Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums

Tyler ISD To Consider Renaming Lee and John Tyler


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If Tyler ISD is going to rename Lee then you have to look at John Tyler too. Will the city be renamed? Will the county? Rename both or none. 

I got one bad and one good comment.  I challenge each of you to do a bit of reading and learn from the past.  Lots of history out there.  It always puts good against evil.  If you can’t afford books m

Did you sleep through his 8 years of corruption? .... You can't be serious  ...  Here is a good start for you ... https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/01/02/18-major-scandals-obama-presidency/

Posted Images

4 hours ago, 88YoePride said:

robert-e-lee-there-is-a-terrible-war-coming-and-27486536.png

Awww...when debunked quotes become fact...lol  

However, if you believe this to be true, it goes against all of those who say the war had little to do with slavery.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JTFAN99 said:

Awww...when debunked quotes become fact...lol  

However, if you believe this to be true, it goes against all of those who say the war had little to do with slavery.  

Also goes against the reasoning to change that schools name. I mean if it were true....

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9009420680

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KirtFalcon said:

No ... That's not President Trump's fault, it's the liberal media, academia and gullible people like you who believe them ....

A sincere question, Kirt, if you don't mind me asking, what are your trusted news sources?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 88YoePride said:

robert-e-lee-there-is-a-terrible-war-coming-and-27486536.png

 

Lee was against the traditional idea/model of slavery. He did indeed want to free slaves and even wanted (segregated) education for them. He did not, however, believe people of color should ever be allowed to vote, because they were not smart enough to make sound decisions in that regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, trueblue82 said:

The American left both won and lost Vietnam. 

The people who lost Vietnam were the ones who thought it was still a good idea to draft males turning 18 even for a "war of choice" like that. 

It could have gone on forever a la Afghanistan had it just been those same men volunteering for it.

That's why President Richard M. Nixon campaigned for and signed into law the HIGHLY POPULAR end to conscription which took effect in 1973.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#End_of_conscription

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

Abortion for ANY reason is murder......

What about the death penalty? Honest question.

I've wrestled with this, because I know if — God forbid — someone committed a crime against my family that warranted the death penalty, my flawed humanity would want them to pay, and selfishly, I'd want them to pay at my own hand. But as a Christian, this is the opposite of what's said in scripture, and I'm very uneasy with the idea of ending a life in that way. It just doesn't sit well. I abhor abortion completely. Totally against it. But if I'm going to be against a death sentence in that instance, I can't ignore this other form of it. I understand the difference in the circumstances, but the sanctity of life needs to be a constant, not on a sliding scale. It's a bad look to be pro life at times but not truly all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mavchamp said:

Never said he supported liberals.  

Just said he was more liberal on social issues than the current GOP is.

Reagan supported abortion in certain circumstances.

Reagan was a Democrat most of his life

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, d0tc0m said:

What about the death penalty? Honest question.

I've wrestled with this, because I know if — God forbid — someone committed a crime against my family that warranted the death penalty, my flawed humanity would want them to pay, and selfishly, I'd want them to pay at my own hand. But as a Christian, this is the opposite of what's said in scripture, and I'm very uneasy with the idea of ending a life in that way. It just doesn't sit well. I abhor abortion completely. Totally against it. But if I'm going to be against a death sentence in that instance, I can't ignore this other form of it. I understand the difference in the circumstances, but the sanctity of life needs to be a constant, not on a sliding scale. It's a bad look to be pro life at times but not truly all the time.

They paid their price for their consequences. A unborn child didn’t do anything wrong. God is not about Sin and His Wrath is Stronger. Kinda like Defending yourself , God doesn’t want you not to stand up. God doesn’t want weak Christians.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Raiderfan7000 said:

They paid their price for their consequences. A unborn child didn’t do anything wrong. God is not about Sin and His Wrath is Stronger. Kinda like Defending yourself , God doesn’t want you not to stand up. God doesn’t want weak Christians.     

Can you give me some chapter and verse that helped you form your opinions? Can you also clarify what you mean by "weak" christians, and provide scripture that support your claim, specifically in context and relation to my original question about the death penalty?

Because what I see Jesus preaching in the Gospels tends to go against the death penalty. In fact, in John 8,  he intervenes in the justified — per the Law of Moses — capital punishment of the adulteress who is brought to his feet by the pharisees.

Moreover, in terms of being "weak" Jesus echos repeatedly throughout scripture that it is in the "weak" that God is made strong. He will himself exalt the lowly and humble. Time and time again, Jesus calls for humility, not machismo chest-thumping. Looking at Luke 14:7-14 here, specifically.

In Romans 12, Paul gives us the true marks of a Christian, and specifically in verse 19 he says that believers should not avenge themselves, but leave it (meaning justice and recompense) to the wrath of God.

 

If there are scriptures, according to the new law and covenant of Christ, that are counter to this argument, or support things such as capital punishment, I really would like to have them pointed out to me so that I can form a better understanding of my own beliefs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, d0tc0m said:

A sincere question, Kirt, if you don't mind me asking, what are your trusted news sources?

I read dozens of publications from a variety of political perspectives and weigh what they are saying.  95% or more is political slant from one  side or the other although the conservative perspective is generally more accurate ... probably the most reliable one person on tv these days is Britt Hume, he pretty much let's the chips fall where they may and is as reliable as anybody ... Charles Krauthammer was really good, but sadly he's gone ...

The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times are generally good sources of information ... 

I like to listen to Mark Davis, Paul Gleiser and Rush Limbaugh .... all good sources of news and information

What are your trusted news sources? ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KirtFalcon said:

I read dozens of publications from a variety of political perspectives and weigh what they are saying.  95% or more is political slant from one  side or the other although the conservative perspective is generally more accurate ... probably the most reliable one person on tv these days is Britt Hume, he pretty much let's the chips fall where they may and is as reliable as anybody ... Charles Krauthammer was really good, but sadly he's gone ...

The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times are generally good sources of information ... 

I like to listen to Mark Davis, Paul Gleiser and Rush Limbaugh .... all good sources of news and information

What are your trusted news sources? ....

Thank you for taking the time to provide actual sources!!

We share some of the same ones, actually. The Post and WSJ are two of the news sources I go to most. But i will often vet the articles through other means, and typically will find a right-leaning response and a left-leaning response to see how well the news holds up. If it makes both sides uneasy, it’s the closest thing to truth usually lol. I used to enjoy the NYT and The New Yorker. Sadly, NYT spends most of its time patting itself on the back and saying “look how great I am” these days so I don’t pay them much attention, which is an injustice to the actually good journalists that are still employed there. I still enjoy the New Yorker for long-form pieces, as well as their contribution to the literary world.

Locally, our news here in Springfield, MO is just not great. The news stations do OK, but if my fellow Texans — specifically those in DFW — saw the productions, they would get a good chuckle. Our local Newspaper, for which I used to cover sports — is awful. Gannett owned. That says all you need to know. I got out while the getting was good. Their operation here is down to a handful of people who basically reprint the USA Today with one or two local stories.

I was just curious where others turn to news sources, because in this day and age, we are inundated with information, and filtering through it is no easy task, no matter which side of the belief spectrum you fall on. Overcoming political confirmation bias is difficult, because confirmation bias sells BIG TIME and the large media corps know this.

Thanks again, Kirt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, d0tc0m said:

What about the death penalty? Honest question.

I've wrestled with this, because I know if — God forbid — someone committed a crime against my family that warranted the death penalty, my flawed humanity would want them to pay, and selfishly, I'd want them to pay at my own hand. But as a Christian, this is the opposite of what's said in scripture, and I'm very uneasy with the idea of ending a life in that way. It just doesn't sit well. I abhor abortion completely. Totally against it. But if I'm going to be against a death sentence in that instance, I can't ignore this other form of it. I understand the difference in the circumstances, but the sanctity of life needs to be a constant, not on a sliding scale. It's a bad look to be pro life at times but not truly all the time.

Putting to death a murderer is sanctioned by God and not murder.....killing an innocent unborn child is murder......

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

Putting to death a murderer is sanctioned by God and not murder.....killing an innocent unborn child is murder......

Can you show me the didactic scripture on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, d0tc0m said:

 

Lee was against the traditional idea/model of slavery. He did indeed want to free slaves and even wanted (segregated) education for them. He did not, however, believe people of color should ever be allowed to vote, because they were not smart enough to make sound decisions in that regard.

I'm sure he also believed the same about women. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, d0tc0m said:

Can you show me the didactic scripture on that?

Genesis 9:6 English Standard Version (ESV)

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
    by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.

 

 

Romans 13:3-4 English Standard Version (ESV)

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

Genesis 9:6 English Standard Version (ESV)

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
    by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.

 

 

Romans 13:3-4 English Standard Version (ESV)

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Thanks, WHF!

A couple of things:

Genesis is an historical (and poetic) text of the Bible, and not a didactic text. Genesis, obviously, is Old Testament and deals with the Law of Moses. Jesus’s death and resurrection was the fulfillment of that law. A new covenant was formed. Christ left didactic scripture in the New epistles. The very words and actions of Jesus — the literal fulfillment of the Law of Moses and prophetic texts — tend to be an argument against vengefulness and retribution, including but not limited to the death penalty. If you are to take Genesis at its word, without context, then the executioner of a condemned man would have shed blood of a fellow man. And what about military campaigns? Lots of shedding of the blood of man on both sides. As my favorite author of all time said, “Never think that war, no matter how necessary nor how justified, is not a crime. Ask the infantry, and ask the dead.”

As for your selected verse from Romans, it has to be highlighted that Paul and Peter, who echoed Romans 13, were key figures in peaceful protest and civil disobedience. Their very preaching of the gospel was going against many of the authorities in the lands they visited. Not to mention, Romans 13 has been historically used by authoritarian “Christians” — including Hitler — to decry dissent. If you are to take Romans 13 entirely literally without context and without proper translation, you could argue Hitler was not in the wrong, and any and all who rebelled against him were wrong. That’s silly, and obviously neither of us would agree with that argument.

So then what? When apparent contradictions appear, it’s best to go back to the original text and see what was written in the Greek. Both Paul and Peter used the Greek word hupo-Tasso, which literally means to arrange things in an orderly manner, and historic readers would have understood this to be translated in a social context. It DOES NOT mean to obey, and it certainly does not give supreme authority to the ruling powers/entities. Paul and Peter could have used the word hupo-kouo, which DOES mean to obey, or to make oneself literally subject to. That word was repeated throughout Paul and Peter’s other letters when referring to the way children submit to parents, slaves to masters, wives to husbands, and believers to the church.

Paul and Peter, then, understood that a certain level of social orderliness was necessary in a macro sense, but promoted and lived out civil disobedience for their entire ministries, ultimately subjecting themselves in grace and humility to the consequences of those actions, without violent rebellion against the authorities. God consistently rescued them and their ministries for the kingdom continued.

Good conversation. I like hearing what other people believe and how they arrive at those beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Pack007 said:

If your wife owns something, that usually means you own it too. 

However neither of them actually purchased the slaves that she inherited.  He simply had to deal with the burden of it.  Ican't condemn him for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JTFAN99 said:

Awww...when debunked quotes become fact...lol  

However, if you believe this to be true, it goes against all of those who say the war had little to do with slavery.  

Actually it wouldn't.  It would prove that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.  He stated that he would free all the slaves to prevent the war.  Even by doing so it wouldn't because there were numerous other factors involved that I have already shown on here, but  I realize some of you have short memories.  You should remember that slavery was still legal in the United States so there wasn't a need to rebel.  While slavery was an issue, it wasn't the main issue.  Others were States Rights, they felt that the laws of the Federal Government were usurping their rights to run their states as the saw fit, another was the economic disparity between the North which was industrialized which helped them win the war because of railroads and of course the repeating rifle,  they felt that Lincoln also was not their president as we see today with many blue states.  Not a single electoral vote from the south went to support Lincoln.  We are seeing that today with President Trump by blue states that desire to limit his power as well as their Senators and House of Representatives that continue to put forth bills to limit the powers that the President has.  Texas was concerned also with the lack of the U.S. military presence in the State to protect it's borders.  I would say that slavery was 50% of the reason why, but there were other factors as well.  To simply blanket it as a call to end slavery which should have happened years before isn't 100% accurate, but that is how it is taught today.  https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, d0tc0m said:

Can you give me some chapter and verse that helped you form your opinions? Can you also clarify what you mean by "weak" christians, and provide scripture that support your claim, specifically in context and relation to my original question about the death penalty?

Because what I see Jesus preaching in the Gospels tends to go against the death penalty. In fact, in John 8,  he intervenes in the justified — per the Law of Moses — capital punishment of the adulteress who is brought to his feet by the pharisees.

Moreover, in terms of being "weak" Jesus echos repeatedly throughout scripture that it is in the "weak" that God is made strong. He will himself exalt the lowly and humble. Time and time again, Jesus calls for humility, not machismo chest-thumping. Looking at Luke 14:7-14 here, specifically.

In Romans 12, Paul gives us the true marks of a Christian, and specifically in verse 19 he says that believers should not avenge themselves, but leave it (meaning justice and recompense) to the wrath of God.

 

If there are scriptures, according to the new law and covenant of Christ, that are counter to this argument, or support things such as capital punishment, I really would like to have them pointed out to me so that I can form a better understanding of my own beliefs.

There isn't a scripture that condemns the death penalty either.  Christ was put to death, but it wasn't spoken against by the Apostles as being morally wrong.  One could say the same that War is not Christian, but we know that God does allow for us to fight against injustice.  We are taught to try to live peacefully however.  There will come a time that all of us will be at war on one side or the other.  We will either fight with God or for the satan in the final war.  We should all know how that is going to end, so it should be a logical choice which side to fight for.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DaveTV1 said:

There isn't a scripture that condemns the death penalty either.  Christ was put to death, but it wasn't spoken against by the Apostles as being morally wrong.  One could say the same that War is not Christian, but we know that God does allow for us to fight against injustice.  We are taught to try to live peacefully however.  There will come a time that all of us will be at war on one side or the other.  We will either fight with God or for the satan in the final war.  We should all know how that is going to end, so it should be a logical choice which side to fight for.  

I respectfully disagree on scriptures not condemning things like the death penalty. I cited some examples earlier. But I appreciate your take on the subject, I’ll keep your perspective in mind and study up more, because I’m far from a theologian!

As far as fighting against injustice, I’m not saying you’re wrong, by any means, but purely for the sake of our conversation, how far are we allowed to go in the fight against injustice? I think the Hemingway quote about war that I cited earlier is very fitting for this conversation. There are shades of moral ambiguity to any war/military campaign.*
 

*I should put in a disclaimer here that I am very grateful for the service and sacrifice of our armed forces. Three of my close friends were/are Marines, and another good friend and respected Christian — who pastors a church in Austin — was an army ranger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JTFAN99 said:

Awww...when debunked quotes become fact...lol  

However, if you believe this to be true, it goes against all of those who say the war had little to do with slavery.  

 

5 hours ago, DaveTV1 said:

Actually it wouldn't.  It would prove that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.  He stated that he would free all the slaves to prevent the war.  Even by doing so it wouldn't because there were numerous other factors involved that I have already shown on here, but  I realize some of you have short memories.  You should remember that slavery was still legal in the United States so there wasn't a need to rebel.  While slavery was an issue, it wasn't the main issue.  Others were States Rights, they felt that the laws of the Federal Government were usurping their rights to run their states as the saw fit, another was the economic disparity between the North which was industrialized which helped them win the war because of railroads and of course the repeating rifle,  they felt that Lincoln also was not their president as we see today with many blue states.  Not a single electoral vote from the south went to support Lincoln.  We are seeing that today with President Trump by blue states that desire to limit his power as well as their Senators and House of Representatives that continue to put forth bills to limit the powers that the President has.  Texas was concerned also with the lack of the U.S. military presence in the State to protect it's borders.  I would say that slavery was 50% of the reason why, but there were other factors as well.  To simply blanket it as a call to end slavery which should have happened years before isn't 100% accurate, but that is how it is taught today.  https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/causes-of-the-civil-war/

 

If you say that slavery was 50% of the reason for the war....then I would say that is more than a little.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...