Confederate Monuments

Jaw said:
Lee is being identified by the single most despicable factor possible. I did the same with Dr. King and Floyd. We could discuss and remember those guy's better qualities instead, but that apparently doesn't follow the rules of the game.
Click to expand...

You must see that Dr. King’s transgressions are less severe than Lee’s, right?
 
mqt said:
You must see that Dr. King’s transgressions are less severe than Lee’s, right?
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to compare them.
If I were, I would argue that for Dr. King (or anyone who shares his faith,) Dr. King's transgressions could certainly be considered worse due to occurring in his role of pastor.
 
running a stop sign is a " transgression"

////////

curious what "transgressions" Dr King committed that even belong in the same conversation as Lee

It is argued that Lee's mismanagement of Gettysburg is reason enough to tear down any and all monuments to this " great" military man

Setting aside the immorality of Lee's cause
He was the 2021 NY Mets of American Generals
good enough until it mattered.
 
I don't care specifically about Lee, other than how he is used as a proxy for everyone who wore a gray uniform. His service prior to the war was good enough that he was asked to assume a couple of the most important roles in the Union army, and the most important in the Confederate army. Defenders of his performance at Gettysburg point out that he was being intentionally aggressive because he was aware that time and logistics weren't on the side of the Confederacy.

A married pastor sleeping around is considered to be quite the transgression in most churches.
 
..and a badge of honor in others.

for both husband and wife.
What's it to ya
/////

perhaps a few semesters of Critical Race Theory might do you some good
 
I assure that the Baptist faith that Dr. King was an ambassador of did not condone or celebrate adultery from anyone, and especially not from pastors.

I'm afraid my mind isn't simple enough for the CRT to benefit me.
 
equating marital infidelity to the waging of war --- and all the horror that war brings ---- to perpetrate
the institution of slavery. Or even worse, 750,000 live were lost over what you characterize an unjust tariff two and a half decades earlier.
///////

as to your interpretation of the state of Dr King's marriage

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?





"but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
 
Last edited:
I didn't compare the two. I pointed out that if asked, many who share Dr. King's religious beliefs would say that a pastor, specifically a pastor, who sleeps around may commit a greater infraction than someone who upholds slavery. The Bible makes known the dangers of turning people away from the faith, and makes known that pastors will be judged more severely, and that believers are tasked with policing one another.
There is far more than a beam in my eye.
 
"specifically a pastor, who sleeps around may commit a greater infraction than someone who upholds slavery"

really ?
//////
 
So, I’ve seen someone say abortion is worse than slavery today and that someone cheating on their wife is worse than sticking up for slavery


Much less the usual garbage from dumb and dumber that gets spewed here non stop

I can’t with today
 
Jaw said:
I didn't compare the two. I pointed out that if asked, many who share Dr. King's religious beliefs would say that a pastor, specifically a pastor, who sleeps around may commit a greater infraction than someone who upholds slavery. The Bible makes known the dangers of turning people away from the faith, and makes known that pastors will be judged more severely, and that believers are tasked with policing one another.
There is far more than a beam in my eye.
Click to expand...

I know this might be a bit crass, but I’d argue this is a vile worldview. I understand a faith leader being held to a higher standard by those who share that faith, but I think that enslaving your fellow man, then taking up arms against your fellow man is a greater sin than adultery.

It does bring up a point I hadn’t really ever considered. How does theology treat the question of applying today’s accepted morality to historical figures? I’ve always pondered this from a secular standpoint, but if leaders of the various faiths have changed their views, how are past generations treated when morality is determined by a higher power?
 
Question-

There were extremely brave men on both sides of the Civil War. Many without necessarily a "dog" in the fight but were state's men above all and when they called , they answered.

Much like some of the medals we give out now... are folks against memorializing their individual acts of bravery in combat? Like saving a few fellow soldiers? Like Individual acts of uncommon bravery ? Does that need a "correct side" to be heralded?
 
Tapate50 said:
Question-

There were extremely brave men on both sides of the Civil War. Many without necessarily a "dog" in the fight but were state's men above all and when they called , they answered.

Much like some of the medals we give out now... are folks against memorializing their individual acts of bravery in combat? Like saving a few fellow soldiers? Like Individual acts of uncommon bravery ? Does that need a "correct side" to be heralded?
Click to expand...

Others might disagree, but I think this is fine. I think in pretty much any conflict ever that there are people that did brave things and think that with some exceptions that most front line soldiers are not the folks to blame.

For the record, I’m generally against all military monuments and celebrations as it is. I think that war should be seen as an occasionally necessary evil, and that rather than celebrate our wins, we should mourn the fact that it had to happen at all. Obviously I understand the need to combat certain evils and overreaches, but ultimately find glorifying victories to be gross.
 
Getting lost in the weeds of Lee it has escaped notice that the statue removed was of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Confederate General and the first Grand Dragon of the KKK.
Geez, why would POC object to such a statue.

An honest learning of race history is sorely need. Pre K through college. Taught in churches a nd promoted by local governments.

Gonna be some hard questions asked.
Like , " Daddy, why were you alright with. That KKK statue guy"
 
Which begs the question, how many other officers of the Confederacy turned into the KKK?

That was who those people were then. And still today.
 
mqt said:
I know this might be a bit crass, but I’d argue this is a vile worldview. I understand a faith leader being held to a higher standard by those who share that faith, but I think that enslaving your fellow man, then taking up arms against your fellow man is a greater sin than adultery.

It does bring up a point I hadn’t really ever considered. How does theology treat the question of applying today’s accepted morality to historical figures? I’ve always pondered this from a secular standpoint, but if leaders of the various faiths have changed their views, how are past generations treated when morality is determined by a higher power?
Click to expand...

You picked up exactly what I was throwing down. Morality isn't just a moving target, it's basically omnipresent at all times. Native Americans found honor in robbing or killing strangers. Some cultures have arranged marriages, some involving children. How should it be judged? Do we condemn everyone who lived prior to the great awokening for not ever having so many humanities grads with so little to do?

Dr. King preached the importance of faith and that no man shall get to the Father but through Jesus. The alternative is to spend infinity in unimaginable torment. Quite a bit longer than a few decades in torment. If Dr. King drove one person to lose faith through his transgressions, how would Dr. King judge that? How would he weigh it up against a guy who pleaded with his state leadership against secession prior to the war, then promoted reconciliation after the war? As I said, some people who share Dr. King's beliefs could interpret his actions as worse.
 
57Brave said:
Getting lost in the weeds of Lee it has escaped notice that the statue removed was of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Confederate General and the first Grand Dragon of the KKK.
Geez, why would POC object to such a statue.

An honest learning of race history is sorely need. Pre K through college. Taught in churches a nd promoted by local governments.

Gonna be some hard questions asked.
Like , " Daddy, why were you alright with. That KKK statue guy"
Click to expand...

It wasn’t lost. You pointed it out on page 25.
 
Jaw said:
You picked up exactly what I was throwing down. Morality isn't just a moving target, it's basically omnipresent at all times. Native Americans found honor in robbing or killing strangers. Some cultures have arranged marriages, some involving children. How should it be judged? Do we condemn everyone who lived prior to the great awokening for not ever having so many humanities grads with so little to do?

Dr. King preached the importance of faith and that no man shall get to the Father but through Jesus. The alternative is to spend infinity in unimaginable torment. Quite a bit longer than a few decades in torment. If Dr. King drove one person to lose faith through his transgressions, how would Dr. King judge that? How would he weigh it up against a guy who pleaded with his state leadership against secession prior to the war, then promoted reconciliation after the war? As I said, some people who share Dr. King's beliefs could interpret his actions as worse.
Click to expand...

The issue I see is that the world is complicated. The television show The Good Place provided a rather entertaining take on this with their point system. Because of the way the world is so interconnected, any individual decision made, however benign it seemed, led to some amount of negative result in the world. Obviously Dr. King’s own actions were themselves the sin, but I find myself concerned with the implication that leading people astray through his vices is more of a condemnable act than directly leading to the death of others. This is further complicated by the fact that his message of non-violence during such a turbulent time in the face of such hardship has resonated to this day and he’s commonly cited as a guiding voice for many of today’s great people. Is one soul that rejected Christianity outweighed by potentially thousands of souls that were led down the right path by his words?

To be quite honest, it’s this lack of a clear answer that has contributed to my rejection of religion. I consider myself Agnostic, as I think it’s absurd to flatly reject the possibility of a divine creator in the absence of absolute evidence to the contrary. However, I’ve yet to come across a satisfactory answer for several pressing questions pertaining to topics like the existence of evil and suffering, the question of what to do with those not exposed to one’s religion of choice during life, etc. This particular question I posed to you contributes to it as well. There are so many lessons in the Bible that could not possibly be followed in today’s world without twisting the interpretations to meet our needs. So with that in mind, do entire generations of people all find themselves in Hell due to circumstance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top