Victoria Jackson implies Obama is the anti-Christ…
-
whitese7en — 17 years ago(December 16, 2008 11:59 AM)
"Many", but not all? That sounds like progress to me. It wasn't long ago that you were arguing that scripture doesn't require interpretation."
I don't recall ever saying that every scripture in the Bible doesn't need interpretation.
Where do you draw the line between hate speech and tough criticism of American history and foreign policy? Is Noam Chomsky a hate speech provocateur?" Is Michael Savage a hate speech provocateur on the level of a Jeremiah Wright, or worse? Is Ann Coulter a hate speech provocateur? Does she offend you as much or more than Rev. Wright?
No, none of them are hate speech provocateurs due to the fact that they don't use hate speech as a means to cause dissension.
"Talk about blaming the victim, it sounds as though you're blaming Rev. Wright for the white racism out there. [
] Niiice.
I'm not blaming the victim at all. I'5b4m just pointing out that as long as people like Wright continue to stir the pot of racial division and cause dissension by refusing to let wounds of racism heal, they'll never begin to heal.
But consider this: the whites who are not racist tend to be disappointed with or turned off by Wright's approach, not actually angry with him.
I'm not angry with him either.
[
] Yet you think it's Charles Stanley's job to teach economics.
No I don't and I don't recall ever making such a statement either.
Then maybe a little humility and empathy on your part is called for.
Thank you for your opinion.
What is your definition of racism and where is your proof that Wright is a racist besides the fact that he singles out white America? After all, white America has been in charge in this country ever since its founding. Was it black, Latino and Asian America that consigned the Indians to reservations? Was it black, Latino and Asian America that masterminded the Tuskegee experiment or instituted Jim Crow laws?
No, it was white America but it was a white America that has long since died out. That white America 5b4and the white America of today are two completely different animals and the sooner the good rev realizes that, the better off he'll be. Although, I suspect that the good rev is not really interested in allowing the racial scars of the past to heal because they empowers him.
And you evaded it, again. If you think someone is racist because they condemn the institutionalized racism put into place by whites, then you have no idea what racism is.
There's nothing to "evade" because you answered the question yourself.
And that's fine, but when you don't react to injustice with anger or deep sadness, (whether you need to carry it around with you all the time is another matter) then we have reason to suspect that you don't care. I already know that you're capable of anger, because you can't seem to let the Rev. Wright matter go. You travel from board to board condemning his remarks, so don't tell me you're not capable of feeling anger. The question is not whether you feel anger but what makes you angry and why. From what I've read of your posts, it's clear to me that black racism or what you perceive to be black racism makes you angry while white racism does not.
All racism is wrong period.
I'm very sorry to hear that.
Some people are better at letting go of anger than o16d0thers. Often it has to do with one's appraisal of the situation. If a person feels that they've been deeply shamed by something that happened to them, and can find no way to discharge that shame effectively, they can end up carrying unproductive shame-anger around with them to their graves.
I agree.
Of course you do. That's why you keep talking about it, even though there's a world of things in politics that should offend you far more than a couple of snatches of Wright's overheated rhetoric.
No I don't but thank you for your opinion.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 17 years ago(January 10, 2009 05:46 AM)
I don't recall ever saying that every scripture in the Bible doesn't need interpretation.
I don't have time to comb through our previous posts so let me ask you this instead:
How do YOU know which scriptures require interpretation and which don't? And how should this be self-evident to the rest of us?
No, none of them are hate speech provocateurs due to the fact that they don't use hate speech as a means to cause dissension.
PLEEEEASE tell me that was a joke. Please. When Ann Coulter jokes about killing liberals, about "ragheads" and about assassinating President Clinton, you don't think that causes dissension?
It doesn't cause dissension when Michael Savage says: "You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see how do you like that? a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children. Don't give me this crap that they're doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It's not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, "You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can." That's how I see it!"
All racism is wrong period.
So you agree that Michael Savage is wrong, yet he doesn't cause dissension with his vicious racist rants?
I'm just pointing out that as long as people like Wright continue to stir the pot of racial division and cause dissension by refusing to let wounds of racism heal, they'll never begin to heal.
Know what I think? I think you're angry at Wright because he has the temerity to make you feel guilty about things you'd rather keep covered up. It makes you angry to have to confront unpleasant truths about race in America when you would rather assume that all the bad stuff is well behind us now.
it was a white America that has long since died out.
I'm not talking about Jim Crow laws. I'm talking about racism in general, you know, the kind which may have cost Obama 6 percentage points in the general election. The kind that Michael Savage spouts that you feel doesn't cause dissension. Tell me what you make of this:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-race-in-ameri ca
No I don't and I don't recall ever making such a statement either.
Again, I'm not going to 5b4take the time to go over your past posts atm, but I'll ask this instead. Do you think that Stanley has any business making authoritative pronouncements on economic affairs to his congregation, (some of whom are very credulous, deferential people)?
There's nothing to "evade" because you answered the question yourself.
There's something to "evade" if you let me answer the question for YOU. -
Dont_call_me_Junior — 17 years ago(January 31, 2009 10:56 PM)
I think she's a biased ignorant insane cow. Obama's the antichrist? How is that? He wants to improve health care. What a monster!
She has also said that she thinks Fox News is the "only source of real journalism." Ok that should be a real glimpse into her i5b4ntellect and psyche. She obviously has no idea what journalism is. That makes her stupid, aswell as being a biased ignorant insane cow. -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(March 11, 2009 01:47 AM)
I don't recall ever saying that every scripture in the Bible doesn't need interpretation.
The truth, is that some verses are easily interpreted and others aren't. Some verses are nothing more than the recounting of an event whereas others are not and usually have a much deeper meaning.
I don't have time to comb through our previous posts so let me ask you this instead:
How do YOU know which scriptures require interpretation and which don't? And how should this be self-evident to the rest of us?
For me, I know them when I see them. It's matter of using common sense.
No, none of them are hate speech provocateurs due to the fact that they don't use hate speech as a means to cause dissension.
I personally haven't heard him say that. If he did say that, that is his own personal opinion and as distasteful as it may be, he has a right to say that.
[
] [
] [
]
PLEEEEASE tell me that was a joke. Please. When Ann Coulter jokes about killing liberals, about "ragheads" and about assassinating President Clinton, you don't think that causes dissension?
Again, I haven't heard her say those things either. But, if she did, it's her personal opinion which she is entitled to.
It doesn't cause dissension when Michael Savage says: "You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see how do you like that? a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children. Don't give me this crap that they're doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It's not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, "You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can." That's how I see it!"
All racism is wrong period.
So you agree that Michael Savage is wrong, yet he doesn't cause dissension with his vicious racist rants?
See my comment above.
I'm just pointing out that as long as people like Wright continue to stir the pot of racial division and cause dissension by refusing to let wounds of racism heal, they'll never begin to heal.
Know what I think? I think you're angry at Wright because he has the temerity to make you feel guilty about things you'd rather keep covered up. It makes you angry to have to confront unpleasant truths about race in America when you would rather assume that all the bad stuff is well behind us now.
You're entitled to your opinion. However, I feel guilty for nothing. It is for the most part behind us now with the exception of a few knuckleheads who are still living in the 1950's.
it was a white America that has long since died out.
I'm not talking about Jim Crow laws. I'm talking about racism in ge1c84neral, you know, the kind which may have cost Obama 6 percentage points in the general election. The kind that Michael Savage spouts that you feel doesn't cause dissension. Tell me what you make of this:
http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-race-in-ameri ca
What I make of it, is that it's a poll, so what? He won the election, is that not proof enough that we aren't as racially divided as we once were? Personally, my vote had nothing to do with his skin color. Nor, was my voting for McCain based on skin color. I didn't care for either of them so I voted for the lesser of the two evils.
No I don't and I don't recall ever making such a statement either.
Again, I'm not going to take the time to go over your past posts atm, but I'll ask this instead. Do you think that Stanley has any business making authoritative pronouncements on economic affairs to his congregation, (some of whom are very credulous, deferential people)?
It depends on what statement you're referring to.
There's nothing to "evade" because you answered the question yourself.
There's something to "evade" if you let me answer the question for YOU.
Thank you for your opinion.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 17 years ago(March 14, 2009 08:06 AM)
The truth, is that some verses are easily interpreted and others aren't. Some verses are nothing more than the recounting of an event whereas others are not and usually have a much deeper meaning.
Good, we're making progress. In the past you
did
argue that the scriptures were all self-evident to those who have faith.
For me, I know them when I see them. It's matter of using common sense.
So the millions of Christians around the world and throughout history who interpret scripture differently are devoid of common sense? How unfortunate for them.
he has a right to say that.
That's not what we're discussing and you know it.
Why is it so easy for you to call Wright a "hate speech" provocateur but not Ann Coulter and Michael Savage? Why is it so easy for you to observe that Wright "causes dissension" but so difficult for you to recognize that Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, with their exponentially bigger "megaphones," have caused far more dissension?
The rest of your post provides the usual slim pickings, so I'll end here. -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(April 02, 2009 10:28 AM)
Good, we're making progress. In the past you did argue that the scriptures were all self-evident to those who have faith.
We're not making "progress&b68quot; because I'm not changing what I have said all along. I have said all along that [some] verses are in essence self-evident in their meaning while others aren't. By that, what I mean, is that the Holy Spirit isn't really necessary to interpret the meaning of [some] verses. Meaning, that even unsaved people can understand the meaning behind the verse. An example of a verse like that, would be John 3:16. There is no spiritual discernment required to comprehend the meaning of that verse because it is self explanatory.
So the millions of Christians around the world and throughout history who interpret scripture differently are devoid of common sense? How unfortunate for them.
How on Earth did you get that out of what I said?
That's not what we're discussing and you know it. Why is it so easy for you to call Wright a "hate speech" provocateur but not Ann Coulter and Michael Savage? Why is it so easy for you to observe that Wright "causes dissension" but so difficult for you to recognize that Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, with their exponentially bigger "megaphones," have caused far more dissension?
He is a pastor, while they are entertainers. He is supposedly charged with teaching and spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is a message of love and inclusion but instead, Wright chooses to provoke hatred from the pulpit. And don't even try to say he doesn't do that because even Obama eventually denounced him and separated himself from him due to his hate speech. It took him 17 years to do it but eventually he did. Although, I suspect it was only because he saw his chances of becoming president start to slip away.
The rest of your post provides the usual slim pickings, so I'll end here.
That's wise of you to concede on those points.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
makkabee — 17 years ago(April 02, 2009 03:08 PM)
Entertainers? No no no. They present themselves as political commentators, serious molders of public thought and political opinion. You're making excuses for them while c1c84ondemning Reverend Wright. Why the double standard?
Also, you're factually inaccurate about the people Wright complained about being long dead. Oh, some of them are the ones who passed the laws establishing slavery, the ones who set up the internment camps, etc. Plenty of them aren't though. Lots of survivors of the KKK's terrorist war against integration and civil rights are still alive and kicking. Lots of people who fanned racial fears to get into office are still around, and quite a few of them are still in office.
And plenty of Wrights complaints aren't historical, they're about things still happening today. The building new prisons while the school system withers is still happeining, for instance. White cops are still beating, even shooting, unarmed blacks and not going to jail for it. Wright's point is that racist activity today is a continuation of the centuries of racist activity that have marred our history. He can't and shouldn't "get over it" because it's not "over" yet. -
whitese7en — 17 years ago(April 02, 2009 03:21 PM)
Oh please!! Get over it!! A black man is now in the White House, the state sponsored repression is over. That's not to say there aren't racist people however because there clearly are. However, for the most part, they're on the fringes of society. It's people like Wright and Cone who exacerbate racial tensions.
As for Coulter, Savage and the others, they're entertainers, they aren't pastors, which is the point I was making.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 16 years ago(August 25, 2009 09:01 PM)
You might be interested, if not surprised, to find out what a towering hypocrite whitese7en is. On the one hand he condemns Rev. Wright, on the other he is a follower of the Rev. Charles Stanley who, some years ago, favored sending missionaries alongside US troops in Iraq. Said Stanley: "God favors war for divine reasons and sometimes uses it to accomplish his will."
-
whitese7en — 16 years ago(January 12, 2010 08:36 PM)
Yes, that's because Rev Wright, IMHO, is a racist, whereas Dr. Charles Stanley, isn't.
How and in what universe, is that hypocritical?
God does use war to accomplish His will.
That is, when His will is to either punish wickedness, eradicate evil or protect His people.
As for this comment of yours, "favored sending missionaries alongside US troops in Iraq", where did you get that from? Can you cite a reference?
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
bob-03913111 — 16 years ago(April 02, 2010 03:26 PM)
As for this comment of yours, "favored sending missionaries alongside US troops in Iraq", where did you get that from? Can you cite a reference?
Of course.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/04/15/in_touch/
(and this might interest you:
http://www.basicchristian.com/warwithIraq.html
Dr. Charles Stanley, isn't
He's a bigot who never publicly mourned the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children at our hands. Why? Probably because he already implied in his infamous sermon that these children were among those fighting God.
God does use war to accomplish His will.
So the Popes and the crusaders have claimed for centuries.
Were they ever wrong?
How do we know when God is really fighting on our side, and when we are merely self-deluded? -
bob-03913111 — 16 years ago(June 21, 2009 06:15 AM)
I have said all along that [some] verses are in essence self-evident in their meaning while others aren't.
What inviolable heuristic tool do you use that makes this so clear and how can major theologians become as astute as (you think) you are? Because many of them today and throughout history are not nearly as certain as you are.
By that, what I mean, is that the Holy Spirit isn't really necessary to interpret the meaning of [some] verses
Oh, so this "heuristic tool" is the Holy Spirit, is it? The Holy Spirit comes to you but bypasses Bishop Spong?
There is no spiritual discernment required to comprehend the meaning of that verse because it is self explanatory.
The Bible is literature and like any other form of literature, only makes sense in context. The FACT that the Gospels and books of the NT differ in so many respects means that it needs a whole lot of interpretation in context. And even then it doesn't make too much sense.
He is a pastor, while they are entertainers
As news pundits, they have no moral responsibility? Tell the truth. What they say simply doesn't offend you, and that, my devout Christian friend, makes your worldview morally repugnant to any truly decent human being.
He is supposedly charged with teaching and spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is a message of love and inclusion
It's also a message of hellfire and damnation, isn't it? The way I see it, his "Wright-eous indignation" fits right in with what most preachers do, including even the conservative whitey-white-faces you so admire.
And don't even try to say he doesn't do that because even Obama eventually denounced him and separated himself from him due to his hate speech
How naive. Wright's speech was manipulated by the far right and played over and over again to the point that Wright became a political liability for Obama.
Come to think of it, McCain had a little trouble with a preacher named Hagee, from whom he had to distance himself for political reasons. Got something to say about Hagee? Does he offend you too? Why or why not?
That's wise of you to concede on those points.
Honey, I'm just warming up. Wait till you read what I have to say about your ridiculous post on the Oprah Winfrey board. -
sweiland75 — 16 years ago(September 06, 2009 04:43 PM)
What percentage of people who voted for Obama were black?
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
You can help change the world. -
whitese7en — 16 years ago(January 12, 2010 08:41 PM)
Your continuing to follow me around imdb, is in a word, pathetic. I do however wear it as a badge of honor, so continue if you must.
I'm on other blogs too. Would you like me to give those to you as well?
I am under different names however. Would you as well like a list of those?
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
whitese7en — 16 years ago(February 16, 2010 01:50 AM)
What inviolable heuristic tool do you use that makes this so clear and how can major theologians become as astute as (you think) you are? Because many of them today and throughout history are not nearly as certain as you are.
By that, what I mean, is that the Holy Spirit isn't really necessary to interpret the meaning of [some] verses
Oh, so this "heuristic tool" is the Holy Spirit, is it? The Holy Spirit comes to you but bypasses Bishop Spong?
Based on Bishop Spong's beliefs, I would have to sadly say, yes. I don't believe, based solely on his theology, that he is indwelt with the same Holy Spirit that I am indwelt with.
There is no spiritual discernment required to comprehend the meaning of that verse because it is self explanatory.
Tb68he Bible is literature and like any other form of literature, only makes sense in context. The FACT that the Gospels and books of the NT differ in so many respects means that it needs a whole lot of interpretation in context. And even then it doesn't make too much sense.
I'm sure it doesn't make sense to you and those like you. As I've said many times, many of its truths are not to be discerned by the lost.
He is a pastor, while they are entertainers
As news pundits, they have no moral responsibility? Tell the truth. What they say simply doesn't offend you, and that, my devout Christian friend, makes your worldview morally repugnant to any truly decent human being.
Also, as I have said many times before, their political statements are not from behind a pulpit in the role of a pastor.
He is supposedly charged with teaching and spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is a message of love and inclusion
It's also a message of hellfire and damnation, isn't it? The way I see it, his "Wright-eous indignation" fits right in with what most preachers do, including even the conservative whitey-white-faces you so admire.
Yes, it absolutely is a message of "hellfire and damnation", no question about that. Are you familiar with Tony Evans or Harry Jackson? No? Well, they're black pastors whom I listen to on my ipod while working out. For the record, I don't give a rat's ass what a pastor's race is, as long as his theology is sound. I also listen to Michael Youssef and Ravi Zacharias, neither of which are "whitey-white-faces", at least not technically. Btw, I also have twice voted for black men over white men, and one of the black men was even running for President. What do you have to say about that Mr Knowitall??
And don't even try to say he doesn't do that because even Obama eventually denounced him and separated himself from him due to his hate speech
How naive. Wright's speech was manipulated by the far right and played over and over again to the point that Wright became a political liability for Obama.
The fact is, Obama denounced him for his divisive and inflammatory speech, period. So, either he truly was divisive and inflammatory or, Obama was lying and/or wrong to denounce him. Which is it?
LOL!! It was Bush's fault wasn't it. I bet that sneaky SOB was under the pulpit pointing a gun Rev Wright's crotch telling him to make those statements, wasn't he?
Come to think of it, McCain had a little trouble with a preacher named Hagee, from whom he had to distance himself for political reasons. Got something to say about Hagee? Does he offend you16d0 too? Why or why not?
No, Hagee doesn't offend me in the least, but, then again, neither does Wright.
I've never been a fan of John Hagee, for this reason, he isn't on my ipod. However, then again, I've never been a fan of John McCain either, nor did I vote for him in the primary. The only reason I voted for him in the general election, is because he wasn't the other guy. For the record, that was the first time and most likely the last time I will ever vote for John McCain.
That's wise of you to concede on those points.
Honey, I'm just warming up. Wait till you read what I have to say about your ridiculous post on the Oprah Winfrey board.
LOL!! I'm shaking in my shoes.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening! -
whitese7en — 16 years ago(February 16, 2010 12:47 AM)
Good, we're making progress. In the past you did argue that the scriptures were all self-evident to those who have faith.
No, that is not what I said. They're not "self"-evident to those with faith, they're Holy Spirit-evident to those with faith. One does need the Holy Spirit to interpret some verses, while others, are very easily discerned by the lost. In other words, some verses are "self"-evident(meaning the Holy Spirit isn't required to discern its truth, whereas other verses hidden truths, are only discerned by believers, those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
So the millions of Christians around the world and throughout history who interpret scripture differently are devoid of common sense? How unfortunate for them.
No, not necessarily, but at the same time, they also aren't necessarily indwelt by the Holy Spirit either. Just because one calls him or herself a Christian, it doesn't mean they are a Christian. This is why Jesus admonished His followers to judge men by the fruit they bear.
he has a right to say that.
That's not what we're discussing and you know it. Why is it so easy for you to call Wright a "hate speech" provocateur but not Ann Coulter and Michael Savage? Why is it so easy for you to observe that Wright "causes dissension" but so difficult for you to recognize that Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, with their exponentially bigger "megaphones," have caused far more dissension?
I never said he didn't have a "right" to say that, because he very much does, thanks to the Constitution of the United States of America. But, just because someone has a right to say something, that doesn't mean what they are saying, is proper.
Again, as I have stated ad nauseum, they, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage and the like, are entertainers, they are not pastors. They make the statements they do, no matter how distasteful they may be to some, before TV cameras and radio microphones. They do not make their political statements from behind a pulpit in the role of a pastor.
The rest of your post provides the usual slim pickings, so I'll end here.
Wise course of action on your part.
My Tae Kwon Do instructor tells me I'm just two moves away from becoming quite threatening!