White evangelicals fear the future and yearn for the past.

CFM said:
The descendants of the slaves can inherit anything the slaves had. Since they slaves had nothing, their descendants get nothing. I agree.

The problem with this reparations bullshit you support is that those whose family didn't own slaves are the ones that will be paying the price. You don't support reparations because that involves those having done things doing the paying, you support ALL white people paying the price.
Click to expand...

Well, in your usual ignorance of matters, you have two different concepts here in this one paragraph. First off, I don't support reparations. It was an example of your previous stupidity that I was referring to. If the ones receiving the inheritance have done nothing to earn it, then what would be the reason why the ones that actually created the wealth should not be able to inherit it? And contrary to your other ignorant racist comment, it would not be just White people paying it.

Despite your desire to twist the words of Christ, he didn't support the government forcing one group to support another.
Click to expand...

If not for the government, which is established as God wills, racists like you would do nothing for the poor especially if they were not White. Since you know so little of anything you try to address, here is what Christ taught:

Matthew 25: 34-40

“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.’

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?’

And the King shall answer and say unto them, ‘Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’ “



2Corinthians 8: 13-15

“For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality: As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.”
 
CFM said:
In other words, unless you're doing physical labor, you don't consider it work. Guess that makes those using their mind to get low skilled people like you to do things, pay you more than you're worth with a minimum wage because the government feels sorry for your inability to do better, and do well financially for it will just have to continue being considered as not working by the likes of you. Guess we'll count our money while you continue to whine.
Click to expand...

First off, you are the one whining about others possibly getting what you have decided is yours. Even Trump whines about it while he uses cheap labor, not American labor, to produce whatever it is he does.

Next off, being the stupid fool you are, your need to twist what was said is again apparent. He made no distinction between physical, and mental, labor. Just your asinine ability to generate conflict did so.
 
Old Trapper said:
First off, you are the one whining about others possibly getting what you have decided is yours. Even Trump whines about it while he uses cheap labor, not American labor, to produce whatever it is he does.

Next off, being the stupid fool you are, your need to twist what was said is again apparent. He made no distinction between physical, and mental, labor. Just your asinine ability to generate conflict did so.
Click to expand...


The really Stupid Fall for it ... the really Ignorant Follow it ...:rolleyes:
 
guno said:
White evangelicals saw in Donald Trump a president who could help them in their fight against diversity, abortion and the shrinking role of religion.



Ever since World War II, white evangelicals in the United States have waged a desperate and largely failing war against thickening walls of separation between church and state, the removal of Christianity from public schools, the growing ethnic and religious diversity of the country, the intrusion of the federal government into their everyday lives (especially as it pertains to desegregation and civil rights), and legalized abortion.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ld-trump-out-fear-nostalgia-column/748967002/



Shift to a Majority-Minority Population in the U.S. Happening Faster than Expected

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...on-in-the-u-s-happening-faster-than-expected/


NA-BW798A_DECRE_G_20130612193611.jpg


And this is data that is reflective of a few years ago

180630103034-the-vanishing-white-american-00011811-exlarge-169.jpg





The future sure doesn't look good for them :awesome:[/QUOTE
Evangelical 's are fake Christian 's and give true Spirit filled Christian 's a bad name!
Click to expand...
 
Old Trapper said:
Well, in your usual ignorance of matters, you have two different concepts here in this one paragraph. First off, I don't support reparations. It was an example of your previous stupidity that I was referring to. If the ones receiving the inheritance have done nothing to earn it, then what would be the reason why the ones that actually created the wealth should not be able to inherit it? And contrary to your other ignorant racist comment, it would not be just White people paying it.



If not for the government, which is established as God wills, racists like you would do nothing for the poor especially if they were not White. Since you know so little of anything you try to address, here is what Christ taught:

Matthew 25: 34-40

“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.’

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?’

And the King shall answer and say unto them, ‘Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’ “



2Corinthians 8: 13-15

“For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality: As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.”
Click to expand...

I can answer the inheritance question easily. The ones giving it are giving it those of their choosing. Your problem is you think it's your place to determine who should get someone else's money and the only money for which you have a say is yours.

Who I give to and the amount I give is really none of your business. The problem there is when people don't give what they have in the manner you bleeding hearts think they should, you believe it's your place to step and tell them who and how much should be given to the point of having the government take it if they say no.

As I said, you twist the teachings of those verses. There are a few key words that show you are. Whether it's talking about hunger, thirst, clothing, etc., it says "YOU GAVE me meat, YOU GAVE me, YOU CLOTHED me, etc. It doesn't say the government took it from me and decided who should get it.

You twist the teachings on equality/inequality. If someone spend 100x more effort in gaining the skills to earn them 100x more, why shouldn't they earn that much more? That's equal.
 
CFM said:
I can answer the inheritance question easily. The ones giving it are giving it those of their choosing. Your problem is you think it's your place to determine who should get someone else's money and the only money for which you have a say is yours.
Click to expand...

While you advocate leaving that not in the hands of the public via a representative democracy, but rather leave those decisions to the aristocracy and the corporate state. I don't see much of difference really.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
Appalachian whites, oh wait, they can't, their ghetto requires handouts too.
Click to expand...

When the war on poverty and the programs were rolled out the American people supported it because it had a white Appalachian face, when black faces were included , the crackas went nuts
 
Ralph said:
Pap always made it a point to acknowledge.....the obvious, "THE SMELLER IS ALWAYS THE FELLER"..... in layman's term "He who smelt it dealt it". The left always attacks the thing they fear the most. In this case....its obvious, the left FEARS white evangelicals. ;) What you should be fearing as a warmongering left wing secular humanist...….is not White Evangelical Christians.....but one of the most religious and faithful cultures on earth. Latin Americans. What...…. are you attempting to propagate the false premise that Latin America is best represented by Gangs like MS 13, Gun runners, kidnappers, drug dealers...etc.?

If not.....just why should White Christians Fear Brown, Black, Red, Yellow, or any other color culture of humanity that examples religion? The truth of the matter is the fact that those of a Religious nature far outnumber the human seculars around the globe....where 8 out of every 10 people identify as being part of some religious movement. Snowflake logic:palm:
Click to expand...

images
 
CFM said:
I can answer the inheritance question easily. The ones giving it are giving it those of their choosing. Your problem is you think it's your place to determine who should get someone else's money and the only money for which you have a say is yours.

Who I give to and the amount I give is really none of your business. The problem there is when people don't give what they have in the manner you bleeding hearts think they should, you believe it's your place to step and tell them who and how much should be given to the point of having the government take it if they say no.

As I said, you twist the teachings of those verses. There are a few key words that show you are. Whether it's talking about hunger, thirst, clothing, etc., it says "YOU GAVE me meat, YOU GAVE me, YOU CLOTHED me, etc. It doesn't say the government took it from me and decided who should get it.

You twist the teachings on equality/inequality. If someone spend 100x more effort in gaining the skills to earn them 100x more, why shouldn't they earn that much more? That's equal.
Click to expand...

Do I twist Jefferson, and Madison, words on equality too? Or is it your lack of knowledge, and understanding, that is the problem? Of course, to you with your "vastly superior" :rolleyes: mind actually believes your own garbage:

https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

"If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."
 
Fentoine Lum said:
While you advocate leaving that not in the hands of the public via a representative democracy, but rather leave those decisions to the aristocracy and the corporate state. I don't see much of difference really.
Click to expand...

Since I don't support social welfare programs, I support leaving it up to the individual doing the giving. If you want to personally give a certain amount, I won't tell you who to help or how much to help those you choose to help. All I ask is the same in return.
 
Old Trapper said:
Do I twist Jefferson, and Madison, words on equality too? Or is it your lack of knowledge, and understanding, that is the problem? Of course, to you with your "vastly superior" :rolleyes: mind actually believes your own garbage:

https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

"If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."
Click to expand...

In other words you support freeloaders who neither have the ability nor desire to earn their way getting something as a result of taking it from those that do have the ability and desire to earn it. At least be honest that you favor freeloaders and hate those that contribute to society.

For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. - 2 Thessalonians 3:10
 
guno said:
They cannot grasp that reporting on the demographics isn't hate , it is fact backed up by data, white Christians won't die off, but, they will be a small minority and not the predominate group and that terrifies them
Click to expand...

You, and the rest like you, don't seem to grasp that when you show facts like 1 in every 3 1/2 blacks uses food stamps, you all it racism. Why it is when data is provided, you ignore it if you don't like it?

Still your WHITE superior.
 
CFM said:
Apparently 1 in every 3 1/2 blacks can't afford to feed themselves or their children.
Click to expand...

Half your exceptional nation lives in or at the poverty level son, it's a failed system. Black folk didn't do that. Ya'll did. And the banjo is an African instrument, you may as well be a rapper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top