation from evil and compromise when it comes to the work of the LORD.

 

Slaves were considered property, not people. My understanding is that the Dred Scot decision upheld that legal opinion. Thus, it denied personhood.

 

The article stated their opposition to LBGT* agenda, so their position was clearly stated.

 

No it was not clearly stated with little snips of quotations. Personally I would still want a discussion as to what is their response then to the LGBTQ "community" and its/their relationship to the church.

 

Gal 3:28 KJV - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
That is unity.

 

Is there scripture supporting your statement: He will return and purify His Church?

 

Yes read Matthew chapter 13.

Granted the kingdom of God is referenced in Matthew 13 which I believe is the church infiltrated by the tares (weeds).

Matthew 13
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

American slaves were considered 3/5 a person to determine the number of state representatives in congress.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5386&context=faculty_scholarship
pg 117
"In the Continental Congress and in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation each state had a single vote. Population was irrelevant to representation in the national Congress. In this context, Southerners had argued that slaves were property. But, from day one of the Convention, it was clear that representation in the new Congress would be based on population. Suddenly Southerners believed slaves should be considered ‘persons’ under the new Constitution. Thus, the delegates from the South, especially the South Carolinians, argued slaves should be counted as people, and factored into determining how many congressional seats the Southern states received. The Constitutional Convention ultimately settled on the Three-Fifths Clause, which counted slaves for representation but on a threefifths basis..."

 

Yes, they wanted slaves counted only to get more representatives, but legally they were considered property, not people.

MO Baptist are right to renounce this decision.

 

That comment ignores the issue raised, and appears to be full of misunderstanding, which I would be glad to discuss. But first go back and read their Resolution No. 8. It is not simply a church unity message. It is blatantly political, along the lines of Progressives, Social Justice Warriors, etc. Do you not see that it is a political statement? As far as I know, the Missouri Supreme Court was not considered a Christian institution.

 

The founders did not include “slaves” in the Constitution as such. Rather they referred to “free Persons” “Indians,” and “all other Persons.” I am not arguing that everyone thought of blacks (or Indians or any other non-white group) as of the same civilized status as whites. Nor am I arguing that slaves were not considered property in legal contexts. But regardless of any personal opinion, they are officially, legally, deliberately declared to be full Persons (not three-fifths) from the very beginning of the US Constitution, and every state which ratified or was admitted had to agree.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (from Article 1, Section 2)​