I see on here a split of opinion with Christians on Austin Metcalf's dad, here and elsewhere.
I think both are incorrect in their own way.
One side says you don't forgive the unrepentant. Wrong, extremely wrong. Were the ones stoning Stephen to death repentant when he cried out for God to forgive them? No. The Bible puts no qualifications on who to forgive, only that you do.
The other side says he's being a Christian by forgiving the killer, and didn't do anything wrong and what I'd say is it's not wrong to forgive the killer, but I'd say that going on national TV and trying to make sure everyone complies with the cultures values on race has little or nothing to do with forgiveness, and so this side misses the mark.
You see, here's the biggest problem with what Austin Metcalf's dad did.
The black ghetto community needs to repent. They are like, in a way, a seperate nation like Ninevah who is told by all parties, including the church that they're not destined to hell.
Calling to repentance is an act of mercy in the Bible. Jonah didn't want to tell the Ninevites to repent because he didn't want them to experience God's mercy. When John the baptist comes on the scene preaching a message of repentance, it's repeated over and over that God's mercy has come. You want to love black people? Call the violence glorifying culture to repentance and warn them that huge swaths of their culture is akin to something like the Ninevites.
Essentially the dad is saying without realizing it "make sure you don't have any conversations that could be difficult for the inner city to hear, lest they realize their sins and turn and be saved".
Many black people will be going to hell unfortunately because even the church tickles their ear and never calls out their behavior even though the church is more than happy to call out their mostly white congregants behavior (which the church should).
Anyone who objectively looks at the black community can see that they fit the definition of a fool found in proverbs and yet no one wants to touch that subject, including Christians.
So, the dad should forgive the killer, even if it takes time to do, and it's odd that he would be so lacking in paternal instinct that he'd unemotionally virtue signal, which seems less like Biblical forgiveness and more like this modern day utter capitulation and celebration of black culture, and the next thing the father could do, which would be the loving thing and also an extremely dangerous and scary thing, which would be to absolutely address the racial issue. Look, it's not about race. Jesus said go preach to all the nations. By all accounts, the black culture is a foreign nation. They share no values, and their values that are taught from birth are completely leading people to hell. They qualify as a nation that needs repentance.
And as we see in the Bible, in order for people to accept Jesus, they first need to be told what they're violating, where they're astray, and what the consequences of sin are.
I don't see the church doing this with the black community. The exact opposite.
So the "don't forgive the unrepentant" Christians are wrong, as are the Christians who are failing to realize that the black, inner city, thug culture needs to face some extremely harsh facts for their eternal good.
Did you only read my first part and stop?
I pointed out that the church's responsibility is to preach repentance to cultures that lack God and that it's cowering and sacred cowing of the black culture is them failing in their duties.
But it's not correct to say that historical Christians were not forgiving and merciful and turned the other cheek for 1950 years.
In Acts we see the church being persecuted and laying down their lives despite the intense persecution.
All throughout history this has been the case. Christian missionaries in Japan got slaughtered in the 1600s by the Japanese and died for their faith.
Christians were the main victims in the Roman coliseums who were devoured by lions to cheering crowds. The way that Christians reacted to a persecuting culture being so different than the world which seeks to preserve it's own life at any cost, while Christians are willing to give up their lives for the sake of the gospel has radically saved countless people.
Christians are actually the most persecuted and killed people group. In China, they meet in small underground churches, and the police bust in and beat up old grannies, and the result is Christianity spreads because people see the way Christians have joy in all circumstances and realize "there must be something there"
All other religions must dominate in order to spread. Because God is our power, and we spread even through persecution because what we believe in is stronger than all the world's powers, we baffle the world and the world doesn't know what to make of us.
There are examples of Christians being violent, such as the crusades and the inquisition, but you won't find much biblical justification for that and it's the exception not the norm, and usually it's when the church is corrupt and so powerful that they behave like actual countries.
No, we are not meant to simp. The church right now rightly doesn't have an issue calling out the gay nonsense, or the "trans" nonsense.
Not being violent doesn't mean you are fearful. Quite the opposite. We are called to speak the gospel boldly no matter who it offends.
My post even argued that the church is long over-due to extend that calling out of behavior to the black community even if it means you get shunned, you get de-banked, you get killed, because God's got it and people's eternal fate are being ignored because of cultural taboo.
But when that day comes, when the government persecutes you, we don't act like the world does. Read Revelation about how those killed in the tribulation will have a special song they sing to God, and Babylon who will be destroyed will have been getting drunk on the blood of the saints.
We don't need to take revenge unlike the world because revenge is God's and He will one day bring all things to account.
"Taking revenge" and "not being a pussy" are two very different things. I'm not advocating for the dad to go postal, but neither do I think him acting out his fantastical boomer martyr complex is helpful in any way.
This is where the mistranslation of meek has bastardized Christian understanding and enabled a feminine form to take root. Meek or Praus in Greek is a bridled strength, not being a coward. You bridle your strength with you neighbor (turn the other cheek), you bridle you strength before your master (God), you kill/ punish the evil (Jael driving a tent spike through the head of Sisera, David and Goliath, etc).
Your understanding of history is, I submit, grievously flawed.
Well, the crusaders and inquisitors were indeed violent, that much I cannot dispute.
It's just that the context and circumstances which said violence occurred as reaction against 200% justified the aforementioned violence, facts which the powers that be have worked very hard to distort & obfuscate for a very long time as part of the general 'Christianity bad' agenda.
Well, in general I'm deriding the idea that Christianity is or should be pacifistic. Particularly the part where we supposedly will find no scriptural justification for things like the Crusades.
Certainly true. Hell even the infamous 4th Crusade which targeted the Byzantines over their original Muslim target in Egypt was less retarded and more justified than is oft portrayed in pop-history. The Byzantines had killed upwards to 30x as many Latin Christians (mostly, but not entirely Italians) in a genocidal massacre targeting the latter than the crusaders killed Byzantine civilians in their own sack of Constantinople, some 20 years before the Venetians derailed the crusader army to get revenge.
And Enrico Dandolo, the Venetian Doge responsible for the above, also was himself blinded by the Byzantines, probably in the Constantinopolitan tumult of 1171-72. Little wonder why, after so many insults and direct attacks both upon his own person and his fellow Catholics/Italians, he would decide to take the first opportunity he could to take the Orthodox (who had also been trying to puppetize the crusaders from the very start and infamously abandoned the First Crusade once they started going off Alexios I's rails) down a bunch of pegs.
Would Christianity have survived if it wasn't for the crusades? If acting as simps and just turned the other cheek to muslims while they killed, raped and pillage thru Europe was the correct course of action and that course of action would have lead to the eradication of Christianity what does that say about us?
You're thinking of the Battle of Tours in 732, when united Europeans turned back the Muslim hordes from France. The Crusades started in 1095 earliest and were about defending Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, with mixed results. Eventually the Ottomans took over and sadly Constantinople became Istanbul.
Guess I should have payed more attention in history. I thought it was connected. Since you seem to know a lot about this stuff, how come they didn't remove the Moors from current day Spain? Wasn't that just a big of a threat as the fall of Constantinople?
They would've loved to remove them, but the simple reason is that the Franks didn't have enough resources. After the Umayyad were turned back at Tours, they had a couple of holdouts in southern France. It took a few years for Charles Martell and his son to fully drive them out.
But the Umayyad were smashed at Tours and their leader was killed. They weren't a mortal threat to Western Europe after that.
Were there not were multiple crusades?
Yes, hence why I said Crusades. Some were successful, some weren't.
you actually think the crusaders and inquisition were wrong? are you serious?