How the hell am I supposed to find evidence of black kids being turned down? All I can find on the internet is 100s of photos showing 1000s of kids, and none are black... but if you want to hack into their application software and get their private admittance information, the please share it with us... (also, not supposed to use the F word here, it's against the rules, even an acronym, please try to follow the rules).
Here's what you said that I'm disagreeing with. My point is that you're projecting your idea of what Jesus would've done when there's a Biblical example of what he actually did.
"Historically Black" doesn't mean "No Whites". Took 2 minutes to find a white kid there featured in one of their ads... Good for them for being racially diverse. Looks like you face planted on this one. Good try, though.
What I am saying is that you have a summer camp that openly advertises that it is a summer camp "for black girls" just 50 miles away from Camp Mystic, do you not think that might steer black girls away from camp Mystic? And just so you will know I don't know how you can have a camp that advertises America's first black summer camp for girls and claim they are racially diverse.
I find it highly unlikely that no black kid in the 100 year history of Camp Mystic ever wanted to go there because of another camp exists 50 miles away ... if that is what you are asking. You're argument is akin to saying 'because there's a Historically Black College in Tallahassee I wouldn't expect to find a single black student at FSU in all it's history'...
That's fine, but the post here calls what she said an evil lie.... not a poorly timed truth. I'm just interested in seeing if her post is factual, I don't really get hung up on other people's opinions.
The "facts" are: 1. You are ignoring my links about the first all black camp was started in Texas and several still exist today. Are they racist? Of course not. Black churches arent being racists either if their members happen to be all black. It's cultural for many groups. 2. You are ignoring that leaders/staffers at this camp are indeed black. No "whites only" types want African Americans leading their kids. But your just being a thorn in the side of everyone at this point by using the word "Christian" in every post. Its really a shame that a thread about something so tragic devolved into a couple posters being opportunists to scream about personal grievances.
I am not projecting. He DID do the things I mentioned. He would leave the 99 to save 1. He fed the hungry. He absolutely loved the hurting. He felt the hem of his Garment touched by one outcast woman in the multitude. And responded to her in the midst of her need. He responded and saved the woman taken in adultery. He calmed the storm that threatened to kill everyone in it. Your example is one...in an individual context.
Shocking that the far right and far left idiots, er posters of GC have chosen to not only politicize this tragedy but at the same time somehow also make it a racial issue. This was a natural disaster that took the lives of over 100 people including dozens of children and this board can’t refrain from the finger pointing which is a constant on Too Hot. RIP to those who died and prayers to the families of all those affected by this tragedy.
Shocking? Or just reprehensible to you? I would say that there's nothing shocking about it at all. When when saw a presidential candidate disgracefully politicize every tragedy he could find, whether if was flooding in NC or wildfires in California, and people still cast votes for him ...... that that ushered in a new low standard of politicizing tragedies. What, did you think he could just do that and people wouldn't take note, that they would forget about it? There's an astronomical level of hypocrisy from anyone who voted for Donald Trump ever disparaging politicizing ....well, anything.
Well something needs to be learned from tragedies like this or they’ll happen again and again. I don’t think the religious and race angles are necessary in a thread such as this. Although I also don’t think it’s impossible they played a role - if the “entitlement” attitude played a role in them not listening even to the state and local level authorities issuing weather warnings. Ultimately we know with hindsight they didn’t evacuate in time. This can be said with absolute certainty because of how large the tragedy is. The question is why? What were the protocols to respond to flash flood warnings?
Interesting story about a drone taking out a rescue helicopter in central Texas. Hopefully they catch the criminal who was responsible for this drone. Texas rescue helicopter forced to land after colliding with private drone.
Like Trump? After disasters like the Texas flood, Trump reflexively blames Biden | CNN Politics “If you look at that water situation, that was really the Biden setup,” Trump said.
It’s Texas. Of course, Biden wanted this to happen. It’s a MAGA red state. Nobody is surprised Biden set this up. We know what he did at the border.
My example is highly relevant to this discussion. I don't think any of your examples are relevant but I'm not going to type out rebuttals and look up passages for all of them. I'll just do one. See below. You wrote: That story is in Luke 8:43-48 and Mark 5:24-34. Both accounts of that story end with Jesus saying, "Your faith has made you well." She had to have faith in order to be healed. That's pretty much true of all Jesus' healings. In fact, when he went to his home town he healed very few people because the of the town's unbelief. So, this idea that he'd just go running into a tragedy and start healing people willy nilly is, indeed, projection on you part.
I never said that lol. I said he would feed them and love them. (Like the first responders are doing). I never said anything about heeling. Heck I never claimed He would rescue. My post said he would feed and love those hurting. (He called is ALL to do the same).
Tangent to the tangent: there's a difference between saying "because she had faith" and "she had to have faith." By saying "she had to have faith" you are adding a restriction to Jesus where you can't claim to know one exists. Look at it another way, there are two paths that may lead to a bridge. You took Path A to get to the bridge, but Path B may also lead to the bridge. If you took Path A to get to the bridge, we can literally say "because you took Path A, you have arrived at the bridge." This is fundamentally different than saying "you had to take Path A to get to the bridge." Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
I addressed this in my previous post but, ok but I don't mind going into more detail. Mark 6:5 5 And he could do no mighty work there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And he marveled because of their unbelief. Does that verse mean that he didn't have the power to heal the people of Nazareth? Of course it doesn't. Does it strongly imply that he would not heal someone who doesn't believe? To me it does. If you disagree then I don't know what to tell you.
It's true that you didn't use those exact words but you can't just cite a passage of scripture and then ignore the actual text of that passage. I agree that Jesus loves them. Where we disagree is how that love would play out. Did Jesus love the people that he drove from the temple? I would say that the answer is "yes". Did Jesus love the people the that he called "white washed tombs"? Again, I would say the answer is, "yes". Does that make either of those passages relevant to this discussion? No. You're taking examples that have nothing to do with the situation we're discussing and projecting how he handled those situations onto how you think he would handle this situation.
I don't follow you. You acknowledge that non-believers were healed, and then you said it is implied that he wouldn't heal a non-believer? Did I misunderstand your acknowledgment or am I incorrectly expressing your inference? [noted, @gator_jo - I'll take up anything further by PM if it comes up] Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
