Friday, September 26, 2008
A Good One
I heard this today on the Sandy Rios radio show in my area. A caller was speaking of the debate and McCain's decision to suspend his campaign to focus on the financial mess. The caller, an elderly black woman, was commenting on Obama's desire to NOT postpone or cancel the debate tomorrow. She asked if Obama intended to show up by himself, to which Sandy had no answer. Then the woman says, "If he does, it'll be an empty suit debating an empty chair." I'm glad I was stopped for a train or I might have run off the road.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
Really? That's funny?
Um, ok...
Sure, Les. It's not gut-busting funny, but unless you're a chump for Obama, yeah, it's funny. Also, to relate it here does not allow for the timing of the caller's delivery, which, as you know, is important in provoking laughs. In other words, perhaps you'd have to have been there.
It's humorous in a creepy sort of way. Creepy in thinking the empty suit may be sitting in the White House soon.
Then it's not funny any more.
... or an empty chair.
It looks like that empty chair flipped again.
well, we are being told 95% of all blacks are in the tank for barky
wouldn't it be ironic if they had a bradley effect of their own?
i wouldn't want to be the only obama supporter in the midst of a loud, quarrelsome, boisterous black family, all too willing to denounce me as an oreo
but i don't think they'll vote for mccain either, they'll either skip the polls, or vote downticket only
correction: one obama opponent
but i don't think they'll vote for mccain either, they'll either skip the polls, or vote downticket only
I wouldn't count on it. Our black brothers and sisters, along with our young people, will be out in record numbers, I suspect, and largely voting for Obama's historic presidency. And that's a good thing.
not for those of us officially on obongo's "dead cracker" lists, that's for sure
How could voting for the inferior choice possibly be a good thing? Because he's black (Half-black)? How racist! How immature! How unAmerican! How...do keep from laughing while posting such goofy comments?
Ben,
Why are you talking about furniture?
You're right Marshall. Voting for the inferior choice is not a good thing. I'm glad to know you will be supporting Obama.
DL,
I watched the debate last night. McCain is clearly not the black one. What's been even more clear from early on is that he's also not the inferior one.
I'm amazed at the number of whites who embrace Black Liberation Theology as a good thing.
That would be like blacks supporting the KKK.
they embrace it, because they don't quite understand where they themselves fit into that equation
when a race war breaks out, nobody makes the distinction between a white liberal, white conservative, pro-black, anti-black, etc.
your whiteness is what earns you that world of pain
and there is no question that barky's followers, support barky, strictly because of his race, and what they believe he and white america deserves, because of it
I don't know about race wars, but I think it's no secret that many whites back Barry because they think that to have elected a black man is a sign of our, I dunno, sophistication or something. That somehow it shows we've transcended racial tendencies. But that's still a racist attitude, or at least it shows that these very supporters haven't gotten past race at all. Skin color means nothing if the guy's a simp.
And despite protests to the contrary, 95% means that there are a lot of black people voting on color as well. Some have suggested that their time has come. But that's also racist since Barry shown that he isn't really about change, except to change from a Republican president back to a Democrat president. He's certainly shown that he's no different than many politicians, and he hasn't suggested anything that's new in terms of his policies and platforms. Lighten his skin, make his hair red, and Hillary is the Dem choice.
The 9-10% lead that Nobama is enjoying thus far in the polls is misleading. Since 13% of black men (not counting black women)are convicted felons, almost 13% of poll results will be negated by the fact that many of the blacks polled are inelgible to vote. Add to that, the fact that many blacks who support Nobama and that is reflected in the polls will not vote anyway.
McCain is in a much more comfortable position than the polls reveal.
How could voting for the inferior choice possibly be a good thing? Because he's black (Half-black)? How racist! How immature! How unAmerican! How...do keep from laughing while posting such goofy comments?
BWA HA HA HA HAAAA!! HO, Ha, ha! HA! Tee hee, hee, gasp ha! ha! hahahahahaha!!!
phew.
How utterly goofy and wholly ironic.
I'm amazed at the number of whites who embrace Black Liberation Theology as a good thing.
That would be like blacks supporting the KKK.
And from the voice of irony to the voice of ignorance. This is just about the more ignorant statement I've seen this week (no mean feat).
Ms Green, get out some. Meet some actual black folk, some actual liberals. Read a book. Learn something about Liberation Theology and BLT that was not written by a right wingnut.
You are lacking in experience with regular people and education with real books, it would seem.
Nice try, Dan. But our introduction to BLT was based on direct quotes from Cone(sp) himself. It is NOT Christianity as Christ taught it, and that's for sure. I think YOU need to get out, as in, your head out of your hindquarters.
Yes, and presbyterianism is not Christianity as Christ taught it and Charismatic Assemblies of God aren't Christianity as Christ taught it and Southern Baptist theology isn't Christianity as Christ taught it. None of it is perfect, being human attempts at understanding an infinite and mysterious God.
Nonetheless, BLT does a pretty good job of emphasizing many of the "right" things in a way like Jesus taught. I think they get some things wrong, too. But then, I think most belief systems get some things wrong. I'd take BLT (with all its very real faults) over probably 75% of what "religion" you get in most churches on any given Sunday.
Most churches are unfortunately so devoid of Christ's teaching that they barely resemble first century Christianity these days. Tis a shame.
Here's an experiment: Marshall (or anyone here), what was the last sermon you heard on a teaching of Christ? What passage? What was preached? How closely does it relate to anything Jesus actually said?
Nice try, Dan.
Last sermon was on Phillipians 2:1-13 which was one of the readings that day.
But it's a silly challenge. My pastor isn't especially memorable despite his best efforts. In fact, I'd prefer his sermons were more direct. But it really doesn't matter. He doesn't say that Christ was black and that the Romans were white and that if God isn't trying to liberate the blacks on earth than he isn't interested. The previous isn't verbatim, but it is in line with the teachings of BLT. And my pastor doesn't have a problem with me confronting him on points where I've felt he's off base and we discuss the issue like brothers in Christ. BLT is a self-serving theology based on what its founder thought should be, rather than what is as plainly expressed in Scripture. I'm not one of those "all roads lead to Heaven" type of wishy-washy Christians, Dan. Don't try to run that moral equivalency nonsense here.
I'll give you this, however. As my church is a member of the UCC, I can say without reservation that the UCC is definitely teaching non-Christian messages. It's so nice that no congregation is under obligation to conform with the national body. My time with this church grows short unless I can determine that there is a consensus feeling that seccession is possible. We'll see. But know that I'm well aware of what is or isn't in line with the teachings of Christ and am prepared to act accordingly.
But Black Liberation Theology? Not Christian.
Nice try, Dan.
Last sermon was on Phillipians 2:1-13 which was one of the readings that day.
But it's a silly challenge. My pastor isn't especially memorable despite his best efforts. In fact, I'd prefer his sermons were more direct. But it really doesn't matter. He doesn't say that Christ was black and that the Romans were white and that if God isn't trying to liberate the blacks on earth than he isn't interested. The previous isn't verbatim, but it is in line with the teachings of BLT. And my pastor doesn't have a problem with me confronting him on points where I've felt he's off base and we discuss the issue like brothers in Christ. BLT is a self-serving theology based on what its founder thought should be, rather than what is as plainly expressed in Scripture. I'm not one of those "all roads lead to Heaven" type of wishy-washy Christians, Dan. Don't try to run that moral equivalency nonsense here.
I'll give you this, however. As my church is a member of the UCC, I can say without reservation that the UCC is definitely teaching non-Christian messages. It's so nice that no congregation is under obligation to conform with the national body. My time with this church grows short unless I can determine that there is a consensus feeling that seccession is possible. We'll see. But know that I'm well aware of what is or isn't in line with the teachings of Christ and am prepared to act accordingly.
But Black Liberation Theology? Not Christian.
Soooo, is that a NO, you CAN'T remember anything your pastor has preached from Jesus?
Liberation Theologians of all stripes are generally pretty concerned with the basics of Christianity and living an Early Church sort of life, moreso than many religious groups. Yes, they are Christians. They bear the name of Jesus, take Jesus as their Lord, they trust in Jesus' grace for their salvation.
They are Christians and you, sir, are NOT God to determine otherwise. That is blasphemous, un-Christian, anti-christian behavior on your part. Shame on you.
Could you be any more lame? There's a distinct difference between Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology. I've only concerned myself with the latter. I don't care what people choose to call themselves, it doesn't mean it's accurate. Mormons believe themselves to be Christians, but they do not believe as Christians do regarding the nature of God and/or Christ. BLT believes they are somehow special in the sight of God, or should be because their ancestors have suffered. It's akin to me believing that God favors me because of my striking good looks. It's preposterous to pretend that such a digression from Biblical teaching can be lumped in with true Christian denominations. Like Homosexual Theology, they've twisted Scripture to satisfy their own personal biases rather than conforming to Scripture. You're free to believe any crap that comes down the pike, but there's no way I'm going to join in in such bastardization of Biblical teaching and pretend it's on par with the Truth. It is you who blasphemes by suggesting these heretical teachings will bring salvation to anyone. It's man-made garbage that is impossible to support Scripturally. Good luck with that and may God grant you whatever blow to the head is necessary to put you back on the right path. You, sir, are lost.
So, Marshall, I'm wondering on what you base your analysis that BLT is flatly "not christian"? At what point do they reject the teachings of Jesus?
When I said that I would take LT over most of what one hears in most churches on a given Sunday, I meant not that most churches are "not Christian," but rather that, at least with the flawed LT approach, there is a HUGE emphasis on the actual teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Therefore, I can appreciate that about LT Christians.
When YOU say that they're not christians, what do you mean? On what do you base that? As far as I know, LT Christians believe that:
1. We are saved by God's Grace.
2. That Jesus is the son of God who came to earth, showed and taught us how to live, was killed by the powers that be and rose again.
3. That it is faith in Jesus that saves us.
4. That we are sinners who need to ask for forgiveness of our sins and to make Jesus the Lord of our lives (and unlike many Christians, they REALLY mean it when they talk about making Jesus the Lord of their lives).
As far as I know, that is all part and parcel of LT theology, just as it is with orthodox Christianity. Those are the basic tenets of evangelical Christianity, so on what basis do you say they're not Christians? Do you even know any LT or BLT folk? Do you even know anything about what they believe beyond snippets of quotes here and there?
It is a pretty bodacious statement for a mere mortal to presume to speak for God and say "These people are not Christian." And especially one who can't tell me the last time he heard a sermon based on Jesus the Christ's actual words.
(And, by the way, I say that last thing because I think many churchgoers would be honestly surprised how VERY little Jesus' actual teachings come up in sermons. How often do you hear about the Sermon on the Mount? The Sheep and the Goats? The parables of Jesus? Lazarus and the rich man? AND, how often, upon hearing those actual direct teachings of Jesus, do you hear the preacher discount what Jesus said? "Well, when Jesus said, 'WOE TO YOU WHO ARE RICH!' he didn't mean LITERALLY rich..."?
Pay attention. I would bet that other than general references to Jesus' death and resurrection, you will be surprised to learn that your pastor rarely teaches what Jesus actually taught.)
I wish you people would stop using the acronym for Black Liberation Theology. (BLT)
It makes me think of a Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato sandwich.
On Rye.
By the way, it isn't a sin to be rich. It's a sin to put riches above God. That's Jesus' point.
Carry on.
but they do not believe as Christians do regarding the nature of God and/or Christ. BLT believes they are somehow special in the sight of God...
It is you who blasphemes by suggesting these heretical teachings will bring salvation to anyone.
I see where you THINK that, Marshall, but do you have any reference to back it up? Which BLT teaching SPECIFICALLY is heretical? Are you saying, "Well, I MARSHALL, think it is heretical, therefore it IS heretical!" Or can you point to some actual tenet of BLT and show how it departs from the teachings of Christ?
That they think Jesus was a black man is a bit goofy to me (if that's exactly what they think - that Jesus was of African descent, I'm not sure that is what they think), but it hardly is heretical. I'd suggest that the Bible doesn't say specifically so it is possible. But it would be a bit of a stretch to argue in the silence of the Bible on the matter that therefore, Jesus WAS definitely of African descent.
So, it is a bit unsupported, but that's hardly heretical.
That Jesus has a concern for the poor is hardly heretical, either.
So IF you are going to presume to speak for God and say these folk are not Christian, then I would suggest that plain reason and Christian decency would dictate that you support that wild claim with some specifics.
Otherwise, one would have to think that you are given to idle gossip and slander - very antichristian acts, those.
I'm guessing there are Christians within the Black Liberation Theology churches, and there aren't.
Just like every other religious congregation that say they are Christian.
But to teach and preach that black people are "the chosen people" and white people are Satanic, which many of the Black Liberation preachers preach, is not Biblical.
I think even Dan would agree that according to the Bible, "The Chosen People" means Jews.
Well, maybe he wouldn't. He might disagree with that just to be disagreeable, as he is wont to do.
Mark said:
I'm guessing there are Christians within the Black Liberation Theology churches, and there aren't.
Just like every other religious congregation that say they are Christian.
That I could agree with, but that's not what Marshall said. He made the god-like decision that ALL BLT folk are "not Christians."
And, Mark, the "chosen people" means many things in the Bible. Yes, it originally was a reference to the Hebrews. But Jesus and Paul expanded that meaning, pointing out a higher interpretation of the notion of "chosen-ness."
And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace...
~Romans 11
...Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free [no Lib theologian or Evangelical or Catholic -dan], but Christ is all, and is in all.
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.
~Colossians 3
WE are God's chosen people, we who allow ourselves to be chosen by God. We who clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, patience. We who bear with one another and forgive as the Lord forgives.
I'd hope we could all agree that far.
"But Black Liberation Theology? Not Christian."
marshall, can you imagine that this even needs to be pointed out?
they are ANTITHETICAL to one another!
How so?
Here's a few tidbits for Dan's perusal:
To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!
- James H. Cone; Black Theology and Black Power; p. 151
------------------------------------
"The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness) and follow Christ (black ghetto)." [parentheses are Cone's]
- James H. Cone; Black Theology & Black Power; p. 150
-----------------------------------
It is this subjugation of genuine Christianity to the supremacy of the Marxist class struggle, which marks the true delineation between traditional Christianity and black liberation theology, as Pope Benedict XVI (writing in 1984 as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) sums up thusly:
"For the marxist, the truth is a truth of class: there is no truth but the truth in the struggle of the revolutionary class."
Which is precisely why Cone and his disciples are able to boldly proclaim that if the Jesus of traditional Christianity is not united with them in the Marxist class struggle, then he is a "white Jesus," and they must "kill him." (Cone; A Black Theology of Liberation; p. 111)
From a Kyle-Ann Shiver article
Also, it is perfectly acceptable to "speak for God" if using His Words from Scripture. I never do anything more than this, nor would I presume to do so. It's a lame tactic you use, Dan, in order to diminish the POV of your opponents. It's cowardly as it diverts attention from the point being debated to an assumption of blasphemy or heresy on the part of your opponent. What's more to the point, it's lying. Stop it.
Thus, when I question the "Christian-ness" of another, it is based on his words or actions, and the perception, if not fact, of those words or actions failing to align with Scripture. Cone re-writes the Bible even worse than do you when you attempt to suggest homosexual marriage is blessed by God. Honest and honorable men see through that ruse and rightfully dismiss it.
ummm, okay. And WHERE exactly is it that BLT becomes heretical?
You've given some out of context quotes that aren't especially disturbing, although they are questionable, depending upon context. But what you haven't done is said WHY those who believe BLT are not Christians.
IF they believe that Jesus is the son of God;
IF they believe that they are sinners in need of God's grace;
IF they believe that they are saved by God's grace by trusting in Jesus and making him Lord of their lives;
IF they believe these essentials of orthodox Christianity (and I believe they do), then who are you to say they are not Christians?
On what basis? You have not answered my question, Marshall. And yes, IF you accurately quote someone else and IF you say, "The problem with this is that they are departing from God's Way by ..." and filling in the blank, then one can perhaps sometimes presume to speak on behalf of God. A little.
For instance, if someone is saying, "God wants me to kill babies and spit on their graves. Hallelujah! I'm a christian!" THEN you could accurately say, "Brother, what you describe in no way reflects God as God is traditionally known. God has NOT called you to kill babies and you are NOT speaking for God when you say so! Shame on you!" That would be an okay presumption to make.
Presuming to pronounce a whole group of people as not Christian is, however, way beyond your scope, little brother. It is blasphemous to engage in that sort of behavior because YOU don't know whether these folk are Christians or not.
Also, it is perfectly acceptable to "speak for God" if using His Words from Scripture.
Just a note to point out the obvious: You have NOT used any words of Scripture in your denunciation of BLT. You've said, "They twist scripture and they're not Christian!" But that is about as close as you've come to justifying your position. Therefore, you are NOT speaking for God, but for Marshall and little brother, Marshall is just not omniscient enough to know what he's speaking about.
If you'd like some help, a proper rebuke would look like this:
Those who believe in BLT believe that God is a big rabbit. The founder of BLT said in his book, "God is a big rabbit and goes around killing white people for fun. If you want to be a Christian like me and go to heaven, then what you must do is believe that God is a big rabbit that wants US to go around killing white people for fun."
Well, clearly the Founder is wrong. This is NOT what Christianity is about. In fact, God is love and does not want us..."
etc. You take what they've actually said and worked out to be the basic tenets of their belief and then you address that, showing how it is not Christian. You have clearly not done so. You've only made unsupported claims.
If that's all one has to do, it's quite easy. Watch:
Marshall has a turtle butt. He has a little green tail that he can slide in and out of his shell, which is on his back, when he's frightened. He's freaky that way!
There you have it. Proof positive that Marshall has a turtle butt. The proof? Well, I just said so, didn't I? What more proof do you need?
Dan, can I remind you "That God so loved the world, that He sent His only Son" and it was for that reason He came. He knew His purpose. He was obedient to His Father and went to the cross willingly to become the perfect sacrifice for our sins. He did it ALL. Our good works are just the evidence of our love for Him and for what He has done for us. Could you just stop politicizing everything and quit accusing and using those goofy analogies. mom2
Could you just stop politicizing everything and quit accusing...
I have neither politicized nor accused here. What I have done is ask Marshall to stop HIS accusations and politicizations of brothers and sisters in Christ. Where is Marshall's rebuke? OR, are you merely criticizing me for political reasons and not Marshall because he is on the right side of the political divide?
I would ask you to point out WHERE I have politicized or accused, but I know that you don't respond, you merely attack and slander.
On the other hand, I DO use wondrously goofy analogies. You don't like 'em? I rather think they're my forte...
Yes, Dan, I agree with that.
However, as I said, black people are not the chosen people because they are black, which is what the black liberation theology appears to teach.
The key word there, Mark, is "APPEARS." I suspect you are like me in that you have not read much by and about BLT and are not in a position to offer much well-informed opinion.
I am well-informed enough to believe that in general, LT (and BLT) believe in those basic tenets of Christianity (saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus). If someone can show some substantive proof I'm mistaken, that's fine, but no one has thus far and I don't think they will.
What I'm mostly objecting to here is the Cult of Christian Doomsayers - those who presume to be able to speak on behalf of God to say, "That group's out, that group's out, that one is DEFINITELY out, THIS group is okay, but that one is not Christian..." etc, etc., going around and announcing that whole swaths of Christians are not, in fact, Christians. And, according to this cult, they are NOT Christians not because they disagree with the basic tenets, but because they differ on a sin or two or have a different take on some non-essential. Basically, this is the Cult of, "If you don't agree pretty closely with me, you're probably not a Christian." and that is a goofy ol' Cult doing more harm than good, in my estimation.
They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
~Jesus
Dan,
Where do you get your weed? I want weed as good as yours.
What possible context could justify or legitimize the words of Cone I've presented? What part of Scripture can you present that aligns with any of what I've presented? Note the page numbers for the quotes. If you think you can find anything Scripturally that would show those words are NOT a twisted self-serving bastarization of the Lord's Word (and I'm being generous in offering the possibility that it is even worthy of being called a version), then do so.
The goofy analogy you've presented is exactly what is happening with BLT. BLT, and LT for that matter, politicize the faith in a manner that is not intended by any reasonable interpretation of Scripture. But then, you do as much yourself.
For the life of me, I can't think of one instance where race is ever given the time of day in Scripture. Can you? It damned well better be explicit or don't waste my time. You're going to great lengths to give this dude a pass and in doing so, you're coming dangerously close to accusing me of racism, when it is Cone that is the racist. Nothing I've done has been in the least bit blasphemous and I dare you to try to prove otherwise. I don't "speak for God", I point out what He says, and equally, what He has never said in Scripture. And He has NEVER said anything that compares with Cone, in any way, shape or form. I know it's tough for you to understand this. You like to think that God has OK's homosex marriage, but are incapable of supporting such tripe. So you find no problem in defending other heresies from some bastardized notion of Christian fairness (I guess---I really have no clue as to how you come up with your goofiness).
So to you, anyone who corrects such obvious nonsense is "speaking for God", as if we are denied that somehow. We are told to spread His Good News. You spread crap. You spread YOUR version of His Word based on YOUR notion of what it should be, rather than what it clearly is.
So it's not a case of "believing as I do". It's a case of believing what anyone can plainly learn for themselves through honest and self-denying study of the Bible. You, my friend, do that very thing of which you've accused me. If there's any blaspheming going on, it's being done by that guy you see in the mirror every morning. Not by me.
I've asked you politely to stop using the acronym BLT.
I have just been ordered by my doctor to reduce my food intake because my blood sugar is over 300
When I see the acronym, BLT, I think of a bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich, and it makes me hungry and I can't be hungry for the benefit of my health. And I don't even like lettuce and tomato! But a sandwich is food and thinking of food makes me hungry.
So stop it, you two, or else I'm gonna have to junk-punch you both. Grrrrr!
Soooo, not only can you NOT name the last time you actually heard a sermon preached based on Jesus' words, you can't tell me WHY Black LT is "not Christian"? And you bark and bark at me when you're the one who has made an unsupported claim?
Well, you can make false claims, slander good people and pretend to speak for God if you wish to, just don't expect anyone serious to believe your twisted words. But again, I must say, shame on you for speaking such falsehoods and slander. You should be better than that, brother.
In case you genuinely DON'T understand how you are maligning people, allow me to illuminate.
1. You said flat out that Black LT (better, Mark?) is "not Christian."
2. I pointed out that they believe in the essentials of orthodox Christianity.
3. You have ignored that, preferring to insinuate that there are other hoops they must jump through in order to be pleasing in the eyes of Marshall.
4. You take two snippets of paragraphs from all of Cone's writings and suggest that they properly represent essential Black LT tenets. I don't believe these excerpts to be fully representative of BLT.
5. From what I understand about BLT, Cone is IN CONTEXT pointing out that God has always (biblically speaking) taken the side of the poor and oppressed - a factual representation of biblical teaching - and has extended that to black folk who have oftentimes been in the poor and oppressed camp - also factual.
6. BLT does not "hate whitey" as your excerpted quotes have led you to believe. They do hate - righteously - what has been too often white oppression or, more accurately, the oppressive behaviors of the dominant political powers. This is a good and Godly thing to be opposed to.
7. Your problem is that you have taken some excerpts from someone you are already inclined to disagree with and created a strawman position around it that does not represent, I'm suggesting, their actual position. You are arguing based on ignorance of their actual position. And it seems to be a doggedly deliberate ignorance that you are clinging to.
Have you ever actually read Cone's book or are you merely regurgitating selected lines that have been force fed you by others in the kool aid line?
8. To be sure, there are probably places where I disagree with Cone and BLT. But disagreeing with someone on their delivery and emphasis is different than saying, "Because I disagree with our tone, you are obviously not a Christian."
IF someone believes essential Christian doctrine and have been saved by God's grace then, little brother, they ARE a Christian. And neither death, nor life, nor Marshall's hateful, unsupported lies can separate them from the love of God.
A question remains unanswered, Marshall: What do you consider to be essential Christian doctrine?
It sounds like what you're trying to say (but are doing so badly) is that Cone and others are WRONG to make racist-sounding, demonizing comments. To that, I would agree wholeheartedly.
But there is a difference in saying a group is wrong for saying something in a certain way and saying that, because of what they've said, they're not Christians.
That would be like me saying, "Well, Marshall has repeatedly stated that these Christian brothers and sisters aren't, thereby bearing false witness. Therefore, Marshall is not a Christian."
God help us, sometimes we are just plain wrong and we sin. But thankfully, we are not saved based on being perfect, but based on God's grace. Or, at least that's what orthodox Christians believe. I'm not sure what you believe, Marshall.
So go check out Wikipedia's description, "little brother" and get an overview of their racist beliefs. (I can guarantee that if face to face, you would NOT condescend to call me "little brother". Don't get cocky from another state. Is that your idea of non-violent direct action? To provoke with snide comments and then play Mr. Holy when that provocation elicits anger?)
1. Yes I did and do.
2. Sez you and them.
3. There are "hoops" all must jump through in order to please God, not me. So, you lie.
4. I presented a few snippets that are representative of the underlying philosophy of Cone. Far easier than reprinting his whole book.
5. Then your understanding of Cone is as bad as your understanding of Scripture. He is clearly being devisive and highlighting racial differences rather than speaking on we are all equally sinful and equally children of God.
6. He is exploiting the bad feelings of a race of people and inciting them and driving the wedge more deeply between them. He is insisting that God do things his way or God can take a hike.
&. My problem is with people who take God and make Him bend to their religion. I haven't read Cone's book, nor do I intend to, but I've read more than "a few snippets" and the whole concept of Liberation Theology, black or otherwise, abuses religion for political purposes. You can continue being a sucker for every whiner out there if you like, but I'll remain committed to actual teachings of Scripture.
8. I don't disagree with superficial differences, but with starck misinterpretaions. One can say anything about what one claims to believe, but actions must match that claim. The devisive nature of Black Lib..aw shit...BLT is evident in every utterance, "snippet" or explanation of the philosophy. To deny it and cast aspersions upon those who won't fall for it reflects poorly upon you. It is not hateful to reject this bastardization, and I don't deal in lies, unsupported or otherwise. Not so sure about you.
A question remains unanswered, still, Marshall. What do you consider essential Christian doctrine?
I apologize if the "little brother" comment caused offense. I was acting under the assumption that you are younger than I am and that you have not been a Christian as long as I have (35 years, now).
If you prefer, I could call you "Big Brother." Or just, "Brother."
What I won't do is tell you that you're NOT a brother merely because you disagree with me and because you sin when you spread falsehoods as you have repeatedly done here.
If you wish to prove that you have not spread falsehoods, all you have to do is show WHAT specific belief it is that BLT folk have that is opposed to essential Christian teaching. Find a BLT book that says, "God wants us to hate others," or, "BLT teaches that we are saved by hating whitey," and you may have a point.
You have not done so, and so I am telling to your face (so to speak), brother, that you that you are spreading lies. This is a sin and wrong. Thank God that you can be forgiven, but you ought not use God's grace as a license to joyfully engage in this sin of bearing false witness, as you have repeatedly done here.
Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan, Dan,
I have NOT spread one single lie in this post. What I have done is present the words of the man who champions this philosophy. I fail to see what context justifies the words or lends them any legitimacy in terms of alignment with Christian teaching. It is indeed a class struggle about which Cone rants on, and a racial class struggle at that. Wright's blatherings support that notion without question. Christ did NOT deal in classes except for sinners and saints. Christ did NOT deal in racial issues as we are all God's children. Cone's whole deal revolves around both race and class and his analogies and metaphors cast a definite and obvious dynamic of white=evil and black=goodness. Don't rag on me for relating what every "snippet" I've ever heard on the subject plainly presents. You wish to deny it. Fine. Ignore reality if you like. Don't call me names because I refuse to.
As to your unanswered question, I'll save time and just say "Ditto" to what you've read from Eric and Bubba.
Now if you want to insist that Cone and his followers claim to believe in those same essentials, they crap on them by harping on the race/class struggle when God calls us all to follow His only begotten Son and to treat all men as brothers. He insists that if God is not on his side then God should be destroyed, when he should be concerning himself with being on God's side first and last. He, like homosexuals who claim to be Christian, believes on his terms, not God's.
BTW. I can handle "brother" just fine and thanks for that. I like to consider myself brother to all if I can.
Oh yeah. I'm 53 and have been a Christian all my life.
Soooo, brother - you who can't recall the last time you heard the words of Jesus preached in a sermon - you still can't identify the essentials of Christianity - the ones that BLT rejects, in your mind?
Well, I agree with your absence of an answer: There is not anything that I know of in BLT that rejects essential Christian doctrine. They may be wrong in some of the things they say, just as you are wrong in some of the things you say (that BLT is "not Christian," for instance). But being wrong is not the same as not being a Christian.
The question is irrelevant, Dan. Plus, I listen to sermons most days on a Christian radio station in my area. What possible difference does it make to the topic at hand?
As to essentials, I chose to point to a discussion where those very essentials were listed for you and I concur with Eric and Bubba's explanation. There's no need to repeat them here. I've explained how claiming to believe in those essentials is meaningless when the words and/or actions of the person making the claim do not reflect those essentials. And to be clear, one can't claim such as a result of some works, when other works clearly conflict. Capone gave to the poor. Can we rest assured that he was a Christian? It is a lie to pretend that he truly is if his actions so blatantly conflict with Christian teaching. The same holds for people like Cone and Wright and anyone who projects their desires or preferences into doctrine with absolutely lame and unsupportable reasoning to back it up. So once again, if one claims to be Christian and believes child sacrifice is a manifestation of their belief, are they simply wrong, but still on the road to Glory, or are they in trouble?
That's not a fair question to ask Dan, Art. He is a Christian that believes in child sacrifice (abortion).
, I’m late on this debate, but I’ve a question for Dan.
Should man attempt to bend doctrine to his beliefs, or should he attempt to bend his beliefs towards doctrine?
This BLT teaching you speak of is like the sandwich without mayo. Dry and very hard to swallow by discerning individuals.
Not only that, but the main ingredient seems rancid. I find it hard to believe that any self-professed Christian would support such food for the soul.
Would you feel comfortable feeding your child such dry, rancid, food?
Kind of reminds me of Unitarian Universalism's “just about anything goes” philosophy.
To be clear, here are the essentials of orthodox Christianity:
1. Humanity needs salvation and can't save itself.
2. God loves humanity and wishes to save humanity.
3. Humanity can be saved by trusting in God's grace, through faith in Jesus, who is God's son who came to earth, taught and showed us how to live, died and was resurrected.
4. To do this, we ought to confess our sin and ask for forgiveness and seek to make God's ways our ways.
If one believes these (phrased one way or another), one is an orthodox Christian. THAT is what it means to be a Christian.
Now, is it possible that some Christians get some wrong ideas and commit wrong actions? That they speak negatively - even hatefully - of others? Yes, absolutely.
So is it necessary that we be free of all such sin in order to be saved? Hell, no. We can't be perfect. That's why we are in need of a savior.
If our perfection were the criteria, then Marshall and Dan and each of us are doomed, because we're not perfect. But being perfect isn't what makes one a Christian. Believing, trusting, following Jesus, that is what makes one a Christian. And doing so by roughly my four basic steps is what makes one an orthodox Christian.
Those who say that others who believe these four basics are not Christians are not speaking from an orthodox evangelical position. They are speaking from a pharisaical, hypocritical position, seems to me. A tradition of laying burdens on the backs of others that they themselves are not able to support.
You can believe as you wish, of course, but what you are talking about is not orthodox Christianity, Marshall.
Dan, help me out here.
I totally agree with your “4 realisms”.
This is where we part course:
”Now, is it possible that some Christians get some wrong ideas and commit wrong actions? That they speak negatively - even hatefully - of others? Yes, absolutely.
So is it necessary that we be free of all such sin in order to be saved? Hell, no. We can't be perfect. That's why we are in need of a savior.”
Fundamentally you’re correct, but you conveniently ignore certain realities. Of course we don’t claim to be free of “sins”. But the difference is this: Do you continue to perpetrate that which is knowingly wrong, or do you admit your faults, are you genuinely sorry for those faults? Do you try to do better, by yourself, and the people around you?
No one, can know another’s mind. Was it a temporary mind fart? Or a hard and fast, died in stone belief?
It seems to me that this is a very major point in any theology. We all would love to “forgive and forget”, but what about the base persons who have knowingly done wrong and don’t give a crap. Who continue to do wrong. Kind of like the Bacon, Lettuce, Tomato religion that insist on preaching hate. They know what they’re doing, their proud of what their doing, and most dangerously, they think they're justified, in what their doing. And what they're doing borderlines on violence, which I know you're totally against.
What say you?
"You can believe as you wish, of course, but what you are talking about is not orthodox Christianity, Marshall."
Seems to me that orhodox Christianity would require an emphasis on salvation. Cone's is on race and class, neither of which reflect orthodox Christianity. If one claims a belief in the essentials, but focuses on that which is not an essential, indeed elevating that non-essential to some higher status, then the claim regarding the essentials is greatly diminished to a back seat. The claim becomes empty, a ruse to endow the non-essential with a perspective it doesn't deserve in light of Christian doctrine. It's a cover for the marxist ideal of the non-essential.
blamin asked:
Do you continue to perpetrate that which is knowingly wrong, or do you admit your faults, are you genuinely sorry for those faults? Do you try to do better, by yourself, and the people around you?
Well, of course, you don't deliberately perpetrate ANY-thing knowingly wrong. Sometimes we may fail in this regard, but that is not the ideal. Not for me, not for you, not for LT folk. You confess all sins as well as you know them.
The problem with Marshall, in this case, is he apparently does not realize his sin. Same for the BLT who use demonizing, divisive words. They don't THINK they're in the wrong, as Marshall doesn't think he's in the wrong.
Fortunately God's grace covers our ignorance. Still, we all ought to strive for following in Jesus' steps. But our failing to recognize our own sin is not the same as not being Christian.
Right?
But I'm not wrong here, Dan. YOU are. I've only pointed out where BLT has digressed from Christian teaching to become something unChristian. YOU, on the other hand, insist on defending their shortcomings, and even worse, you demonize one who points out those shortcomings, namely, me. So I'm exposing evil and you're defending it, engaging in it yourself by your words against me. You are, in effect, calling evil good (BLT) and good evil (my efforts to expose them). Sleep well.
That is so insanely ignorant and opposite of the facts of what has been said here that it's not really deserving a response.
If it makes you feel better to say so, Dan.
Post a Comment