Isn’t it Black Liberation theology ? Big Eddie can see where Jeremiah Wright would be entertaining on a Sunday morning . But for 20 years ? With your children listening to this stuff ? Anyway , people can believe what they want , of course . Big Eddie says drop it , and play 36 holes .

Liberation Theology is a perversion of the gospel; the majority of those believing in it accept that the government should be the one “liberating.”

Would love to see Beck take Press up on this.

Is Beck a coward?

We’ll find out!

I like this site very much

===== http://www.happy2shopping.us ====

didnt bill press rape and kill a goat in 2003? msnbc canceled his show because of it.

Doubt he will debate… His audience is already happy with the taunting of phones…

Press will do anything to get his name know…..what does he have to loose?

Sounds like Bill Press needs to go back to school himself. Jesus said that the greatest commandments are first to love God with all one’s being and secondly to love one’s neighbor as himself; however, a case cannot be made from the new testament for the kind of government-instituted welfare and charity that modern purveyors of “social justice” and “liberation theology” advocate. Two of the most cited passages that commies and social justice purveyors cite are:

Acts 2:44-45
“And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.”

and

Acts 4:34-35
“There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.”

One must recognize that in context both of these passages explicitly describe behavior within the Church, among believers in Christ—spiritually reborn sons and daughters of God. These passages—and the Mt 25 passage Press cites—cannot be used to develop “Biblical” governmental structures. Jesus spoke to the distinction between one’s spiritual duties and their poitical duties, that one is to “…render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)

The government needs to let the Church be the agency of charity and welfare in the US—and the Church needs to step up to fill the role as it did historically, before Progressives usurped its role.

Bill Press is just another member of the PROFESSIONAL LEFT.
He sees others getting ATTENTION & wants some of that stuff himself.
He isn’t fit to carry Glenn Beck’s jockstrap.

“I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. … I needed clothes, and you clothed me.”
And? Stats continually show that conservatives (of all economic backgrounds) give more to charity than liberals. We do it because it’s the right thing to do. We don’t need the government forcing it upon us. We don’t need the government playing class warfare and pitting one group against the other. Good God. How dim are you lefties, anyway?

BTW, if the Obama were a white Repub and he sat in a radical white racist chuch, like Obama sat in a radical black racist church, Bill Press, Tommy Christopher & the rest of the left-wing media would be singing a completely different tune…and you know it. But, the president is a black lefty so he could kick Tommy or Bill’s dog in the face, and they’d justify it.

Daniel Coe said:
The government needs to let the Church be the agency of charity and welfare in the US—and the Church needs to step up to fill the role as it did historically, before Progressives usurped its role.

Daniel, excellent post!

lonestar77 said:
Stats continually show that conservatives (of all economic backgrounds) give more to charity than liberals. We do it because it’s the right thing to do. We don’t need the government forcing it upon us. We don’t need the government playing class warfare and pitting one group against the other.

Lonestar, right on!

lonestar77 said:

BTW, if the Obama were a white Repub and he sat in a radical white racist church, like Obama sat in a radical black racist church, Bill Press, Tommy Christopher & the rest of the left-wing media would be singing a completely different tune…and you know it. But, the president is a black lefty so he could kick Tommy or Bill’s dog in the face, and they’d justify it.

AMEN

No one is stopping the churches from being “agents of charity.”

Also here is a refresher, Cons.

The Founding Fathers rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, “Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom.” Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

BTW, if the Obama were a white Repub and he sat in a radical white racist chuch, like Obama sat in a radical black racist church, Bill Press, Tommy Christopher & the rest of the left-wing media would be singing a completely different tune…and you know it. But, the president is a black lefty so he could kick Tommy or Bill’s dog in the face, and they’d justify it.

BRAVO

This is no joke folks I found this on Winki about Press LMAO!

“Radio talk show
Since September 2005, Press has been hosting a daily liberal talk radio program which is broadcast on terrestrial radio affiliates in the United States live from 6-9 AM ET and boasts an audience of nearly two dozen listeners.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Press#Radio_talk_show

Two dozen listeners? BLAH! HA! HA!

Who was Press talking to? Just Tommy? Why would Beck want to debate a guy that boasts two dozen listeners?

BTW: Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves [Hardcover]
Bill Press/ Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #12,181 in Books

By the end of the month you should find it in ‘Dollar Tree’ for about a buck.

Dude, this guy was on the Lars Larson show (promoting his book which didn’t fly off the shelves) and on that he said that calling President Obama a socialist is hate speech. With arguments like that, I’m sure Press would lose in this debate. Glenn is a smart guy. Press is desperate for attention and knows he can get it by talking about that crazy hatemonger Glenn Beck. I’m curious how he can defend James Cone saying, among other things, “Now if the powerful in our society, the white people, if they want to become Christians, they have to give up that power.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plRkc7_a4EM&feature=related

I wonder what Black Liberation Theology people think of people like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX864fXR1A0

Quoting wikipedia as a source.

Great job, “Puck30!”

You don’t think maybe, just maybe, a snide bitter Glenn Beck fan might have gone onto the collaborative open source website written by ANYONE WHO HAS A COMPUTER with access to the site?

No. Couldn’t be!

I can assure you he has more than “two dozens listeners.”

You cons are duped so easily.

Guess that’s why you love Fox.

Beck should ignore Press. He’s a nobody. He’s a nut. Basically, he’s a typical angry leftist…like “shootfromthehip”.

Aw. Do I sound angry to you cutie?

*hugs*

You want to hear angry?

I suggest you tune into Limbaugh, Mark Levin or Hannity. They literally scream on the radio. And Beck sure knows how to raise his voice and act hysterical too. John Stewart famously has mocked the hysterics. As have many other comedians.

“Leftists” like Bill Press and Rachel Maddow talk at a reasonable volume about reasonable things.

Because we are not the crazy ones.

shootfromthehip said:
I can assure you he has more than “two dozens listeners.”

And you’re a damn liar . Prove it . And not from one of those radical LW websites either.

“Leftists” like Bill Press and Rachel Maddow talk at a reasonable volume about reasonable things.
Bahahahahahahahaha. There are some lefties out there you could have pointed to that actually talk about reasonable things in a reasonable way, but you went 0-2 on that one. Yeah, the Beck rally is EXACTLY like Al-quaeda holding a rally at ground zero.

Here is is bio from a radio trade magazine: many of these stations he has been on are Clear Channel stations (some of the biggest AM PPM stations in the US such as KFI). So I think it’s safe to assume Clear Channel thought he had more than “two dozen listeners.”

You cons are sad. Really.

The partial bio of Bill Press:

“For six years, Press was co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire.” He also co-anchored “The Spin Room” on CNN, with Tucker Carlson; and “Buchanan and Press” on MSNBC, with Pat Buchanan. For two years, Press was co-host of “The Morning Show,” 5-9 a.m., on Washington’s WMAL-AM, with Andy Parks and Jane Norris. Press began his radio and TV career in Los Angeles, where he offered political commentary on the evening news for 12 years – first on KABC-TV, then on KCOP-TV. Bill’s first talk radio experience was at KABC-AM, as political commentator on the morning drive show, “Ken and Bob.” He was a frequent guest host for Michael Jackson and Ray Bream. For two years, he was co-host of “The Dueling Bills” with Bill Pearl. Press then moved to KFI-AM, where he hosted the popular “Bill Press True American” show on weekend afternoons.”

He now hosts a syndicated show that is on the air in over 20 major media markets every weekday.

He may not be as big as Rush or Hannity, but he sure has a LOT more than “two dozen listeners.”

*Note: He is not on KFI anymore I don’t think but he is on major AM stations such as WWKB and AM950 in Minneapolis.

And many, many more…..

Bill Press ! Old, ugly, irrelevant!
Beck, you should ignore this asshole. He just wants 15 minutes !
Time to start ignoring Mr Ed, the Talking Horses Ass, also!
He is hoping to build his very anemic ratings.
If you keep talking about jerkoffs like these two, they may gain
one or two dozen listeners curious to see what it is all about !
They can’t do it thru their own shows because no one tunes in!

(http//:www.2wintrade.com) is a well-established wholesale distributor of all kinds Nike Air Jordan sneaker and other hight quality footwear. Wholesale in very low minimum quantity, you can try our first class services by initially purchasing in small quantities. Most of our merchandise can be initially purchased in single units as a sample product and also at sample prices. You can use the most advanced fast and secure payment, wire transfer also be acceptable. It is so easy to place a wholesale order!

Of course there are other online wholesale site that offer products similar to ours. Why are we different? That’s easy!

?Top quality products at wholesale prices.
?Fast shipping. Most orders will be shipped within 12-48 hours after receipt of payment.
?Prompt, professional customer service. Your questions and concerns are critical to us!
?We constantly update our inventory to bring you the best selection.
?We offer discounts to our bulk buyers based on our affordable prices.
We provide ongoing assistance. We want you to come back again and again

Beck, it would be best to step back from this one and just admit you are wrong.
You are shooting your mouth off without being fully aware of the facts, sir.

Press received a B.A. in philosophy from Niagara University and S.T.B. in theology from the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.

Beck received…

Timothy Wright said:
Press received a B.A. in philosophy from Niagara University and S.T.B. in theology from the University of Fribourg, Switzerland.

Beck received…

high school diploma

It’s why he should step back from this. He hasn’t truly studied it. He has an opinion. Fine.
but he is lacking the facts. People have a right to their opinions, but not their own facts.

Daniel Coe said:
Sounds like Bill Press needs to go back to school himself. Jesus said that the greatest commandments are first to love God with all one’s being and secondly to love one’s neighbor as himself; however, a case cannot be made from the new testament for the kind of government-instituted welfare and charity that modern purveyors of “social justice” and “liberation theology” advocate.

The government needs to let the Church be the agency of charity and welfare in the US—and the Church needs to step up to fill the role as it did historically, before Progressives usurped its role.

The Church historically did? Daniel if you took a realistic look at history in this country and the history of BLT. you’d understand that BLT came about precisely because the church {Christians as a whole body} did not fulfill it’s role or follow the instructions of their savior. White Christians supported slavery and when the government finally abolished that they continued to deny black Americans their rights for decade after decade, until the government had to step in again with the civil rights act. I agree with you that it’s preferable for the people to do it on their own without government programs and I think BLT would prefer that as well. Had the church actually done as Jesus instructed 2000 years ago none of those laws would have been necessary. It was the churches failure that made government intervention required. Regardless of what Glenn “get rich by lying and scaring people” Beck says, nobody is advocating communism. The question is what do we do as a society to reasonably help those in need {as Jesus instructed} Where are the lines drawn? What do we do, so our government doesn’t need to be involved? Those are serious questions that good willed patriots can disagree on and perhaps find a compromised solution through honest debate. Beck is not interested in an honest debate and neither are most of our elected officials. The scripture you mentioned are not the ones I use to point out how BLT is supported in the Bible. I tend to lean on the words of Jesus.

Luke 4:18
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,

Matt 25:35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

James 2:15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Matthew 25:40
“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Things have gotten a lot better since the 60s when BLT began. There is still work to do. We need to stop enriching opportunists like Beck and seriously address the issues.

lonestar77 said:
“I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. … I needed clothes, and you clothed me.”
And? Stats continually show that conservatives (of all economic backgrounds) give more to charity than liberals. We do it because it’s the right thing to do. We don’t need the government forcing it upon us. We don’t need the government playing class warfare and pitting one group against the other. Good God. How dim are you lefties, anyway?

BTW, if the Obama were a white Repub and he sat in a radical white racist chuch, like Obama sat in a radical black racist church, Bill Press, Tommy Christopher & the rest of the left-wing media would be singing a completely different tune…and you know it. But, the president is a black lefty so he could kick Tommy or Bill’s dog in the face, and they’d justify it.

Conservatives do give generously to Charity but there’s a difference between that and fighting for equal rights and opportunity for your fellow citizens. BLT came about precisely because white America , and white Christianity did not practice what Jesus preached , and so the government was forced to act. Beck is intentionally misrepresenting the Presidents religion. Press has said, “Put up or shut up” Let’s see if he does either.
Also, Judging Rev Wright, who grew up in the old south, based on a few words carefully selected, is decidedly unchristian, and allowing yourself to be manipulated by people who don’t care about you.

Calvin said:
Dude, this guy was on the Lars Larson show (promoting his book which didn’t fly off the shelves) and on that he said that calling President Obama a socialist is hate speech. With arguments like that, I’m sure Press would lose in this debate. Glenn is a smart guy. Press is desperate for attention and knows he can get it by talking about that crazy hatemonger Glenn Beck. I’m curious how he can defend James Cone saying, among other things, “Now if the powerful in our society, the white people, if they want to become Christians, they have to give up that power.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plRkc7_a4EM&feature=related

I wonder what Black Liberation Theology people think of people like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX864fXR1A0

Calvin, you don’t judge a person or a religion from a few words selected to make them look bad. Should we look back at Beck’s days of alcoholism and judge him based only on that?
The fact is Christianity in this country failed to live up to the teachings of Jesus when it came to black Americans. That’s the atmosphere that BLT was born out of.
Beck is intentionally distorting the president’s religion and liberation theology in general. Maybe the president deserves to be judged by his words and actions, honestly, rather than by Becks distortions. BLT was born in the turbulent 60s and has changed over time just as we as a nation have. How can Beck honor MLK and civil rights on Saturday and be so very ignorant of what BLT is really about and where it came from. It’s intentional , to create controversy and keep his ratings up.
Saturday he makes a grand gesture for religious unity. Sunday he claims liberation theology is a perversion.
He’s not basing his conclusions on what the president has done or said concerning race and religion. So what is he judging from?

lonestar77 said:
Beck should ignore Press. He’s a nobody. He’s a nut. Basically, he’s a typical angry leftist…like “shootfromthehip”.

Beck has asked to be corrected if he’s wrong. Is he sincere about that? Here’s his chance to show it if he is.

lonestar77 said:
“Leftists” like Bill Press and Rachel Maddow talk at a reasonable volume about reasonable things.
Bahahahahahahahaha. There are some lefties out there you could have pointed to that actually talk about reasonable things in a reasonable way, but you went 0-2 on that one. Yeah, the Beck rally is EXACTLY like Al-quaeda holding a rally at ground zero.

There are unreasonable extremists on both sides. One does not justify the other, and none of those extremists are helping us have a decent dialogue about serious issues.

JimBob said:
Bill Press ! Old, ugly, irrelevant!
Beck, you should ignore this asshole. He just wants 15 minutes !
Time to start ignoring Mr Ed, the Talking Horses Ass, also!
He is hoping to build his very anemic ratings.
If you keep talking about jerkoffs like these two, they may gain
one or two dozen listeners curious to see what it is all about !
They can’t do it thru their own shows because no one tunes in!

Beck himself claimed he’d like to be corrected if he’s wrong. Is he sincere? Do you have any interest in hearing the other side of the argument , or relevant facts. Didn’t Beck ask his fans and good Americans to be truthful and seek the truth? How do we do that without listening to others and looking for facts?

AngelPeters said:
It’s why he should step back from this. He hasn’t truly studied it. He has an opinion. Fine.
but he is lacking the facts. People have a right to their opinions, but not their own facts.

He doesn’t want to step back because all the controversy is so good for ratings. An hour spent on Google will tell him he’s wrong. He doesn’t care about that or any of the platitudes he spouted on Saturday about religious unity and being concerned about the truth. It’s a shame to see how easily people are taken in by his act.

This is so ironic I don’t know where to begin.

Is Bill Press saying that his belief in liberation theology influences his political stance? Is this the same guy who said of Beck’s rally that God doesn’t have any place in politics?

The FUNDAMENTAL problem with applying the Biblical exhortation to care for the poor to the state is that it ceases to be a voluntary act of love. Let’s stay in the book of Matthew, shall we? Matt. 20:25-26- “But Jesus called them to Him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great exercise authority over them. IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU; but whoever wants to be great among you shall be your servant.”

The state BY DEFINITION lords over people. If you want to transfer “charity” to the state, it’s no longer charity. It’s being compelled; forced. That’s not charity, that’s your obligation. Christians are meant to be EXAMPLES, or LEADERS. They’re not supposed to force anything on anyone. This is why Jesus said if people don’t accept the word of the gospel, you just dust off your feet and move on. You’re not supposed to FORCE it on anyone.

I don’t believe Beck will waste his time to debate on this. They just both come at this from different angles.

What I would like to see is Press go to Salt Lake City and see what the Mormons do with welfare, taking care of their own, and humanitarian aid.

Then I’d like to see Beck go visit whatever church organization (if there is a central organization) of the church that Press associates with and see what they are doing for the same causes.

I believe the answers will come and both will learn from the other’s view. My personal feeling is that Christ changes people from inside first and then the outside is taken care of.

CosmosDan says:
September 3, 2010 at 10:02 am (Quote)
0 2

“Also, Judging Rev Wright, who grew up in the old south, based on a few words carefully selected, is decidedly unchristian, and allowing yourself to be manipulated by people who don’t care about you.”

That’s the biggest piece of shit statement I’ve ever read. Rev. Right is an extreme bigoted racist. Period. Condi Rice grew up in the south and somehow she doesn’t hate white people and this country like that jackass does. I honestly can’t believe you would defend someone like that. What would you say if I defended David Duke? Utter nonsense.

You ask if Beck is sincere about being corrected if he is wrong. Well, I would imagine he is. Bill Press didn’t prove anybody wrong. He quoted some scripture that people should live by, not scripture saying the federal government should mandate these issues. To pretend that Obama didn’t attend either a black liberation or liberation theology church for 20 years is burying your head in the sand. If you think Rev. Wright is mainstream, you’re out of your mind. Just because he’s black, doesn’t make him immune from be accurately portrayed as a racist nutjob.

CosmosDan said:
Conservatives do give generously to Charity but there’s a difference between that and fighting for equal rights and opportunity for your fellow citizens. BLT came about precisely because white America , and white Christianity did not practice what Jesus preached , and so the government was forced to act. Beck is intentionally misrepresenting the Presidents religion. Press has said, “Put up or shut up” Let’s see if he does either.Also, Judging Rev Wright, who grew up in the old south, based on a few words carefully selected, is decidedly unchristian, and allowing yourself to be manipulated by people who don’t care about you.

“Equal rights and opportunity”? I didn’t see alot of fighting for equal rights in Jesus’ teachings. How many hundreds of years did simply being a Christian mean a death sentence under Rome? You know, the people that were ruling over the land Jesus was preaching in? Funny how Jesus never took the time to rally his followers to protest all the injustices and immorality going on with that truly oppressive regime.

“white Christianity did not practice what Jesus preached” Even though white Christians were instrumental in the ending of slavery and the rise of the civil rights movement. I’m not saying there weren’t supposedly Christian people that weren’t treating blacks as brothers and sisters as Colossians 3:11 teaches, but due to that glaring omission of Christian theology, how can we say those people were living the Christian life? Ever heard of wheat and tares?

“the government was forced to act” Which means that people were compelled to accept morality, which is un-Christian.

“Beck is intentionally misrepresenting the Presidents religion” How? Example?

“Also, Judging Rev Wright, who grew up in the old south, based on a few words carefully selected, is decidedly unchristian, and allowing yourself to be manipulated by people who don’t care about you” There are plenty of examples, not just “a few words carefully selected.” His standing with Farrakhan and his many anti-Semitic and racist (remember what he said about Hillary?) statements shows that he refuses to teach according to Colossians 3:11 as well.

Christianity is NOT a race based religion. In fact, we see specific exhortation to not let race be a factor in accepting brothers and sisters. This is why I have problems with race specific churches. Any pastor that preaches racial identity in church is betraying the gospel of Jesus Christ- period.

I hear that a city councilman from Missoula Montana has just challenged President 0bama to a debate too.

Haimerej said:
This is so ironic I don’t know where to begin.

Is Bill Press saying that his belief in liberation theology influences his political stance? Is this the same guy who said of Beck’s rally that God doesn’t have any place in politics?

The FUNDAMENTAL problem with applying the Biblical exhortation to care for the poor to the state is that it ceases to be a voluntary act of love. Let’s stay in the book of Matthew, shall we? Matt. 20:25-26- “But Jesus called them to Him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great exercise authority over them. IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU; but whoever wants to be great among you shall be your servant.”

The state BY DEFINITION lords over people. If you want to transfer “charity” to the state, it’s no longer charity. It’s being compelled; forced. That’s not charity, that’s your obligation. Christians are meant to be EXAMPLES, or LEADERS. They’re not supposed to force anything on anyone. This is why Jesus said if people don’t accept the word of the gospel, you just dust off your feet and move on. You’re not supposed to FORCE it on anyone.

I think you make a very important point. The discussion shouldn’t be about whose religion is correct, or better. It’s one of policy in a shared diverse society made up of many religions, atheists and agnostics. We decide as a society where the lines are drawn and what’s the correct balance in caring for the poor, providing opportunity and promoting personal responsibility. We have an obligation as citizens to address the issues. That’s what the “we the people” in our Constitution is referring to.
I’m happy to abandon a largely irrelevant religious discussion and get back to the important issues. Maybe Beck’s fans can tell him that.

lonestar77 said:

That’s the biggest piece of shit statement I’ve ever read. Rev. Right is an extreme bigoted racist. Period. Condi Rice grew up in the south and somehow she doesn’t hate white people and this country like that jackass does. I honestly can’t believe you would defend someone like that. What would you say if I defended David Duke? Utter nonsense.

You ask if Beck is sincere about being corrected if he is wrong. Well, I would imagine he is. Bill Press didn’t prove anybody wrong. He quoted some scripture that people should live by, not scripture saying the federal government should mandate these issues. To pretend that Obama didn’t attend either a black liberation or liberation theology church for 20 years is burying your head in the sand. If you think Rev. Wright is mainstream, you’re out of your mind. Just because he’s black, doesn’t make him immune from be accurately portrayed as a racist nutjob.

I was wrong. Wright did not grow up in the south. I’m not defending Wright or his racism. I’m defending reasonable judgment. People are more complex than a few selected statements chosen for political reasons. We are bound to encounter people we don’t agree with. In this democratic republic we need to make more of an effort to inform ourselves and communicate reasonably. The question isn’t about whether Rev Wright is mainstream. It’s about the basics and the history of liberation theology. Describing BLT and Trinity church as hate oriented is narrow and wrong.
No Bill Press didn’t prove anybody wrong. He took Beck up on his own words about wanted to be corrected. Personally I think a religious debate is a waste of time but I’m curious to see if Beck will take him up on it.

Haimerej said:
“Equal rights and opportunity”? I didn’t see alot of fighting for equal rights in Jesus’ teachings. How many hundreds of years did simply being a Christian mean a death sentence under Rome? You know, the people that were ruling over the land Jesus was preaching in? Funny how Jesus never took the time to rally his followers to protest all the injustices and immorality going on with that truly oppressive regime.

We’re getting off track. I’m talking about the very basic “do unto others” which very simply calls us to strive for equality in our hearts and in our actions. Looking at history we weren’t doing that. Right or wrong, that’s what gave rise to BLT. It was a response to very real racism against blacks.
“white Christianity did not practice what Jesus preached” Even though white Christians were instrumental in the ending of slavery and the rise of the civil rights movement. I’m not saying there weren’t supposedly Christian people that weren’t treating blacks as brothers and sisters as Colossians 3:11 teaches, but due to that glaring omission of Christian theology, how can we say those people were living the Christian life? Ever heard of wheat and tares? We’re talking in general and as a whole. White Christianity as a whole , especially but not only, in the south, did not practice what Jesus preached. They preached sermons about brotherly love while not allowing their black brothers to even enter their churches. That kind of segregation gave rise to BLT.
“the government was forced to act” Which means that people were compelled to accept morality, which is un-Christian
I don’t get your point. I’m saying if people who claimed to be Christians actually followed the teachings of Christ BLT would never have come along. The civil rights act would never have been necessary.

“Beck is intentionally misrepresenting the Presidents religion” How? Example?
by using his favorite scare words of Marxism. BLT is based on the Bible, and belief that Jesus savior and wants people to care for the poor. Saturday he calls for religious unity. Sunday he makes a demonic reference about liberation theology. It’s a glaring contradiction of principle vs practice.
“Also, Judging Rev Wright, who grew up in the old south, based on a few words carefully selected, is decidedly unchristian, and allowing yourself to be manipulated by people who don’t care about you” There are plenty of examples, not just “a few words carefully selected.” His standing with Farrakhan and his many anti-Semitic and racist (remember what he said about Hillary?) statements shows that he refuses to teach according to Colossians 3:11 as well. To clarify; I was wrong. Wright grew up in Philly.Regardless, I’m not defending or denying his racist remarks. I’m saying his life is more that that. Look at John Hagee sitting behind Beck on Saturday. Why is he acceptable and Wright is not? In the larger view, did Wright accomplish more good than bad?

Christianity is NOT a race based religion. In fact, we see specific exhortation to not let race be a factor in accepting brothers and sisters. This is why I have problems with race specific churches. Any pastor that preaches racial identity in church is betraying the gospel of Jesus Christ- period.
So Israel is not God’s chosen people?
I basically agree with you but you’d have to admit that white Christians began and maintained the practice that eventually gave birth to BLT. BLT does not exclude whites. Trinity church had white ministers. There are lots of denominations and lots of them don’t agree with each other. I don’t care. I’m just noting Beck’s contradiction of words and practice.

shootfromthehip said:
No one is stopping the churches from being “agents of charity.” Also here is a refresher, Cons. The Founding Fathers rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, “Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom.” Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

You’re right about many of the founders being freemasons but I fail to see how that leads to your conclusion. You’re also correct about the dangers of religion, but what you left out or don’t understand is they were leary of a STATE run religion, which is the main purpose for the break w/mother country: THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Thomas Jefferson as our third President went to religious service every sunday in one of the federal buildings. It’s in his writings. It’s in the congressional records that he FEDERALLY FUNDED to have missionaries go preach to the indians. He OK’d preachers of all different faiths to come and preach in FEDERAL BUILDINGS on sundays. It was common to sign government documents “in the year 17…” but our founders signed documents “in the year of our Lord” and furthermore Thomas Jefferson singed many of his documents “in the year of our Lord CHRIST”. And FURTHER furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was one of our LEAST “religious” founding fathers.
Languages change. ‘Deism’ had different connotation 200 years ago. Our founders believed in God. However, many of them had a problem w/organized religions. But out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independance, 29 held seminary degrees. So how exactly does this fit into your narritive?
Last question: if they were all ‘deists’ why do we have the “Sundays excepted clause” in the Constitution of the United States?

If liberation theology is true, and capitalism/ liberty is evil, why didn’t Christ appeal to Caesar for a dowry or seek some sort of government settlement for wrongs done against his people the Jews -leveling the playing field right then and there? Could it be that God had placed the Jews under Rome for a good reason? Did the Jews afford Christ a fair trial /due process in accordance with the law of Moses regarding their accusation against Christ? Or did they disregard their own law (basic Biblical civics) in turning him over the Romans for judgment? Shouldn’t the Jews have tried to settle this issue “within” the “believing” community as the scriptures require (1 Corinthians 6: 2-6), or must we employ Marxist law i.e., the state for something like this? Would blacks be at all partial if they were to find themselves in positions of authority or would they betray the faith like Judas and the zealots who saw Jewish liberation in (Marxist) revolutionary terms and not in regeneration? Finally, did the disciples attempt to shake down the Roman government for cash to support their needs (Acts 4: 34-35), or did they sell their properties for this? It was Judas who sought to deliver Christ to the Roman soldiers; Christ apparently failed in his eyes to take up the cause of the oppressed!! No wonder he committed suicide! In similar fashion, Liberation Blacks do not understand equality before the law at all since all they can do is slander Beck and “Damn” White America for doing what they refuse to do, which is, seek solidarity with like minded Americans who also want true equality under the law. After all aren’t Glenn’s supporters standing together against government oppression, aka, the bail outs, health care, redistribution? In the end Beck’s rally exemplified what MLK’s dream should look like, not unfortunately what he guys on the other side of the park were doing; Seething with anger and jealousy???? It’s not just Bill Press who loses this debate but all who embrace his perverted theology.

CosmosDan said:
He doesn’t want to step back because all the controversy is so good for ratings. An hour spent on Google will tell him he’s wrong. He doesn’t care about that or any of the platitudes he spouted on Saturday about religious unity and being concerned about the truth. It’s a shame to see how easily people are taken in by his act.

Valid point. It’s all about the ratings, not the facts. Thank you for reminding me.

Noa Napoleon said:
It’s not just Bill Press who loses this debate but all who embrace his perverted theology.

Whose definition of Black Liberation theology are you going by?

says:
September 3, 2010 at 4:31 pm Noa Napoleon(Quote)
3 0
If liberation theology is true, and capitalism/ liberty is evil, why didn’t Christ appeal to Caesar

Great post guy! Jesus Christ came to this planet to save SINNERS, which we all are – Lib, Con, Right, Left, and anyone in between. Romans 3:23. Not to save Governments, and certainly not to have his words hijacked by wolves in sheeps clothing. Colossians 2:8- “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
1 Tim. 6:20,21- “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.”
And as far as believing someone’s word because of their “education”- Romans 1:22- “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,”
THE GREATEST TEACHER ON EARTH IS THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD!!
1 Corinthians 2:13- “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

““Beck is intentionally misrepresenting the Presidents religion” How? Example?
by using his favorite scare words of Marxism… ”

Rev. Wright has described BLT as marxist because it is marxist. I was looking for it but I couldn’t find it…they probably just scrubbed it from the net. However, why would any rational being need that, look at the principles BLT teaches and compare them to the precepts and principles of marxism and make the comparisons. They match up pretty closely…

Rosey said:
““Beck is intentionally misrepresenting the Presidents religion” How? Example?
by using his favorite scare words of Marxism… ”

Rev. Wright has described BLT as marxist because it is marxist. I was looking for it but I couldn’t find it…they probably just scrubbed it from the net. However, why would any rational being need that, look at the principles BLT teaches and compare them to the precepts and principles of marxism and make the comparisons. They match up pretty closely…

So some mysterious “they” scrubbed it from the net?
Look at BLT and look at the words of Jesus. They match up fairly well.
Luke 4:18
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,
Luke 11:42
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
The concept of a class struggle and oppressor vs oppressed are not owned my Marxism.

Dsiscokid said:
says:
September 3, 2010 at 4:31 pm Noa Napoleon(Quote)
3 0
If liberation theology is true, and capitalism/ liberty is evil, why didn’t Christ appeal to Caesar

Great post guy! Jesus Christ came to this planet to save SINNERS, which we all are – Lib, Con, Right, Left, and anyone in between. Romans 3:23. Not to save Governments, and certainly not to have his words hijacked by wolves in sheeps clothing. Colossians 2:8- “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
1 Tim. 6:20,21- “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.”
And as far as believing someone’s word because of their “education”- Romans 1:22- “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,”
THE GREATEST TEACHER ON EARTH IS THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD!!
1 Corinthians 2:13- “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

We could quote passages for days and still never prove anything. Christian churches with very different doctrines all use biblical passages to support their different beliefs. So does Black Liberation Theology. I’ve just quoted a few. It’s no more perverted or demonic than any other interpretation of the Bible.

Black Liberation theology is inherent racist. Liberation theology is all about breaking the chains of White suppression and racism by practicing a reverse racism. Make the White-man your personal boggy-man for literally everything that goes wrong in your life.
A good example of Liberation theology can be seen in the movie “X”, staring Denzel Washington. In prison, Denzel gets a huge dose of Liberation theology were even the most mundane things such as the color-black, denote demonization of Blacks by the White-man.

CosmosDan said:
So some mysterious “they” scrubbed it from the net?Look at BLT and look at the words of Jesus. They match up fairly well.Luke 4:18“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,Luke 11:42“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.The concept of a class struggle and oppressor vs oppressed are not owned my Marxism.

So you agree their MARXIST ideas? Glad we agree…

CAconservative said:
Black Liberation theology is inherent racist. Liberation theology is all about breaking the chains of White suppression and racism by practicing a reverse racism. Make the White-man your personal boggy-man for literally everything that goes wrong in your life.
A good example of Liberation theology can be seen in the movie “X”, staring Denzel Washington. In prison, Denzel gets a huge dose of Liberation theology were even the most mundane things such as the color-black, denote demonization of Blacks by the White-man.

The film is about Malcom X who who was a Muslim, not a Christian.

Rosey said:
So you agree their MARXIST ideas? Glad we agree…

Evidently you think Jesus was a Marxist. That’s very odd.

Oh, PLEASE!! Glenn Beck will annhilate this loser in the first 2 minutes, IF they actually have a debate. How I would love to see the Beckster kick this Liberal’s stupid butt but he is really not worth the effort.

YOU PEOPLE EVER HEARD OF CONTROLLING OPPOSITION..LOL WELL UR GETTIN IT 1ST HAND FROM OUR MEDIA PLAYERS..ILL SAY THIS :WAKE UP AMERICA..GET THE SCUM OUT OF OUR COUNTRY,IF YOU DONT KNOW WHO THEY ARE START BY ELIMINATING/DEPORTING 95% OF THE U.S. POLITICIANS,,,THEN TELL THE MEDIA MOGULS TO RESTAFF THIER MEDIA PLAYERS,,,THIS COUNTRY HAS BECOME AN EMBARRASSMENT…OBAMA AND HIS MINIONS ARE SHAMELESS TRASH…..BUT LET ME STRESS 95% OF OUR SENATE, HOUSE, AND PRESIDENTIAL CORP. SHOULD BE DEPORTED FOR TREASON…DONT BELIEVE ME,,,READ OUR CONSTITUTION..IF YOU HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO JUDGE DO SO,,LET ME HEAR YOUR RESPONSE//////STEP UP

BARACK OBAMA IS EITHER AN AL-QAEDA OPPERATIVE OR 1 DUMBASS HUMAN BEING,,THE THINGS HE SAID ABOUT THE MOOOOOSSSLLLIMM MOSQUE DEAL IS ABSURD,,,OBAMA!!!WHY ARE YOU AFRAID TO PRAISE AMERICANS,,WHY ARE YOU SO ASHAMED OF AMERICA,,,ALL YOU DO IS PUT WHITES,GUNS,SOLDIERS, AND CONSTITUTIONAL LOVING AMERICANS DOWN,,,SHOW AMERICA THAT YOU LOVE HER FOOL…CUT UR TIES WITH THE COMMIES AND AL-QAEDA YOU SCUM BAG POS!!!…OBAMA PROLLY SHINES CHAVEZ`S KNOB..OR IS IT CHAVEZ POLISHING OBAMA`S KNOB…LMAO SCREW ALL THOSE GOOFS,,CASTRO,CHAVEZ,PUTIN,OBAMA…ALL SCUM(RIGHT THERE WITH BIN LADIN)THEY HAVE DAILY CIRCLE JERKS AND IM WONDERING IF OBAMA IS THE PIVOT MAN

PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS EAT TOE JAM, REGURGITATE IT THEN EXPECT AMERICA TO DEVOUR IT LIKE IT WAS USDA GRADE A BEEF…ROFLMAO NO THX PROGRESSIVE LIBS

NOA NAPOLEAN (SP) GREAT POST DUDE…AMEN!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1YFpmPP5gY

EconMan said:
I don’t believe Beck will waste his time to debate on this. They just both come at this from different angles. What I would like to see is Press go to Salt Lake City and see what the Mormons do with welfare, taking care of their own, and humanitarian aid. Then I’d like to see Beck go visit whatever church organization (if there is a central organization) of the church that Press associates with and see what they are doing for the same causes. I believe the answers will come and both will learn from the other’s view. My personal feeling is that Christ changes people from inside first and then the outside is taken care of.

Some wise words here.

CosmosDan said:
Calvin, you don’t judge a person or a religion from a few words selected to make them look bad. Should we look back at Beck’s days of alcoholism and judge him based only on that?

Glenn Beck is not an Alcoholic anymore. He’s renounced that lifestyle and has recognized that he was “a dirtbag” Cone said those things in 2007. As far as I know, Cone has not apoligized for what he has said. Cone is not just some small time BLT preacher, he’s the founder of it. Was Cone boozin’ it up when he said those things?

CosmosDan said:
The fact is Christianity in this country failed to live up to the teachings of Jesus when it came to black Americans. That’s the atmosphere that BLT was born out of.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

blockquote cite=”comment-137723″>CosmosDan said:
Beck is intentionally distorting the president’s religion and liberation theology in general. Maybe the president deserves to be judged by his words and actions, honestly, rather than by Becks distortions. BLT was born in the turbulent 60s and has changed over time just as we as a nation have. How can Beck honor MLK and civil rights on Saturday and be so very ignorant of what BLT is really about and where it came from. It’s intentional , to create controversy and keep his ratings up.

Obama’s words show that he is a believer in BLT. He has talked numerous times about how his “individual salvation” is not going to come about without our “collective salvation” as a nation. His action of saying that the police acted stupidly says a lot about him . His mere inaction when it came to staying in Wright’s church for 20 years says alot about him.The part in the youtube clip which shows Cone on PBS is from 2007. Not exactly 1960′s. MLK believed in content of character, not color of skin. I don’t think BLT honors MLK.

CosmosDan said:
Saturday he makes a grand gesture for religious unity. Sunday he claims liberation theology is a perversion.
He’s not basing his conclusions on what the president has done or said concerning race and religion. So what is he judging from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLlxxWaJZM

Noa Napoleon said:
If liberation theology is true, and capitalism/ liberty is evil, why didn’t Christ appeal to Caesar for a dowry or seek some sort of government settlement for wrongs done against his people the Jews -leveling the playing field right then and there? Could it be that God had placed the Jews under Rome for a good reason? Did the Jews afford Christ a fair trial /due process in accordance with the law of Moses regarding their accusation against Christ? Or did they disregard their own law (basic Biblical civics) in turning him over the Romans for judgment? Shouldn’t the Jews have tried to settle this issue “within” the “believing” community as the scriptures require (1 Corinthians 6: 2-6), or must we employ Marxist law i.e., the state for something like this? Would blacks be at all partial if they were to find themselves in positions of authority or would they betray the faith like Judas and the zealots who saw Jewish liberation in (Marxist) revolutionary terms and not in regeneration? Finally, did the disciples attempt to shake down the Roman government for cash to support their needs (Acts 4: 34-35), or did they sell their properties for this? It was Judas who sought to deliver Christ to the Roman soldiers; Christ apparently failed in his eyes to take up the cause of the oppressed!! No wonder he committed suicide! In similar fashion, Liberation Blacks do not understand equality before the law at all since all they can do is slander Beck and “Damn” White America for doing what they refuse to do, which is, seek solidarity with like minded Americans who also want true equality under the law. After all aren’t Glenn’s supporters standing together against government oppression, aka, the bail outs, health care, redistribution? In the end Beck’s rally exemplified what MLK’s dream should look like, not unfortunately what he guys on the other side of the park were doing; Seething with anger and jealousy???? It’s not just Bill Press who loses this debate but all who embrace his perverted theology.

SPLENDID COMMENTARY. Thank you!

Calvin said:
Glenn Beck is not an Alcoholic anymore. He’s renounced that lifestyle and has recognized that he was “a dirtbag” Cone said those things in 2007. As far as I know, Cone has not apoligized for what he has said. Cone is not just some small time BLT preacher, he’s the founder of it. Was Cone boozin’ it up when he said those things?

That is a difference, but my point was that it’s not wise to judge someone based on only a few selected words. Let’s not forget that Cone’s decades old book is also often quoted. It’s not hard to search a persons life and find something they said that sounds bad and keep playing it in loops.

Calvin said:Two wrongs don’t make a right.

no, and self defense is not Fascism, or wrong.

Calvin said:Two Obama’s words show that he is a believer in BLT. He has talked numerous times about how his “individual salvation” is not going to come about without our “collective salvation” as a nation
I think his words show that he understands it and agrees with certain aspects of it. Beck makes a huge leap from there to communism. Jesus actually did teach Christians to care for the less fortunate right? Here’s another Fascist statement that may sound familiar to you.
“Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country” Now slide one of those quotes from Marx or Lenin over that and we can claim Kennedy was a communist.

Calvin said: His action of saying that the police acted stupidly says a lot about him . .

Pardon my being blunt but this is ridiculous. Obama said nothing about race during that incident except that he didn’t know if it was race related. People looking to that for racism are putting it there themselves.

Calvin said:MLK believed in content of character, not color of skin. I don’t think BLT honors MLK. .

Exactly whose rights do you think MLK was fighting for? Wasn’t King trying to change the law of the land for social equality? Isn’t that what Beck is calling Fascist now.? You should read Letter from Birmingham jail. King wrote it when the ministers of his day complained he was causing too much trouble and should try to be patient in bringing about change. I think BLT has a lot more in common with King than Beck does.

Lately I’ve been thinking about another contradiction. Most of the same people who are now crying fascism and complaining that liberation theology, the concept of spending our tax dollars to help our own less fortunate citizens, didn’t seem to mind spending hundreds of billions and thousands of American lives liberating non citizens half way around the world. Odd isn’t it?

CosmosDan said:
That is a difference, but my point was that it’s not wise to judge someone based on only a few selected words.

How many words does it take before you can form an opinion on something? How many times does a thing need to be said before you start thinking that the speaker believes it? How many words do you need to take someone at their word?

CosmosDan said:
The Church historically did? Daniel if you took a realistic look at history in this country and the history of BLT. you’d understand that BLT came about precisely because the church {Christians as a whole body} did not fulfill it’s role or follow the instructions of their savior. White Christians supported slavery and when the government finally abolished that they continued to deny black Americans their rights for decade after decade, until the government had to step in again with the civil rights act. I agree with you that it’s preferable for the people to do it on their own without government programs and I think BLT would prefer that as well.

Had BLT showed up in the 1860′s that would make sense. Instead, it showed up in the 1960′s which makes your point about slavery ridiculous, and that’s leaving aside the fact of the multitudes of White Christian abolitionists.

The bit about where “government had to step in” to do what now? Enforce proper Christianity? What?

“For the record, I’m no theological expert, but I don’t see how Bill Press has any more right to question Beck’s Christianity than Beck has to question Obama’s”

Because Mormon’s aren’t Christians. Beck is a parody of a Chrisitan Fundamentalist preacher. He is trying to convince Christians that he is one of them. Possibly paving the way for them to accept a Mormon as president of the United States. Beck is a dangerous man.

“I suggest you tune into Limbaugh, Mark Levin or Hannity. They literally scream on the radio.”

HA! You should have heard Monica Crowley sitting in for Limbaugh the other day. I thought my ears would bleed.

Bill WHO?

Hey Bill, just go get the lunch order for Beck’s crew, and be happy there are still some intellectually-challenged minds that still tune you in!

Go away little man, Beck is the Big Leagues!!

Will Bill Press’s phone ring? Will Beckerhead gather the stones necessary to take up the challenge? Let’s see – shall we start counting the days starting September 2, 2010? Ok – it’s begun – Today is 9/4/2010 — c’mon, Glenn — two days and Bill Press’s phone hasn’t rung. C’mon, Glenn!! Take up the challenge!!

Pablo said:
How many words does it take before you can form an opinion on something? How many times does a thing need to be said before you start thinking that the speaker believes it? How many words do you need to take someone at their word?

It doesn’t take many words to form an opinion. Everybody’s got one. It takes more effort to have an informed opinion.

The better question is what does the speaker mean when he says it? What is his intent? It might help to know a little about his background , and to try and understand his perspective. Do you get his meaning by listening only to his critics, or do you give him and his supporters a chance to clarify their side of the story.
Think of a trial and looking for justice and fair judgment. You have witnesses for the defense and the prosecution. Each side presents their case before judgment is made.

To judge the overall content of a persons character and what he’s about as a person, you don’t just look at his worst moments or his best. People aren’t all good or all bad.

Pablo said:
Had BLT showed up in the 1860’s that would make sense. Instead, it showed up in the 1960’s which makes your point about slavery ridiculous, and that’s leaving aside the fact of the multitudes of White Christian abolitionists.

The bit about where “government had to step in” to do what now? Enforce proper Christianity? What?

So you don’t think attitudes of racism in the south in the 1960s had anything at all to do with it’s heritage of slavery? That’s not very realistic.
although there were notable expectations to the rule, the history of this country demonstrates pretty clearly that in general white Christians treated blacks in a way that was very contrary to the teachings of the savior they claimed to worship. It’s just a plain fact.
If the majority of Christians in this country had actually lived according to the teachings of their faith the civil rights movement would never have been necessary. The people would have done it on their own and the civil rights act and the following voting rights act would not have been needed. If white Christians had not indeed oppressed black Americans, MLK wouldn’t have needed to march and BLT would have no need to see themselves as the oppressed. They were oppressed. It’s undeniable.
The government wasn’t enforcing correct Christianity. It was enforcing the principles of our Constitution that too many had ignored for too long.
It seems a big contradiction to me for Beck to honor Rev MLK one day and then criticize BLT the next, since BLK has so much in common with MLKs work. Wasn’t MLK fighting for social justice? Isn’t that Beck’s code word for communism?

9/5/2010- it’s THREE days and Bill Press has yet to hear from Glenn Beck. Waiting, Beckerhead. What’s the matter? Moroni got your stones?

For non-Catholics and Catholics not in the know: a few facts about “Seminarian” Bill Press and his “theology degree”:

Bill Press was a seminarian in one of the most liberal Communities in the Church, the Oblates of Saint Francis de Sales, who describe themselves thus, in a veritable hodgepodge of buzzwords and cliches: ‘As Christian humanists, we believe in the dignity, worth and responsible liberty of each person and we try to approach each person in a gentle and humble way while fostering peace and justice in the world community’ (www.oblates.org).

Press studied theology at one of the most liberal theologates in the world during one of the most liberal periods in Church history, and his “summary” of liberation theology reflects the unserious nature of his theological study. The hardworking priests/nuns vs. the corrupt, government befriended hierarchy. Please, Bill, even you’re smarter than that!

Let’s look at a serious theologian who DOES know something about Liberation Theology:

During his pastoral visit to Brazil (December 5, 2009), Pope Benedict XVI recalled the definitive condemnation of the errors of Liberation Theology in a document which he, as Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had authored at the request of Pope John Paul II in 1984:

Last August, the Instruction Libertatis Nuntius on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation’ published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith celebrated its 25th anniversary. It stressed the danger that is entailed in an a-critical acceptance on the part of certain theologians of theses and methodologies that derive from Marxism. Its more or less visible consequences consisting of rebellion, division, dissent, offense, and anarchy make themselves felt, creating in your diocesan communities great suffering and a serious loss of vitality. I implore all those who in some way have felt attracted, involved and deeply touched by certain deceptive principles of Liberation Theology to consider once again the above-mentioned Instruction, perceiving the kind light with which it is proffered’ (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20091205_ad-limina-brasile_en.html)

The document to which the Pope referred may be read in its entirety on the Vatican website (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html).

Here are just a few salient excerpts:

‘Impatience and a desire for results has led certain Christians, despairing of every other method, to turn to what they call ‘Marxist analysis.’ Their reasoning is this: an intolerable and explosive situation requires ‘effective action’ which cannot be put off. Effective action presupposes a ‘scientific analysis’ of the structural causes of poverty. Marxism now provides us with the means to make such an analysis, they say. Then one simply has to apply the analysis to the third-world situation, especially in Latin America. (But) let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors which directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons. Moreover, to attempt to integrate into theology an analysis whose criterion of interpretation depends on this atheistic conception is to involve oneself in terrible contradictions. What is more, this misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the person leads to a total subordination of the person to the collectivity, and thus to the denial of the principles of a social and political life which is in keeping with human dignity.’

‘But the ‘theologies of liberation’, which reserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of the prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a disastrous confusion between the ‘poor’ of the Scripture and the ‘proletariat’ of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. For them the ‘Church of the poor’ signifies the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which celebrates this liberation in its liturgy. (This) leads to an essentially ‘political’ re-reading of the Scriptures. Thus, a major importance is given to the Exodus event inasmuch as it is a liberation from political servitude. Likewise, a political reading of the ‘Magnificat’ is proposed. The mistake here is not in bringing attention to a political dimension of the readings of Scripture, but in making of this one dimension the principal or exclusive component. This leads to a reductionist reading of the Bible. Likewise, one places oneself within the perspective of a temporal messianism, which is one of the most radical of the expressions of secularization of the Kingdom of God and of its absorption into the immanence of human history. In giving such priority to the political dimension, one is led to deny the ‘radical newness’ of the New Testament and above all to misunderstand the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, and thus the specific character of the salvation he gave us, that is above all liberation from sin, which is the source of all evils.’

‘The overthrow by means of revolutionary violence of structures which generate violence is not ipso facto the beginning of a just regime. A major fact of our time ought to evoke the reflection of all those who would sincerely work for the true liberation of their brothers: millions of our own contemporaries legitimately yearn to recover those basic freedoms of which they were deprived by totalitarian and atheistic regimes which came to power by violent and revolutionary means, precisely in the name of the liberation of the people. This shame of our time cannot be ignored: while claiming to bring them freedom, these regimes keep whole nations in conditions of servitude which are unworthy of mankind. Those who, perhaps inadvertently, make themselves accomplices of similar enslavements betray the very poor they mean to help.’

‘The class struggle as a road toward a classless society is a myth which slows reform and aggravates poverty and injustice. Those who allow themselves to be caught up in fascination with this myth should reflect on the bitter examples history has to offer about where it leads. They would then understand that we are not talking here about abandoning an effective means of struggle on behalf of the poor for an ideal which has no practical effects. On the contrary, we are talking about freeing oneself from a delusion in order to base oneself squarely on the Gospel and its power of realization.’

Bill Press mocked Glenn Beck’s rally as drawing ‘angry, old white people.’ His ‘theological background’ represents the ‘angry old white’ version of Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology. Teaching the ‘untheological’ crowds of his time, Jesus made the whole thing rather simple: ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ Listen to Wright – and fellow ‘liberation’ nitwit Father Michael Pfleger, whom Cardinal George of Chicago still, shamefully, has failed to discipline, screaming, ‘God damn America,’ while their ‘sheep’ whoop and holler. Then listen to the crowd at Beck’s rally sing ‘God Bless America’ while rabbis and imams, pastors and priests locked arms and prayed for healing and reconciliation.

Please God, the new harvest of the fruit of true liberty has just begun to blossom anew in our land!

Gloria Mundy said:

Let’s look at a serious theologian who DOES know something about Liberation Theology:

During his pastoral visit to Brazil (December 5, 2009), Pope Benedict XVI recalled the definitive condemnation of the errors of Liberation Theology in a document which he, as Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had authored at the request of Pope John Paul II in 1984:

The title of Pope does not make him the authority on Liberation Theology. Educated serious theologians often disagree. The issue at hand isn’t one of correct theology. Nobody has agreed on that for centuries.

The point here is the glaring contradiction that reveals Becks insincerity. One day he praises MLK and his struggle for equality. He makes a big show of religious unity. The very next day he calls BLT perverse and demonic. Regardless of personal belief or opinion BLT is easily as mainstream as Becks own religion. BLT has much more in common with MLK than Mormonism. Beck is a successful snake oil salesman with Fox network providing his wagon and stage. There are important issues to be discussed and educated about. Beck regularly distorts the facts that are readily available. That indicates it’s intentional. Citizens with sincere concerns about this country ought to keep that in mind.

Bill Press mocked Glenn Beck’s rally as drawing ‘angry, old white people.’ His ‘theological background’ represents the ‘angry old white’ version of Jeremiah Wright’s black liberation theology. Teaching the ‘untheological’ crowds of his time, Jesus made the whole thing rather simple: ‘By their fruits you shall know them.’ Listen to Wright – and fellow ‘liberation’ nitwit Father Michael Pfleger, whom Cardinal George of Chicago still, shamefully, has failed to discipline, screaming, ‘God damn America,’ while their ’sheep’ whoop and holler. Then listen to the crowd at Beck’s rally sing ‘God Bless America’ while rabbis and imams, pastors and priests locked arms and prayed for healing and reconciliation.

Please God, the new harvest of the fruit of true liberty has just begun to blossom anew in our land!

I like the quote you and I agree, it’s basically that simple. There’s another one to remember
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
However misguided you believe they were or are BLT are Christians and citizens doing what they can to correct a perceived injustice. It’s hypocrisy of principle to stand in front of John Hagee and forgive and tolerate the things he has said, and then describe BLT as perverse and demonic the very next day. It’s hypocrisy of principle to praise MLK one day and then demonize BLT the next. BLT shares much in common with the work and goals of MLK.
My suggestion is that people do as Beck suggests and seek the truth beyond the superficial and distorted presentation he provides.

Pablo said:
How many words does it take before you can form an opinion on something? How many times does a thing need to be said before you start thinking that the speaker believes it? How many words do you need to take someone at their word?

I wanted to comment on this again, At the rally Beck praised MLK who fought for social justice. The next day, and the days that followed he played clips of John Cone and associated him with Communism and reparations. He uses select clips to play guilt by association and include our president.

So, concerning how many words it takes to form an opinion. from MLK wikki page

African American civil rights activist Bayard Rustin had studied Gandhi’s teachings. Rustin counseled King to dedicate himself to the principles of non-violence, served as King’s main advisor and mentor throughout his early activism, and was the main organizer of the 1963 March on Washington. Rustin’s open homosexuality, support of democratic socialism, and his former ties to the Communist Party USA caused many white and African-American leaders to demand King distance himself from Rustin.

So, Beck was praising King, whose friend and adviser had been a member of the Young Communist, and then criticizes Cone and BLT for “Marxist”

Martin Luther King Jr. expressed a view that black Americans, as well as other disadvantaged Americans, should be compensated for historical wrongs.

Beck praised MLK one day as being a great and noble American, and then played clips of Cone soon after suggesting something like this.
Are the words Beck presented from Cone an accurate picture of the man?
Here’s a different quote from his book that Beck quotes from.

“Being black in America has little to do with skin color. Being black means that your heart, your soul, your mind, and your body are where the dispossessed are.” (Black Theology and Black Power, p. 151″

In 1977, Cone wrote, with a still more universal vision:

I think the time has come for black theologians and black church people to move beyond a mere reaction to white racism in America and begin to extend our vision of a new socially constructed humanity in the whole inhabited world…For humanity is whole, and cannot be isolated into racial and national groups.

Doesn’t it become clear to you that Beck has no intention of bringing his viewers an honest and accurate view of the issues and individuals? Doesn’t his spouting platitudes in DC one day, and contradicting them in the days that follow give you some indication of his methods and real motives?
It’s great for people to be concerned about their country and what to improve things. Let’s try to do it with accurate information and respectful honest discussion.

CosmosDan said:
So, Beck was praising King, whose friend and adviser had been a member of the Young Communist, and then criticizes Cone and BLT for “Marxist”

Cone and King are two different people, as are Rustin and King. King preached what he preached. He said what he said and he moved a nation with it. That is what he is revered for. That is his dream we all might one day share. Being remembered and honored for an amazing accomplishment of any sort rests on that accomplishment. It says nothing about anything else you did or do with yourself (in fact, it’s pretty well established that Dr. King liked the ladies, and you wouldn’t suggest that Beck is endorsing adultery along with King, would you?) It has nothing to do with who your friends were.

MLK broke new ground in America and he did it with love in his heart and faith in the Lord, and he did it at no small personal risk. What he did was deliver one of the most soaring, beautiful pieces of oratory in American history. That’s why we like him so much. That’s why Beck likes him so much.

What has James Cone done for us?

Off topic;

Since we often see accusations fly about lies and bias I’d like to add that I just watched Bill Wallace and Fox News Sunday and IMO it was a very interesting , fair and balanced discussion concerning the president.

I think it would be helpful and informative to their viewers if they did more of that kind of thing.

From the other thread:

CosmosDan said:
Liberate them from poverty , from a lack of health and a lack of equal opportunity. I used the term “liberate” because of the current discussion and demonetization of BLT. Certainly things have improved since the 60s when MLK campaigned for equal rights and BLT was born. That’s great! There’s a needed discussion to be had about the benefits and problems with social programs. Where are the lines drawn and what is required from taxpayes and what is required from those receiving benefits? We do need that discussion, but we need it to be grounded in reality and facts , not the distortions Beck is peddlin

Sorry, you don’t liberate people from a lack of anything. You don’t liberate people from having worries, as having worries does not involve a lack of liberty. It’s life. Lack of opportunity can be a freedom problem if it exists with government sanction, but we don’t have any of that anymore. Other places, not so much.

You seem to buy into liberation theology. Is that right?

CosmosDan said:
The point here is the glaring contradiction that reveals Becks insincerity. One day he praises MLK and his struggle for equality. He makes a big show of religious unity. The very next day he calls BLT perverse and demonic.

King was a real Christian. BLT did not exist during his lifetime. Cone and King were not contemporaries, and Cone introduced BLT in Black Theology and Black Power in 1969. There is no glaring contradiction.

And this is not Christianity as any mainstream Christian would recognize it:

The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…. The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God’s own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering…Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity. (A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 63-64)

Pablo said:
Cone and King are two different people, as are Rustin and King. King preached what he preached. He said what he said and he moved a nation with it. That is what he is revered for. That is his dream we all might one day share. Being remembered and honored for an amazing accomplishment of any sort rests on that accomplishment. It says nothing about anything else you did or do with yourself (in fact, it’s pretty well established that Dr. King liked the ladies, and you wouldn’t suggest that Beck is endorsing adultery along with King, would you?) It has nothing to do with who your friends were.

Right!!! Now consider what Beck does day after day. When he tries to make a point about Obama he uses carefully selected words of his friends. Are you saying that’s unfair? I agree.
MLK was criticized for his association with Rustin. People , including the president, was concerned that an association with communism would derail the work on civil rights. Considering the the pattern Beck has shown us week after week do you think he would have been supporting MLK back then or pointing to his communist adviser to discredit him?
Why is he criticizing Obama for his association with BLT but praising MLK whose adviser was a communist.
Because MLK was right after all? Why is he praising MLK who wanted the government to pay reparations but cakking similar ideas from Cone as Marxism? I don’t see any way to see that as fair and reasonable judgment.

MLK broke new ground in America and he did it with love in his heart and faith in the Lord, and he did it at no small personal risk. What he did was deliver one of the most soaring, beautiful pieces of oratory in American history. That’s why we like him so much. That’s why Beck likes him so much.

What has James Cone done for us?

Was MLK right in his principles of wanting equality for black Americas? If so we need to understand that BLT wanted the same thing. Both MLK and BLT wanted to bring pressure to bear to force the public and the government to recognize the effects of prejudice and inequality? Is that correct in principle or not?
Do we praise MLK and criticize Cone because they agreed in principle but used different words?

Cone grew up in a much more racist America and he championed the same causes that MLK did.He continued to champion civil rights and equality for black Americans after MLK was killed.

Pablo said:
From the other thread:

Sorry, you don’t liberate people from a lack of anything. You don’t liberate people from having worries, as having worries does not involve a lack of liberty. It’s life. Lack of opportunity can be a freedom problem if it exists with government sanction, but we don’t have any of that anymore. Other places, not so much.

But we had lots of that in the 60s when BLT was born. Obama acknowledged our progress during his speech on racism. Nobody’s asking anyone to agree with Wright or Cone on every point, but we might at least try to appreciate the different perspective of black men growing up in a different time.

You seem to buy into liberation theology. Is that right?

No that isn’t accurate. I support equality regardless of race or religion or sexual orientation.I’m sure if we got to more details I’d agree on some points and disagree on others with BLT. My point here is to advocate for honesty and truthfulness and a balanced, fair, fact based, analysis that I don’t think we get from Beck.

Pablo said:
King was a real Christian.

a real Christian who committed adultery , had a communist as a close adviser, and advocated wealth redistribution through reparations. Got it. No wonder Beck praised him.

BLT did not exist during his lifetime. Cone and King were not contemporaries, and Cone introduced BLT in Black Theology and Black Power in 1969. There is no glaring contradiction.

You’re talking about dates. I’m talking about the principles behind the men. The principles don’t change because of the label. MLK and Cone advocated the same thing. An end to inequality through government intervention. MLK advocated BLT before it was labeled as such.
Perhaps you could tell me the differences between what MLK worked for and advocated and BLT. They seem very similar to me.

And this is not Christianity as any mainstream Christian would recognize it:

It isn’t? Why not. I’m pretty sure I could find more than a few mainstream Christians who would disagree. Look at what it says.
God is a God of all peoples {not just black, not even just Christian}
God is identified with the oppressed
Luke 4:18
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,

Who did Jesus hang out with? Looks like Christianity to me.
Not long ago Beck told his audience to leave their church if they used terms like social justice. Evidently it’s not just BLT. What as it MLK advocated if it wasn’t social justice? The contradiction is pretty apparent and severe.

Right!!! Now consider what Beck does day after day. When he tries to make a point about Obama he uses carefully selected words of his friends. Are you saying that’s unfair? I agree.

That’s not what I said. I suggest you read it again. And let’s keep in mind that MLK was not POTUS.

Because MLK was right after all? Why is he praising MLK who wanted the government to pay reparations but cakking similar ideas from Cone as Marxism? I don’t see any way to see that as fair and reasonable judgment.

About what? We did the Great Society thing and the black community is, in many places, as bad off as it’s been since slavery. He was certainly right about freedom, though.

Was MLK right in his principles of wanting equality for black Americas? If so we need to understand that BLT wanted the same thing.

If Gandhi and Hitler both wanted ice cream, does that make them the same? BLT is not what MLK preached. It isn’t even close. And I’d be hesitant to say that BLT seeks equality.

Cone grew up in a much more racist America and he championed the same causes that MLK did.

No, he didn’t…do either of those things.

But we had lots of that in the 60s when BLT was born.

Wrong. The Civil Rights Act passed 5 years before BLT was introduced.

Nobody’s asking anyone to agree with Wright or Cone on every point, but we might at least try to appreciate the different perspective of black men growing up in a different time.

Feel free to appreciate that God cannot be God unless he’s a Black God, and specifically not everybody’s God, but a black God alone, if you like. Me, I don’t care for racism in my theology.

a real Christian who committed adultery , had a communist as a close adviser, and advocated wealth redistribution through reparations. Got it. No wonder Beck praised him.

You know Christians aren’t and don’t claim to be perfect, right? They’re all sinners, etc… None of that is why Beck praised him, which you’d know if you were paying attention.

You’re talking about dates. I’m talking about the principles behind the men. The principles don’t change because of the label. MLK and Cone advocated the same thing.

No, they did not advocate the same things. And MLK was dead before BLT was born, so suggesting that he preached it is foolish.

Perhaps you could tell me the differences between what MLK worked for and advocated and BLT. They seem very similar to me.

MLK was a Christian who advocated brotherhood among all men. BLT…isn’t.

Look at what it says.
God is a God of all peoples {not just black, not even just Christian}

How do you get that from “The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…” A picture of God as a God of all people must be rejected. That ain’t Christianity.

Glenn Beck will not debate Bill Press. Beck knows that he’s an ignorant, uneducated and deceitful propagandist. Press would chew Beck up and spit him out.

This is one of the paradoxes of Glenn Beck: he is courageous for taking the absurd, reactionary stands that he takes against the President, and he is a coward. He doesn’t have the intellect to win a debate with an informed adversary, and he knows it.

Watch Beck let this challenge fade into the dust of history where Beck, too, is destined to be placed (right next to Father Conklin, Pat Robertson and other far right hucksters).

Pablo said:
That’s not what I said. I suggest you read it again. And let’s keep in mind that MLK was not POTUS.

okay I read it again. I’m talking about judging people fairly with the same standard. Let’s say your lies friend lies and an acquaintance lies. Is one lie less of a lie because you forgive your friend. The principle would be that lying is wrong for both, and if your friend is due forgiveness, so is the acquaintance. As MLK said. The quality of their character. You don’t just look at one event to judge that. MLK isn’t just looked up to because of one great speech. He worked for civil rights for over a decade.

About what? We did the Great Society thing and the black community is, in many places, as bad off as it’s been since slavery. He was certainly right about freedom, though.

about this;

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Both the civil rights movement and BLT came about because white Christians were either participating in racism or being silent while it happened. MLK and BLT and took a stand against racism and discrimination because of it. According to what Jesus taught, they were right.

If Gandhi and Hitler both wanted ice cream, does that make them the same? BLT is not what MLK preached. It isn’t even close. And I’d be hesitant to say that BLT seeks equality.

That’s an irrelevant comparison. It’s undeniable that the specific issue both were addressing was discrimination in America primarily concerning black Americans. If you look at more of what Cone said and wrote than Beck’s one sided presentation you’ll see he advocated equality as well.

No, he didn’t…do either of those things.

Much more racist than now, not more racist than MLKs experience. MLK was about 9 1/2 years older than Cone was in his early 20s when MLK gave his famous speech. He grew up in Arkansas. He experienced the horrendous racism of the segregated south. It’s not reasonable to deny that. It’s also not reasonable to deny that both he and MLK worked against discrimination toward black Americans.

Wrong. The Civil Rights Act passed 5 years before BLT was introduced.

What do you think that means? Discrimination ended as soon as the law was signed? Be realistic. MLK continued his work after that law was signed and was shot down in 1968, when another Civil rights bill was passed by the way. The work was to get those laws enforced as well as change people’s minds and hearts.

Feel free to appreciate that God cannot be God unless he’s a Black God, and specifically not everybody’s God, but a black God alone, if you like. Me, I don’t care for racism in my theology.

And here it is. Beck and Fox present a distorted one sided view and people buy into it. That’s simply not true. Cone and Wright focused on a specific issue that had greatly affected their lives and the lives of other black Americans. Look at some words from Cone Beck didn’t present.

Cone: “To sing about freedom and to pray for its coming is not enough. Freedom must be actualized in history by oppressed peoples who accept the intellectual challenge to analyze the world for the purpose of changing it.”

sounds like this quote from MLK

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

and these

Cone; Truth knows no color; it appeals to intelligence.”

Cone; God does not will that people should be oppressed, and that was why he came in Jesus and why he is present as Holy Spirit today. God’s stand against oppression is his affirmation that all men have a common humanity in freedom. This means that I cannot be free until all men are free. And if in some distant future I am no longer oppressed because of blackness, then I must take upon myself whatever form of human oppression exists in the society, affirming my identity with the victims. The identity must be made with the victims not because of sympathy, but because my own humanity is involved in my brother’s degradation.
You know Christians aren’t and don’t claim to be perfect, right? They’re all sinners, etc… None of that is why Beck praised him, which you’d know if you were paying attention.

Cones use of “black” is literal and metaphorical. Literal in regard to the horrible racism and oppression experienced by black Americans. But he taught that it also represented oppression in general, any skin color.

Cone; my experience of being black-skinned means that I cannot de-emphasize the literal significance of blackness. My people were enslaved, lynched, and ghettoized in the name of God and country because of their color. No amount of theologizing can remove the reality of that experience from my consciousness. And because blacks were dehumanized by white-skinned people who created a cultural style based on black oppression, the literal importance of whiteness has historical referents.

But that is only one aspect of my experience. When I begin to investigate the particular experience of blackness and whiteness in America, I begin to see beyond it. Through my particular experience of blackness, I encounter the symbolic significance of black existence and how that existence is related to god’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

In the divine-human encounter, the particular experience of oppression and liberation, as disclosed in black-skinned people, is affirmed as God’s own experience; and through that divine affirmation, I encounter the universal meaning of oppression and liberation that is not limited by skin color. The same is true for the literal and symbolic meaning of whiteness, which has the opposite meaning of blackness.

Beck didn’t present any of this did he? You know Christians aren’t and don’t claim to be perfect, right? They’re all sinners, etc… None of that is why Beck praised him, which you’d know if you were paying attention.

Oh I know. With MLK he focused on the good and ignored the bad. With Cone he focused on the bad {the same things we see in MLK} and left out the good. That’s the contradiction I’m pointing out. It’s intentional.

No, they did not advocate the same things. And MLK was dead before BLT was born, so suggesting that he preached it is foolish.

I ask you again to be realistic and look at the principles of justice, equality and freedom, involved rather than dates and labels.

MLK was a Christian who advocated brotherhood among all men. BLT…isn’t.

Looking at all the facts, rather than just those purposely selected to present a negative impression, show this isn’t true.

How do you get that from “The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…” A picture of God as a God of all people must be rejected. That ain’t Christianity.

I read that differently. Your reading is leaving out the qualifier which stifles black self-determination
He isn’t saying God isn’t a God of all people. He’s saying what he and MLK both said. You can’t claim to be Christian and practice racial discrimination , or remain silent while it happens around you.

dang it! Still not getting the tags right. I hope the meaning is still clear.

The quality of their character. You don’t just look at one event to judge that. MLK isn’t just looked up to because of one great speech. He worked for civil rights for over a decade.

Oh, it was longer than that and he preached the gospel of Jesus Christ even longer. There’s a lot to like about King, and the fact that he had Marxist connections and accepted some of the principles doesn’t diminish the rest of what he did. There was an awful lot of that sort of thing going around back then. The fact that King liked the ladies doesn’t seem to get anyone excited either, just as it doesn’t really taint our embrace of JFK. I suppose getting murdered also has a way of helping us smooth over a historic figure’s rough edges too, but I digress.

Quite simply, you don’t have to agree with everything a man said or thought or did to consider him a great, honorable man. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Both the civil rights movement and BLT came about because white Christians were either participating in racism or being silent while it happened. MLK and BLT and took a stand against racism and discrimination because of it. According to what Jesus taught, they were right.

So, they made up a new religion because white Americans are racist! Praise Jesus Dr. Cone! We should all thank him for delivering us into this new God. Well, the black folks should thank him for their new God because Whitey ain’t invited.

That’s an irrelevant comparison. It’s undeniable that the specific issue both were addressing was discrimination in America primarily concerning black Americans.

Yes, and James Lee was specifically addressing environmental concerns just like Al Gore does. Those two men are about as different as King and Cone. Your connection between them is just as ridiculous as my Hitler and Gandhi both love ice cream link. They walked very different paths. King didn’t invent a God and a religion for his own edification, he appealed to men’s hearts with faith in and praise to Jesus. If you can’t differentiate between King and Cone, I don’t know what else to tell you.

And here it is. Beck and Fox present a distorted one sided view and people buy into it.

Nonsense. I didn’t get that from Beck, I got that from Cone. They’re his words, from his book. That he wrote. On purpose. And published. “Glenn Beck” is still not the answer to the question. And you still haven’t figured that out.

I’m beginning to think that I’m completely wasting my time.

Beck didn’t present any of this did he?

Is there something in there I ought to be impressed by? I’m sure there are millions of words attributable to Cone that Beck has not aired, probably because The James Cone Show is not what he’s looking for. I fail to see your point. I also fail to see anything that resembles mainstream Christianity.

Oh I know. With MLK he focused on the good and ignored the bad. With Cone he focused on the bad {the same things we see in MLK} and left out the good.

What good? What has James Cone done for America?

I ask you again to be realistic and look at the principles of justice, equality and freedom, involved rather than dates and labels.

Ah. let’s ignore objective facts that completely break the argument and go with the awesome feelings instead. No thanks.

Looking at all the facts, rather than just those purposely selected to present a negative impression, show this isn’t true.

No, an utter failure of reading comprehension might do that, but looking at the facts does not.

I read that differently. Your reading is leaving out the qualifier which stifles black self-determination

Is that what I did when I BOLDED it? Left it out? No, my friend. You read it differently because you don’t read well. Do you have someone around that could read it to you a few more times and maybe even diagram that sentence for you?

Pablo says: “There’s a lot to like about King, and the fact that he had Marxist connections….”

That’s the kind of thing we’d hear about King if Beck and King were contemporaries.

For details, see http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008280005

Pablo said:
Oh, it was longer than that and he preached the gospel of Jesus Christ even longer. There’s a lot to like about King, and the fact that he had Marxist connections and accepted some of the principles doesn’t diminish the rest of what he did. There was an awful lot of that sort of thing going around back then. The fact that King liked the ladies doesn’t seem to get anyone excited either, just as it doesn’t really taint our embrace of JFK. I suppose getting murdered also has a way of helping us smooth over a historic figure’s rough edges too, but I digress.

Quite simply, you don’t have to agree with everything a man said or thought or did to consider him a great, honorable man. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Of course I agree. That;s very relevant to my point. As you said, Christians and people in general are not perfect. and you shouldn’t judge a person by one aspect of their life. I’m not criticizing MLK. I’m pointing out the reality of Beck’s double standard. He honors MLK and ignores the same exact things he criticizes in Cone and Obama, and then intentionally only the negatives of Cone.

So, they made up a new religion because white Americans are racist! Praise Jesus Dr. Cone! We should all thank him for delivering us into this new God. Well, the black folks should thank him for their new God because Whitey ain’t invited.

Try to maintain a realistic perspective here. Look at all the different denominations and the often trivial differences between them. Cone advocated for a specific very serious cause with an interpretation of Jesus as savior , still Christianity. He didn’t create it because of some difference over baptism or whether women should be ordained. I’ve given you the quotes that shows it did not exclude “whitey” so perhaps you could refrain from repeating something after it’s been shown to be incorrect.

Those two men are about as different as King and Cone. Your connection between them is just as ridiculous as my Hitler and Gandhi both love ice cream link. They walked very different paths. King didn’t invent a God and a religion for his own edification, he appealed to men’s hearts with faith in and praise to Jesus. If you can’t differentiate between King and Cone, I don’t know what else to tell you.

You keep talking about superficial labels after I’ve clearly shown that they advocated the same principles and for the same cause. Your denial of the clear facts doesn’t help your argument.

Who does this sound like?

Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.

It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society.

A riot is the language of the unheard.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.

can you tell which quotes are MLK and which are Cone? I’ll tell you in my next post.

Nonsense. I didn’t get that from Beck, I got that from Cone. They’re his words, from his book. That he wrote. On purpose. And published. “Glenn Beck” is still not the answer to the question. And you still haven’t figured that out.

The answer is Glenn Beck is wrong and intentionally distorting the truth about BLT and Cone.
Beck uses actual quotes on his show. They are Cone’s words. They are carefully selected to present Cone and BLT is a negative light. I don’t know if you got your quote from Beck or online, but I do know I’ve provided more context to get a more balanced and fair idea of what he taught and believes. I am also sure you’ve misinterpreted the quote you selected to fit your own belief, and ignored the very real evidence I’ve provided to show you’re mistaken.

I’m beginning to think that I’m completely wasting my time.

I know the feeling

Is there something in there I ought to be impressed by? I’m sure there are millions of words attributable to Cone that Beck has not aired, probably because The James Cone Show is not what he’s looking for. I fail to see your point. I also fail to see anything that resembles mainstream Christianity.

the point is these quotes from Cone clearly refute the image you’ve presented. If John Hagee and MLK are mainstream Christians so is Cone. You haven’t done anything to support you assertion.

What good? What has James Cone done for America?

Well, Divinity schools and universities around the world include James Cone on their reading lists. Aside from that he continued MLKs work by encouraging black Americans, Christians, and people in general to fight back rather than passively accept discrimination. Yes, we’ve made progress. We wouldn’t without people bringing the problem into the light.

Ah. let’s ignore objective facts that completely break the argument and go with the awesome feelings instead. No thanks.

I’ve presented relevant objective facts and you’ve ignored them. You’ve presented objective facts that don’t relate to the point of the discussion. Do we honor MLKs birth date, the year 1963, or is the principles he stood for?

No, an utter failure of reading comprehension might do that, but looking at the facts does not.

you have to open and your mind and your heart as well as your eyes. I’ve given you several quotes demonstrating that although Cone focused on the issue of discrimination he included everyone in teaching the principles of the gospel. Do you deny that, or do you just think either he or I are lying?

Is that what I did when I BOLDED it? Left it out? No, my friend. You read it differently because you don’t read well. Do you have someone around that could read it to you a few more times and maybe even diagram that sentence for you?

I’ll clarify. You left those words, the qualifying phrase, out of your interpretation. Your interpretation “A picture of God as a God of all people must be rejected” is not what he said, and the qualifier determines the meaning of the entire sentence. The sentence that follows explains it as well. Other context for meaning would be the quote in which he clearly says oppression is not limited to any skin color.
When he grew up the white Christians in his town believed in a God of all peoples , but wouldn’t let black folks come into their church, or even drink from the same fountain. They treated blacks as inferior beings 7 days a week, after listening to the words of Jesus on Sunday morning. That behavior was what he wanted to reject.

I’ll clarify. You left those words, the qualifying phrase, out of your interpretation. Your interpretation “A picture of God as a God of all people must be rejected” is not what he said, and the qualifier determines the meaning of the entire sentence.

Let’s go to the videotape Cone’s book:

“The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…”

Picturing God as a God of all people stifles black self-determination and must be rejected. What part of that do you not understand? Why do you insist on depriving James Cone of his meaning? Did he ask for your help?

Now I’m convinced that I’m wasting my time.

Cone focused on the issue of discrimination he included everyone in teaching the principles of the gospel. Do you deny that, or do you just think either he or I are lying?

OK, last chance to impress me. I don’t think Cone taught the principles of the gospel. He may refer to them in his new gospel (Like Mohammed did), but his God has a whole new set of lessons that don’t mesh with Christian dogma.

I would love to see where James Cone preaches that Jesus Christ is his personal Savior, and that Jesus died on the cross to ensure his eternal salvation.

I would very much like to see where James Cone preaches that fundamental Christian belief. Got anything?

Pablo said:
OK, last chance to impress me. I don’t think Cone taught the principles of the gospel. He may refer to them in his new gospel (Like Mohammed did), but his God has a whole new set of lessons that don’t mesh with Christian dogma.

I would love to see where James Cone preaches that Jesus Christ is his personal Savior, and that Jesus died on the cross to ensure his eternal salvation.

I would very much like to see where James Cone preaches that fundamental Christian belief. Got anything?

I’ll look. IN the meantime can you find that statement from MLK? I was doing some reading and found this from Cone’s book “The Risks of Faith”

If the church is to remain faithful to the Lord, it must make a decisive break with the structure of this society by launching a vehement attack on the evils of racism in all forms. It must become prophetic, demanding a radical change in the interlocking structures of this society. Of course the church must realize, in view of the Christian doctrine of man, that this is a dangerous task But obedience to Christ is always costly.

Here he mentions faithfulness to the Lord and obedience to Christ. Both pretty mainstream Christian ideas.
he says regarding King.

It could be argued that Martin King’s contribution to the identity of Christianity in America and the world is as far reaching as Augustine’s in the fifth century and Luther’s in the sixteenth. Before King , no Christian theologian showed so conclusively in his actions and words the great contradiction between racial segregation and the gospel of Jesus. In fact racial segregation was so widely accepted in the churches and societies throughout the world that few white theologians in America and Europe regarded the practice as unjust. Those who did see the injustice did not regard the issue important enough to even write or talk about it. But after King no theologian or preacher dares to defend racial segregation. He destroyed it’s moral legitimacy.
Martin King is America’s most important Christian theologian because of what he said and did about race from a theological point of view. He was a liberation theologian before the phrase was coined by African American and Latin American religious thinkers in the late 60s and early 70s.

and an interesting piece written by King in 1967
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1139
with excerpts

The Southern Christian Leadership Council has pioneered in developing mass boycott movements in a frontal attack on discrimination. In Birmingham it was not the marching alone that brought about integration of public facilities in 1963. The downtown business establishments suffered for weeks under our almost unbelievably effective boycott. The significant percentage of their sales that vanished, the ninety-eight percent of their Negro customers who stayed home, educated them forcefully to the dignity of the Negro as a consumer.
Operation Breadbasket is carried out mainly by clergymen. First, a team of ministers calls on the management of a business in the community to request basic facts on the company�s total number of employees, the number of Negro employees, the departments or job classifications in which all employees are located, and the salary ranges for each category. The team then returns to the steering committee to evaluate the data and to make a recommendation concerning the number of new and upgraded jobs that should be requested.
how exactly were he and Cone vastly different again?

Pablo said:
Let’s go to the videotape Cone’s book:

Picturing God as a God of all people stifles black self-determination and must be rejected. What part of that do you not understand? Why do you insist on depriving James Cone of his meaning? Did he ask for your help?

Now I’m convinced that I’m wasting my time.

I believe you are misinterpreting through improper sentence structure.

The black theologian {subject} must reject {verb} any conception of God {object} the object is qualified. by
which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples.
I see it as “only the picture of God as a god of all peoples and stifles black self determination must be rejected, rather than every picture of God as a God of all peoples. What exactly goes he mean? I think we get that from the context of the following sentence “Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…”
I believe he’s talking about the reoccurring theme from him and MLK. The Christian that doesn’t speak out against the injustice of racism is not worshiping the God of all peoples .

If you can provide the link you got that from I’d like to see more context.

Cosmos Dan said: “the history of this country demonstrates pretty clearly that in general white Christians treated blacks in a way that was very contrary to the teachings of the savior they claimed to worship. It’s just a plain fact.
If the majority of Christians in this country had actually lived according to the teachings of their faith the civil rights movement would never have been necessary.”

“If white Christians had not indeed oppressed black Americans, MLK wouldn’t have needed to march and BLT would have no need to see themselves as the oppressed.”

…..You mean like the Statesmen/Missionaries to the Hawaiian Islands who straying from the path of political neutrality fraudulently and without provocation caused an armed insurrection against Hawaii’s lawful Queen in 1893? Hawaii has it’s own brand of liberation theology except minus the theology part. It’s Marxist straight up with most of them, not to mention the International human rights declarations to which they seem incessant! In neither case however do these movements seem disposed to seeing civil protections in the U.S. Constitutions Bill Of Rights for example. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787, “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” I suspect he wrote this to underline the universal qualities of such a bill of rights, similar in some ways to how James uses the Royal Law of Liberty (James 2:9-10) to correct institutional discrimination. Both presuppose a underlying law of freedom, while also institutionalizing a hidden moral system. Such that suggests the need for law against human propensity to deprive one against his or her will. But while Biblical law makes theft illegal, it also makes positive law illegal as well. This is where things become tricky for liberals who are issues oriented, and who would craft law along racial lines just as soon as they had control of the government! Equal justice must work across the board or it is not justice. Something about the MLK event last week that just smells of Black elitism sorry to say. Your points about white Christians oppressing Blacks is well taken, however, given their predisposition to the white mans Capitalism, along with his self regulating Christianity, it seems they are on a collision course with the same Christ they say offers “good will to all men.”

Noa Napoleon said:Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787, “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” I suspect he wrote this to underline the universal qualities of such a bill of rights, similar in some ways to how James uses the Royal Law of Liberty (James 2:9-10) to correct institutional discrimination. Both presuppose a underlying law of freedom, while also institutionalizing a hidden moral system. Such that suggests the need for law against human propensity to deprive one against his or her will. But while Biblical law makes theft illegal, it also makes positive law illegal as well. This is where things become tricky for liberals who are issues oriented, and who would craft law along racial lines just as soon as they had control of the government! Equal justice must work across the board or it is not justice. Something about the MLK event last week that just smells of Black elitism sorry to say. Your points about white Christians oppressing Blacks is well taken, however, given their predisposition to the white mans Capitalism, along with his self regulating Christianity, it seems they are on a collision course with the same Christ they say offers “good will to all men.”

I appreciate your post. I wish I had time for a more detailed response but for now I’d like to ask where is the bible passage or passages, that makes positive law illegal?

Pablo said:
Let’s go to the videotape Cone’s book:

Picturing God as a God of all people stifles black self-determination and must be rejected. What part of that do you not understand? Why do you insist on depriving James Cone of his meaning? Did he ask for your help?

Now I’m convinced that I’m wasting my time.

I’ve been thinking about this and found a fuller context on Wkki
The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…. The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God’s own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering…Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity.

When he speaks of the Israelite slaves, and “where human beings experience humiliation and suffering” we see he isn’t just talking about African Americans. Cone can be hard to understand because he does see “black” as both literal and metaphorical at the same time. I think in the context of his other quotes and a longer context here his quote is best explained by the words of Jesus in Mat 25
31″When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

This is the heart of liberation theology. If you are not caring for the oppressed, as white people did not care for their black brothers and sisters, then you are not worshiping Jesus

This is the heart of liberation theology. If you are not caring for the oppressed, as white people did not care for their black brothers and sisters, then you are not worshiping Jesus

Great. But not Christian doctrine. Not even close. BTW, hungry, thirsty, naked and strange do not equal “oppressed”. Nor does charity equate to political activism.

By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ

Yeah, I’m wasting my time.

Pablo said:
Great. But not Christian doctrine. Not even close. BTW, hungry, thirsty, naked and strange do not equal “oppressed”. Nor does charity equate to political activism.

Silly me. Equating the words of Jesus with Christianity. What was I thinking.
Let me know if you figure out whether MLK measures up to your standard of Christianity. Those quotes I posted and asked whose they were,..they were all his, just like the article on Black Power. You remember him right? The guy you and Beck have been praising.

Yeah, I’m wasting my time.

When evidence and reason don’t seem to matter to you,..I’d say that’s true.

Pablo said:
By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ

by the way. Evidently figurative language is a concept you find hard to grasp {especially when you are determined to find fault} You know the words of Jesus I just quoted?

45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

that’s what that means.

″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

That means God is oppressed? Doctrinally, that is unmitigated idiocy. Speaking of an inability to grasp figurative language, not to mention the straightforward variety…

Pablo said:
That means God is oppressed? Doctrinally, that is unmitigated idiocy. Speaking of an inability to grasp figurative language, not to mention the straightforward variety…

Since Jesus is equating himself as being the same as the oppressed , yes, figuratively speaking, that’s what it means. If you oppress God’s people you oppress god

Wow.

Man oppresses God. News at 11.

Cosmos Dan asks: where is the bible passage that says positive law is evil?

Using a Roman legal principle to describe the modern principle of positive law, quote; “the health of the people is the highest law,” is contrasted by the Mosaic legal principle where according to RJ Rushdoony, “the state as an enforcing agency is limited to dealing with evil, not to controlling men.” In Communistic regimes this principle of law is reversed. Instead of dealing with evil its role is now to control men. Negative law’s such as the Ten Commandments, in similar ways to the bill of rights, ensures liberty, whereas positive law suggests the state has “total power to compel men.” Which brings me to what for now must be the sort answer to your question.

A modest or negative law is presupposed in the Torah, and 1 Samuel 1:20 shows that Israel had not allowed itself to be seduced by the empirical tendencies of the “Kings” of the “nations round about them” at least up to that point, whereas in prior years she was under Judges not Kings. In many cases where Israel is admonished not to blend Pagan and Hebrew religion together this liberating ideal of law is in mind. Justice in the Commonwealth was not overbearing. In fact we are admonished never to wrest judgment, never to deprive even a foreigner of due process!!! If Israel would patiently keep these statutes and ordinances without adding or subtracting from them she would be free, but if she turned justice into a prerogative of the state, or of the people as in a democracy, the nation would be destroyed.

Pablo said:
Wow.

Man oppresses God. News at 11.

Breaking News. Today several people were sentenced to prison on charges of neglect. Surprisingly , these people were convicted for neglecting to feed, clothe, house, and generally care for, ….God the creator ruler of the universe.

Evidently you think Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about. Careful, I don’t think that’s mainstream.

Now you’re just being silly. Goodbye.

Noa Napoleon said:
Cosmos Dan asks: where is the bible passage that says positive law is evil?

Using a Roman legal principle to describe the modern principle of positive law, quote; “the health of the people is the highest law,” is contrasted by the Mosaic legal principle where according to RJ Rushdoony, “the state as an enforcing agency is limited to dealing with evil, not to controlling men.” In Communistic regimes this principle of law is reversed. Instead of dealing with evil its role is now to control men. Negative law’s such as the Ten Commandments, in similar ways to the bill of rights, ensures liberty, whereas positive law suggests the state has “total power to compel men.” Which brings me to what for now must be the sort answer to your question.

A modest or negative law is presupposed in the Torah, and 1 Samuel 1:20 shows that Israel had not allowed itself to be seduced by the empirical tendencies of the “Kings” of the “nations round about them” at least up to that point, whereas in prior years she was under Judges not Kings. In many cases where Israel is admonished not to blend Pagan and Hebrew religion together this liberating ideal of law is in mind. Justice in the Commonwealth was not overbearing. In fact we are admonished never to wrest judgment, never to deprive even a foreigner of due process!!! If Israel would patiently keep these statutes and ordinances without adding or subtracting from them she would be free, but if she turned justice into a prerogative of the state, or of the people as in a democracy, the nation would be destroyed.

I take it that there are no passages that actually make positive law illegal. When talking of Christianity and Biblical law we look primarily to the words of Jesus Christ. When he expanded on OT law his words were that simply not doing things was not enough. There are things we are told we must do, is there not? Look at the sermon on the mount in Mat 5. If we agree that the law is meant to deal with evil then we ask is it evil for society to not be compelled in certain issues.Is it evil to not care for those in need when we have so much? Look at racism. The business owner is told he cannot bar people from his place of business based on race. We’ve infringed on his will to make his own choices about his business in the name of justice and equality. Now years later we as a society generally agree that racism is wrong.
There is a realistic and needed discussion to be had about where the lines are drawn in social programs. How much is reasonable helping? How much is enabling and creating dependency? To have those needed discussions we need to get away from the dishonest rhetoric of politicians , and the dishonest alarmist scare tactics of a multimillionaire snake oil salesman.
Social justice and socialism are not scary words. We already have socialism. As a people and a nation we ought to have the will and good sense to not be manipulated by scare tactics. We ought to stop rewarding dishonest pundits by swallowing what they’re dishing out. We should be insisting on a real, honest, fact based , discussion and start treating our fellow citizens with respect even when we disagree.
I appreciate your input.

Pablo said:
Now you’re just being silly. Goodbye.

I rephrased the words of Jesus using your own metaphor. I know you know that.
Now you’re calling the words of Jesus silly. Not very mainstream ,…. downright heretical some might say.

Regardless of our disagreement I appreciate the time you invested and the fact that you kept it respectful.

CosmosDan said:
I rephrased the words of Jesus using your own metaphor.

No, you made some shit up, about prison, no less. You have no understanding whatsoever what Jesus taught. Just stop it. There’s no point in continuing.

Pablo said:
No, you made some shit up, about prison, no less. You have no understanding whatsoever what Jesus taught. Just stop it. There’s no point in continuing.

Made it up? I quoted Jesus directly from the Bible and then accurately paraphrased it with a metaphor you tried to use to discredit my argument. Don’t blame me if the words of Jesus don’t support your argument.

I agree there’s no point in continuing. I came back to see if Noa had posted again.

CosmosDan said:
I quoted Jesus directly from the Bible and then accurately paraphrased it with a metaphor you tried to use to discredit my argument. Don’t blame me if the words of Jesus don’t support your argument.

These words of Jesus?

Breaking News. Today several people were sentenced to prison on charges of neglect. Surprisingly , these people were convicted for neglecting to feed, clothe, house, and generally care for, ….God the creator ruler of the universe.

No, those aren’t His words and they aren’t mine, and they bear no resemblance to anything either of us has said. They’re your creation, and you ought not pretend otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X5sZ6Q4Fw&feature=related A Conversation with James Cone part 1

@ 6:45 James Cone says that “there are 9 Supreme Court Justices, all of them white as far as I’m concerned, one may look black, but he’s white.” (Thomas Clarence) That was from 2007, I think. The youtube video was posted 2008, but I think it was originally broadcasted on PBS in 2007. …yeah, this guy isn’t a racist at all. He’s definitely repentant of what he said in his book(s) too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MByCBUYjLUw&feature=related A Conversation with James Cone part 2.

So right off the bat, it sounds like Cone wants reparations. This is the part where he says that whites can’t become christian if they don’t give up their ‘power’ and” give back what they took”.

So in a Country that has Obama as President, and Oprah as one of the richest woman in it, we need reparations… I guess so, because I think both of them attended Rev. Wright’s church. Especially since my ancestors owned slaves (they didn’t) Let’s give reparations to Mormons while we’re at it. They had an extermination order against them. That’s why they ran from Missouri. It was legal to kill a Mormon until it was formally rescinded in 1976. They experienced opression, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_order

Those are a just a couple of things that jumped out at me from those videos. I’m sure I could find more, but I don’t have time right now.

CosmosDan said:
I’ve been thinking about this and found a fuller context on WkkiThe black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples.

Could someone point me to the “black” section of Leviticus? How ironic that they chose to fight racism with their own racism.

CosmosDan said:
Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…. The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God’s own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ,

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a bigger perversion of the Bible… well, maybe the guys who argue that David and Jonathan were lovers have twisted it more, but this is pretty close.

God didn’t choose Israel as slaves. I mean, does the writer even know why they’re called, “Israel”? He didn’t select them based on their race or their status of being oppressed. In fact, much of the oppression of Israel in the OT was due to their own leaving of God, not due to God making some point that His “condition” is “the oppressed condition.” God chose Abraham and blessed him, which is where Israel descended from. Abraham was not chosen because of being a slave or being oppressed. This is, as Pablo has said, a new religion, not Biblical Christianity.

Pablo said:
Great. But not Christian doctrine. Not even close. BTW, hungry, thirsty, naked and strange do not equal “oppressed”. Nor does charity equate to political activism.

Political activism is the very opposite of charity. Using the monopoly of violence the government has to impose your will on others isn’t charitable at all. It’s coercion, plain and simple.

CosmosDan said:
I take it that there are no passages that actually make positive law illegal. When talking of Christianity and Biblical law we look primarily to the words of Jesus Christ. When he expanded on OT law his words were that simply not doing things was not enough. There are things we are told we must do, is there not? Look at the sermon on the mount in Mat 5. If we agree that the law is meant to deal with evil then we ask is it evil for society to not be compelled in certain issues.

Jesus specifically told His disciples not to “lord over” people. Accepting Christ is a personal matter. This principle, I believe, is one of the great failures of the Church in history- it tangled itself with government. As MLK said, you can’t compel anyone to love people. It sounds like you’re calling for a return to theocracy.

CosmosDan said:

Is it evil to not care for those in need when we have so much?

“We” are commanded not to compel others. Forced charity is NOT charity.

CosmosDan said:

Look at racism. The business owner is told he cannot bar people from his place of business based on race. We’ve infringed on his will to make his own choices about his business in the name of justice and equality. Now years later we as a society generally agree that racism is wrong.

That’s a good thing. I don’t think anyone here is arguing for forced segregation. Furthermore, I believe the Civil Rights Movement to be a reflection of society as opposed to the catalyst of change itself. If society wasn’t already predisposed against racism, it wouldn’t have been a successful movement.

CosmosDan said:

There is a realistic and needed discussion to be had about where the lines are drawn in social programs. How much is reasonable helping? How much is enabling and creating dependency? To have those needed discussions we need to get away from the dishonest rhetoric of politicians , and the dishonest alarmist scare tactics of a multimillionaire snake oil salesman.

I think the argument should be why charity must be a function of the state. History has shown that government welfare and entitlement programs have had the opposite effect of their intentions. Extending unemployment benefits extends unemployment. The welfare state has created a dependency on government rather than fixed the problem of poverty. Consider the decline of the black community since the passage of the Civil Rights Act. When they were oppressed by the govt, they were significantly better off as a whole than when the government decided to help them out. The black family has disentegrated. Over 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers. This is due to the govt incentivizing the failure of the family. Women can file no fault divorces (and do at alarming rates) and will get alimony or a government check.

CosmosDan said:
Social justice and socialism are not scary words. We already have socialism.

People aren’t “scared” by these words. People UNDERSTAND what these things entail.

CosmosDan said:
As a people and a nation we ought to have the will and good sense to not be manipulated by scare tactics. We ought to stop rewarding dishonest pundits by swallowing what they’re dishing out. We should be insisting on a real, honest, fact based , discussion and start treating our fellow citizens with respect even when we disagree.I appreciate your input.

I think a big step in that direction would be for people on the left to stop generalizing about conservative/libertarian thought. The greatest frustration in talking about these issues, at least for myself, is that we have to constantly deal with strawmen that the left have created. I can’t talk candidly about issues in the black community without first having to dispel the racism charge. I can’t talk candidly about an over regulated economy without first having to dispel the anarchist charge or the “greedy” charge. The problem is that it’s so entrenched in our media that someone like Howard Dean, a former DNC chairman, can casually say that Republican’s are “the party of hate” and many people don’t even bat an eyelash. I mean, did Mediaite even think that was something to cover?

Cosmos Dan said: where is the bible passage that says positive law is illegal?

Actually there is no specific passage that refers to positive law either. Bible scholars trace the use of positive law back to a Roman principle of law, usually described as a perverted form of law since rather than dealing practically with a specific evil, the goal of such is to control man. There are however prohibitions in the Bible about seeking out or blending Hebraic law with Pagan law (Isaiah 8:19-20), in some cases under penalty of death. If the law served men it could also control men but Biblical law was not fashioned this way, nor was this intended in American law either given that the bill of rights was negative. It simply bared the federal government from encroaching on the rights of its subjects. 1 Timothy 1:9 “the law is made for the lawless.” Roman’s 13:3; “for rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil,” and vs 5; “wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake.” Removing your neighbors land mark was not considered illegal per say but doing so while all the people say “amen” brings a curse. (Deut 27:17). If rulers can compel men they can also immunize them from law just the same, and often have with disastrous effect. Ever heard of sanctuary cities for the undocumented aliens? What about DHHL/ Department of Hawaiian Home Lands? Congress uses the Indian Commerce Clause to hold plenary power over native Hawaiians, even while they had no authority whatsoever under the Constitution to promulgate U.S. law over Hawaii (2000 miles outside of its contiguous territory). This is just a small example of positive law (we call this federalization of native rights). Black men cannot bring a case before law with only hurt feelings or memories of relatives who were mistreated, subjugated etc. This is not to say there was nothing illegal or evil about segregation. The contradiction here is the Black community has succeeded in shacking down the government for special treatment, something they themselves would subject to legal action if the shoe were on the other foot. Affirmative action and the U.S. Census come to mind when considering this inversion of law and its negative effect.

You said: “There are things we are told we must do, is there not? Look at the sermon on the mount in Mat 5. If we agree that the law is meant to deal with evil then we ask is it evil for society to not be compelled in certain issues.Is it evil to not care for those in need when we have so much?”

Correct the scriptures teach us not only to “do justice” but that justice is preferred above sacrifice etc. There is no law however that says the rich must do thus and such with their profit while there is as Glenn points out, faith, hope, and charity, which suggests you should tend to the needs of your community for a host of reasons. Legalism is the culprit here I suspect because what happens is the poor man who feels victimized by the wealthy will now want to make it illegal for anyone to prosper ahead of anyone else. In other words they regulate against their own freedom! This is the sort of litigious culture that if allowed would use law to coerce people into positive action, which is what “spreading the wealth around” is all about. Nehemiah approached his task in terms of divine providence, his inspiration to work for the rebuilding of the wall came from his love of country. In this scenario there were no victims, otherwise the Israelites would be litigating against God for having orchestrated their demise. Caring for the needy is not the governments responsibility but this doesn’t mean the government has nothing to say on the subject, it means it can only deal with government collusion or preventing conflict where one mans benefit from a law or ruling means another mans demise such as it happened in Hawaii, where American diplomats abused their power in order to give wealthy Sugar barons a political advantage over the native population. All this talk about parody is useless unless and until Americans undo this horrific miscarriage of justice. In this sense your objective would be met in that redress would restore the law and in doing so return to Hawaiians what was taken in a fraud. Here there is absolute legal necessity to repair the law or to correct a decision of Congress, which if neglected allows Congress to win by default. This means it becomes emasculated against itself. This was not what the American social contract was originally about. A self regulating citizenry would have freedom whereas a legalistic society would be totally regulated (top down). That said I would point out that the church has neglected Biblical justice almost entirely since evangelical pastors commonly refer to Justice as a feature of the millennial reign of Christ, as if it were somehow sacrilegious for Christians to think there is some kind of cultural mandate for re-instituting the laws in the Bible, which they say are obsolete, repressive etc. So the conversation we really need to have is about justice first and foremost. There are a host of other related concepts I would’ve liked to discuss here but I refrain.

Pablo said:
These words of Jesus?
“Breaking News. Today several people were sentenced to prison on charges of neglect. Surprisingly , these people were convicted for neglecting to feed, clothe, house, and generally care for, ….God the creator ruler of the universe. ”

Those very words. You took a sarcastic shot at my post with this
“Wow, Man oppresses God , news at 11″ {note that the sarcasm was minimal} So I used your metaphor of news and rephrased these words of Jesus {which I had just posted.}

41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Compare this to my Paraphrase.
The people in question recognize him as God , since they call him Lord, and they are still sent to the eternal fire {prison} because when they neglected the least of these they neglected God.

No, those aren’t His words and they aren’t mine, and they bear no resemblance to anything either of us has said. They’re your creation, and you ought not pretend otherwise.

I’m dumbfounded that you simply deny the plain words of Jesus, and further claim they aren’t his words when I’ve quoted them from Matthew. You haven’t offered a viable alternative, just denial.

You implied that the concept of oppressing God used by Cone, was a perversion and ridiculous because in your mind God cannot be oppressed. It’s foolishness right?

But here in Matthew we see Jesus Christ using words so similar to Cone’s there’s no discernible difference. You might claim that Jesus was speaking metaphorically as well. Perhaps he doesn’t literally mean that the poor, hungry and sick are actually God, the creator and ruler of the universe. If so then we can also allow that Cone was using the exact same metaphor and ultimately the exact same meaning. That’s the core of BLK that you and Beck maintain is a perversion. That’s the principle MLK fought for.
If you still disagree then offer something more substantial than denial. Tell me specifically how my paraphrase is not the same in intent as the words of Jesus I quoted.

Calvin said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X5sZ6Q4Fw&feature=related A Conversation with James Cone part 1

@ 6:45 James Cone says that “there are 9 Supreme Court Justices, all of them white as far as I’m concerned, one may look black, but he’s white.” (Thomas Clarence) That was from 2007, I think. The youtube video was posted 2008, but I think it was originally broadcasted on PBS in 2007. …yeah, this guy isn’t a racist at all. He’s definitely repentant of what he said in his book(s) too.

We could get into a complicated argument about what racism is but I’ll post this from the dictionary

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
I can’t cut and paste from Cone’s Book “The Risks of Faith” and I don’t know what your background is but my guess is that neither you nor I have any idea what it’s like to experience the kind of hateful segregation Cone experienced and was the common life experience of so many black Americans of that era. What I notice now is people looking at Cone and Wright and seeing something like 1/1000th of the racism that Cone experienced and black Americans experienced, and having the nerve to dismiss them because they’re a little pissed off about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MByCBUYjLUw&feature=related A Conversation with James Cone part 2.

So right off the bat, it sounds like Cone wants reparations. This is the part where he says that whites can’t become christian if they don’t give up their ‘power’ and” give back what they took”.

You know the man Glenn Beck honored at the rally, MLK also preached reparations.
While the details of exactly what reparations are due, and to whom, or whether it’s too late can be debated the concept of reparations is a legitimate and Biblical one. We were paying reparations to Iraqi’s in recent years.

Regardless, this is off topic. My point was the Glaring contradiction of principles between Glenn’s rally and his comments about Cone and BLT. Saturday he spouts a lot of platitudes about honor and returning to God, then parades his black robe group out as a demonstration of spiritual unity. The next day he comments on BLT as a perversion and demonic.
Whether you like Cone or agree with his views or not is irrelevant. Like most humans Cone is imperfect, but he and BLT is just as Christian as John Hagee or Pat Robertson, or Mormonism. It’s a blatant double standard to honor MLK , overlook his human flaws, and then demonize a man and a religion that supported the same principles. It’s a blatant double standard to tell Christians to leave their church if they use the code words “social justice” and then make a spectacle of a call for religious unity and honor a man whose life’s work was social justice.

Haimerej said:
Could someone point me to the “black” section of Leviticus? How ironic that they chose to fight racism with their own racism.

Try to have a realistic idea of what kind of racism Cone and black Americans experienced in contrast to what you’re calling racism. It’s like calling a speed bump a mountain.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a bigger perversion of the Bible… well, maybe the guys who argue that David and Jonathan were lovers have twisted it more, but this is pretty close.

In order to understand the whole concept of BLT you have to read more than a few select passages. That’s part of the unfair and dishonest presentation we’re getting from Beck.

I’ve already posted quotes that explains the that Cone’s use of “blackness” is both literal and metaphorical. In the larger sense it represents any oppression against any human. He was specifically addressing the issue of sever racism and discrimination in America, Christians may choose a certain focus to express their work without ceasing to be Christians. If he perverted the gospel so did MLK.

God didn’t choose Israel as slaves. I mean, does the writer even know why they’re called, “Israel”? He didn’t select them based on their race or their status of being oppressed. In fact, much of the oppression of Israel in the OT was due to their own leaving of God, not due to God making some point that His “condition” is “the oppressed condition.” God chose Abraham and blessed him, which is where Israel descended from. Abraham was not chosen because of being a slave or being oppressed. This is, as Pablo has said, a new religion, not Biblical Christianity.

I confess to knowing very little about the Old Testament. I’ve spent most of my study around the NT and the teachings of Christ. Are you saying Israel is not God’s chosen people? If not, someone should tell a lot of “mainstream: Christians that they too are perverting the gospel because a boatload of them believe it. If they are, is God displaying racism by singling out one nation for special attention?

Biblical Christianity is a broad term that covers a lot of diverse and often conflicting doctrine. Christians will form new denominations over relatively trivial points and it’s undeniable that various Christians interpret the Bible quite differently. Beck gathers a diverse group on stage as a symbol of religious unity, including the controversial John Hagee. The next day he disses BLT. Saturday he honors MLK. Sunday he disses the theology that preaches the same principles MLK worked for.
What was the thing he singled out? The term “collective salvation” He described it as a grave, grave, distortion of the gospels, even though he doesn’t really know what it means to Obama or Cone. I’ve found and presented the words of Christ to support collective salvation, and his theology concerning standing up for the oppressed. I’m not claiming they’re right. I don’t care about religious dogma. I’m saying that BLT , based on the Bible and the words of Jesus , and Cone’s own words acknowledging Jesus as Lord, has as much claim to Christianity as any of the many denominations that can’t seem to agree on doctrine.
Out of curiosity, would you say that a religion founded by a new prophet, discovers a new set of Holy Books other than the Bible , has their own apostles and still receives divine revelation that becomes scripture, is biblical Christianity?

Haimerej said:
Jesus specifically told His disciples not to “lord over” people. Accepting Christ is a personal matter. This principle, I believe, is one of the great failures of the Church in history- it tangled itself with government. As MLK said, you can’t compel anyone to love people. It sounds like you’re calling for a return to theocracy.

A return? Were we ever a theocracy? I absolutely support separation of church and state. We’re talking about using the principles in the gospels,Justice, love and concern for our fellow man to direct our actions, including the value judgments we make about laws and policy. I much prefer a discussion of principles and details because I think doctrine is personal and has no place in politics. It is pretty obvious that mainstream Christianity has often and still, tries to direct laws according to doctrine and their personal opinion of what God thinks.

“We” are commanded not to compel others. Forced charity is NOT charity.

I’d like to see that passage in context. The MLK quote you just used goes like this,
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important. ” It’s about justice and equality, not just the money. It’s about choosing as citizens what kind of society we’d like to have and how exactly we get there. Whether it’s charity or not is irrelevant.

That’s a good thing. I don’t think anyone here is arguing for forced segregation. Furthermore, I believe the Civil Rights Movement to be a reflection of society as opposed to the catalyst of change itself. If society wasn’t already predisposed against racism, it wouldn’t have been a successful movement.

Holy crap. That’s a pretty gross oversimplification of the years of fighting and suffering it took to even begin to get equality. Ignoring that and talking principle, if society is predisposed to do more to help out the less fortunate , I guess that’s fine right? We already have a lot of socialist programs operating and I don’t see them being completely eliminated. Ultimately it’s about what works best for us as a nation and what moves us forward. I certainly think there are important discussions to be had about what helps and what enables and where we draw the lines. To do that we need to have discussions based in reality and facts , not some snake oil salesman holding up swastikas.

I think the argument should be why charity must be a function of the state.

I think that’s a very legitimate duscussion to have, providing it’s based in reality and on facts. A little less distortion and hyperbole might help.

People aren’t “scared” by these words. People UNDERSTAND what these things entail.

Maybe you do, but when people hold up signs saying keep your government hands off my medicare , they obviously don’t. If the discussion acknowledged that we were already socialist to some degree, and do we want to cut back, go further, take temporary measures only, I’d say it was a decent realistic discussion. Beck sure doesn’t want that and yet thousands of people turned out to support his distortion, exaggeration and hyperbole to what? Restore Honor? Remember republican Bob Inglis. He tried to have a reasonable discussion and was shouted down and booed by his constituents. When someone called Obama a socialist he suggested they turn Glenn Beck off, and he got booed again. I’d love to have a honest discussion because I really value the input of intelligent sincere conservatives. What we seeing is angry crowds who are ill informed about the facts, and don’t seem to care.

I think a big step in that direction would be for people on the left to stop generalizing about conservative/libertarian thought.

I completely agree. Let’s acknowledge that we’re getting a lot of unreasonable generalizing from both sides. When I started posting here I was disturbed by the number of posts that were just unreasoning blather, insults and blanket condemnations of “libs” and “right wingers” from both sides complete with a generous dose of mocking,and insults. It does do our country any good.
I have a couple of good conservative friends one whom leans heavily libertarian. We get together for brews and burgers at Hooters and often talk politics. American desperately needs to discipline themselves and tone down the hostility, spend some time getting the facts, and try to discuss the issues. Hateful rhetoric doesn’t help from either side and we need to be just as critical of our own group as we are of others in that regard.

Haimerej said:
Political activism is the very opposite of charity. Using the monopoly of violence the government has to impose your will on others isn’t charitable at all. It’s coercion, plain and simple.

Dam that Martin Luther King and civil rights advocates. How dare the use the violence of the government to impose their will.

by the way, a gay marriage group wants you to sponsor them. They like your thinking.

This discussion isn’t about the definition of charity.

Noa Napoleon said:

Correct the scriptures teach us not only to “do justice” but that justice is preferred above sacrifice etc. There is no law however that says the rich must do thus and such with their profit while there is as Glenn points out, faith, hope, and charity, which suggests you should tend to the needs of your community for a host of reasons. Legalism is the culprit here I suspect because what happens is the poor man who feels victimized by the wealthy will now want to make it illegal for anyone to prosper ahead of anyone else. In other words they regulate against their own freedom! This is the sort of litigious culture that if allowed would use law to coerce people into positive action, which is what “spreading the wealth around” is all about.

It doesn’t support your argument to point out the worst case scenario of what it might lead to. IMO that’s unrealistic. Our society and our government is fluid with the ability to adapt and change as society changes. We are capable of setting boundaries and finding an economic balance of a safety net for our less fortunate citizens that does not stifle motivation and personal responsibility. We’re doing it now. We need that balance as we as a society and race grow up. Limited regulations so that we prevent businesses from victimizing their customers, but not so much that innovation or the entrepreneurial spirit is squelched. A limited safety net so that people don’t suffer needlessly in a land of plenty , while we still encourage personal responsibility and stress the importance of making a contribution to society.

So the conversation we really need to have is about justice first and foremost. There are a host of other related concepts I would’ve liked to discuss here but I refrain.

Sounds like a worthy subject. Maybe we need to arrest some financial execs and their DC partners for fraud and reckless endangerment. Thanks again for your input.

CosmosDan said:
We could get into a complicated argument about what racism is but I’ll post this from the dictionary
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

I like this definition from the OED better.
-a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups.

So racism is also believing that your race determines your charteristics. Ergo, Cone saying that Thomas is not a black man would be racism. Thinking that being black means you have to be a raving liberal/progressive is racism. If you think that only white people can be racist then you are a moron.

CosmosDan said:
What I notice now is people looking at Cone and Wright and seeing something like 1/1000th of the racism that Cone experienced and black Americans experienced, and having the nerve to dismiss them because they’re a little pissed off about it.

Like I said before, we have Obama as POTUS, and Oprah, who is the richest self-made woman in America ahead of Meg Whitman. I’m not racist. My friends are not racist. My family is not racist. But for some reason we all get called racists because we disagree with the President. I don’t think whites are overwhelmingly keeping down blacks in America (unless you count the white progressives who run the cities.) I don’t think the 60 million who voted against Obama are all racists, only some of them were. I do think there was racism coming from blacks who voted for Obama. 90% of the black vote went to him, instead of Hilary, whose ideas were pretty much the same. If you ask me racists are in the minority. Wright is a racist and an anti-semite. Cone is a racist. I am sick of people calling entire groups racist who aren’t, and refusing to call individual people who are clearly racists, racists.

CosmosDan said:
You know the man Glenn Beck honored at the rally, MLK also preached reparations.

Does honoring someone mean you agree with everything they believed in? No. Glenn Beck is clearly honoring mainly “content of character, not the color of skin” BLT is clearly about the color of skin. Reparations are ridiculous anyway. Are there still black slaves today? No. Is Jim Crow still in effect? No. Like you said, it’s too late. I’m pretty sure that my black friends, as well as native Americans I know, don’t want reparations. Mormons don’t want reparations either.

CosmosDan said:
“social justice”

…is the redistribution of wealth through the government. That is not charity. Charity is you deciding to give because you want to, not because you have to. I prefer equal justice. http://davegj13.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/equal-justice-versus-social-justice/

CosmosDan said:
BLT is just as Christian as John Hagee or Pat Robertson, or Mormonism.

Forced “charity” is not Christian. A religion based in race is not Christian.

Calvin said:
If you think that only white people can be racist then you are a moron.

Not saying that you think that, just a general statement of sorts.

Calvin said:
I like this definition from the OED better.
-a belief or ideology that all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups.

So racism is also believing that your race determines your charteristics. Ergo, Cone saying that Thomas is not a black man would be racism. Thinking that being black means you have to be a raving liberal/progressive is racism. If you think that only white people can be racist then you are a moron.

I’m not making any claims about Cone racism one way or the other. I don’t think any race based ill will is a positive thing from anyone. I will say that I cut some slack to men like Cone who suffered under the heal of such severe racism and humiliation for years and saw their race suffer the same. The fact that he’s not far more bitter and angry and sought a positive track in the church is laudable. The fact that he was pissed if enough to fight back is as well. Considering what he went through and saw , to find a few remarks he made and point them out under the label of racism is just what I said. Calling a speed bump a mountain.
Honestly, what do you suppose all the folks condemning Cone now would have done if they had experienced what he did?

Like I said before, we have Obama as POTUS, and Oprah, who is the richest self-made woman in America ahead of Meg Whitman.

Things have definitely gotten a lot better but not without years of struggle and suffering by men like Cone, MLK, and others. If you’re saying a new black generation has fewer reasons to cry racism , I agree. It takes generations for those wounds to heal.

I’m not racist. My friends are not racist. My family is not racist. But for some reason we all get called racists because we disagree with the President. I don’t think whites are overwhelmingly keeping down blacks in America (unless you count the white progressives who run the cities.) I don’t think the 60 million who voted against Obama are all racists, only some of them were. I do think there was racism coming from blacks who voted for Obama. 90% of the black vote went to him, instead of Hilary, whose ideas were pretty much the same. If you ask me racists are in the minority. Wright is a racist and an anti-semite. Cone is a racist. I am sick of people calling entire groups racist who aren’t, and refusing to call individual people who are clearly racists, racists.

I agree that the word racist has been used far to freely. We did see signs of racism and because we had our first black president it became something the media wanted to talk about. I say lets talk about the issues and if somebody brings up race when it isn’t a factor then tell them to shut the hell up. Still, lets try to have some reasonable understanding of our humanity and cut people a little slack. We’ve had a lot of presidential elections where we wouldn’t even consider letting a black man even run. If black folks let his skin color sway them I’m okay with that. He was a worthy candidate who ran an excellent campaign as well.

Does honoring someone mean you agree with everything they believed in? No. Glenn Beck is clearly honoring mainly “content of character, not the color of skin” I’m afraid that doesn’t cut it when you look at the specific details. What skin color was MLK focusing on? He advocated almost identical principles as BLT and Cone has praised him to the point of saying MLK practiced BLT before the term was coined. MLKs close friend and adviser was a communist, something Beck is constantly ranting about,> MLK promoted reparations , while Beck shows the clip not Cone suggesting that and shakes his head about how awful it is. There are so many similarities when you look at the details that it’s ridiculous for Beck to be praising MLK while calling for religious unity one day and condemning BLT the next. Claiming “social justice” is code for socialism and then honoring a man who lost his life fighting for social justice. I don’t see how the contradiction in principles is anything but obvious.

BLT is clearly about the color of skin.

Cone’s words shows it isn’t. It’s about oppression of any people, and how Jesus told Christians they should be fighting for the oppressed. It was born in a racist America and focused on the oppression of a specific people , but it wasn’t only about them. Just like MLK.

…is the redistribution of wealth through the government. That is not charity. Charity is you deciding to give because you want to, not because you have to. I prefer equal justice. http://davegj13.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/equal-justice-versus-social-justice/

Forced “charity” is not Christian. A religion based in race is not Christian.

That’s an interesting link. The problem I see is that the both terms are being defined by the author. Who says that’s what those terms mean? When you’re communicating with someone who wants social justice you need to discover how they define the term. You don’t get to define it for them and then hurl some accusation their way based on what you made up. It’s just not reasonable, and it’s not honest communication either.

Once more, we already live in a society that has some socialism. We have for decades and we haven’t crumbled yet. The honest discussion is where the boundaries are? What is beneficial for society as a whole and provides a little help for those in need, reigns in cooperate misconduct, but still promotes personal responsibility?
Aside from lofty principles concerning liberty and personal freedom and Krescan like guesses about what the founders intended, we need to base it on current reality. Then as a society we decide. But first we need to get past useless partisan bickering and learn how to have honest discussions.

Calvin said:

Forced “charity” is not Christian. A religion based in race is not Christian.

BLT is about following the words of Jesus from the NT, Those principles were applied to a specific critical issue. It is not a race based religion.

too little charity when there are many people in need is not Christian. It’s a repeating theme in the words of Jesus. Regardless, we’re actually talking about law and public policy. It doesn’t matter if it fits a definition of charity. We, as a society get to decide where the boundaries are.

Calvin said:
Not saying that you think that, just a general statement of sorts.

I changed my initial post when I saw this. It was an unnecessary general statement since nobody made any claim like that., but thanks for clarifying.

CosmosDan said:
we already live in a society that has some socialism. We have for decades and we haven’t crumbled yet. The honest discussion is where the boundaries are? What is beneficial for society as a whole and provides a little help for those in need, reigns in cooperate misconduct, but still promotes personal responsibility?

Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office are a few examples of “socialism” in America. Those things are all in dire financial straits. James Garfield said, “Poverty is uncomfortable, as I can testify; but nine times out of ten the best thing that can happen to a young man is to be tossed overboard and compelled to sink or swim for himself. ”

And Grover Cleveland (a Democrat) said that “the Government should not support the people” Take a look at this link: http://www.mackinac.org/7440

From that link: “As a devoted Christian, Cleveland saw the notion of taking from some to give to others as a violation of the Eighth and Tenth Commandments, which warn against theft and envy. He noticed what 20th century welfare statists did not, namely, that there was a period after the word “steal” in the Eighth, with no added qualifications. It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal unless the other guy has more than you do, or unless a government representative does it for you, or unless you can’t find anyone who will give it to you freely, or unless you’re totally convinced you can spend it better than the guy to whom it belongs.”

This shows that it is definitely not about democrat or republican. Not sure about that today, though, as the Democratic party has been hijacked by the far left. Of course, there are lots of money spending republicans as well.

Have you heard of the Forgotten Depression of 1920? It was over in a year. http://mises.org/daily/3788
“Instead of “fiscal stimulus,” Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.” An economic boom soon followed.

We need more Presidents like Harding (minus the teapot dome scandal), Coolidge, Garfield (I know he was only Prez for 200 days, but he sounds like he respected the Constitution and the Founding Fathers from what I’ve read), and Cleveland.

CosmosDan said:
It doesn’t support your argument to point out the worst case scenario of what it might lead to. IMO that’s unrealistic. Our society and our government is fluid with the ability to adapt and change as society changes. We are capable of setting boundaries and finding an economic balance of a safety net for our less fortunate citizens that does not stifle motivation and personal responsibility. We’re doing it now.

I miss spoke again. I was attempting to point out the contradiction of attempting to create out of whole cloth legislation for a particular cause, be it race or religious freedom, especially with judicial activism in the mix here. The high courts are now completely disposed to treating racial equality the same way they treat same sex union and visa versa. What once was a moral cause with segregation has been completely politicized by definitions the courts are inserting into the cases they attend to. The group Acorn comes to mind when thinking of racial scandal but living in Honolulu one is awakened to a current equally dark political racism where the legislatures and the courts have joined together to craft all of its domestic laws identifying native Hawaiians, while ignoring the designation or definition of nationals. Congress and the hight courts habitually reject the legal arguments brought by Hawaiian nationals in favor of the manufactured remedies such as the variously title Akaka Bill’s now the Native Hawaiian Re-org. Act. My point is its mostly Fiat law where you have Congress and the states by-passing the Constitution entirely. Using things like the commerce clause to insulate actual legal cases where apparently long standing native American claims have been similarly ignored. Those native Hawaiians who benefit from the racial distinction fail to see the default situation they are in. Constitutional scholar’s try to point out the irony here but the native beneficiaries (words of the state), are resigned to this most unconstitutional arrangement, in fact they defend it against what I call the real constitutional argument. Liberal Democrats court the native issues to their own ends and a great majority of the Hawaiian community are bigoted against conservatives.

CosmosDan said:
BLT is about following the words of Jesus from the NT, Those principles were applied to a specific critical issue. It is not a race based religion. too little charity when there are many people in need is not Christian. It’s a repeating theme in the words of Jesus. Regardless, we’re actually talking about law and public policy. It doesn’t matter if it fits a definition of charity. We, as a society get to decide where the boundaries are.

Sounds like you’re saying the ends justify the means, even though the ends would be better if we didn’t tax the devil out of people. Anyways, like I said above, Grover Cleveland, a devoted Christian, had a different viewpoint than yours:

“As a devoted Christian, Cleveland saw the notion of taking from some to give to others as a violation of the Eighth and Tenth Commandments, which warn against theft and envy. He noticed what 20th century welfare statists did not, namely, that there was a period after the word “steal” in the Eighth, with no added qualifications. It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal unless the other guy has more than you do, or unless a government representative does it for you, or unless you can’t find anyone who will give it to you freely, or unless you’re totally convinced you can spend it better than the guy to whom it belongs.”
http://www.mackinac.org/7440

I find it har to believe that BLT is not based in race when it’s called BLACK Liberation Theology and when it’s founder says things like this:

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]”

http://www.talkweather.com/forums/index.php?/topic/46236-connect-the-dots-obama-%26lt%3B-wright-%26lt%3B-james-cone/

“there are 9 Supreme Court Justices, all of them white as far as I’m concerned, one may look black, but he’s white.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hGtRUEB6sA&feature=related (said 6 minutes and 45 seconds)
In that video and this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MByCBUYjLUw&NR=1 …he keeps talking about “white people”. Seems like he’s got race on the mind. The interviewer talks about the “dominant white church”. I didn’t know there was a white church. Anyways, I’ve got more to say about your comments and the videos later.

CosmosDan said:
I changed my initial post when I saw this. It was an unnecessary general statement since nobody made any claim like that., but thanks for clarifying.

That’s the claim the MSM makes. It’s always the “racist tea-baggers” and “angry white people with guns”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx4HqkqNnJU They never acknowledge any true racists, especially if they’re black. I said that end of the next paragraph . Should’ve put the “you’re a moron” part right there.

All of the Laws Congressed passed in the last 130 years relating to Native Hawaiians, including the creation of statehood, where political fiats aimed at redressing wrongs done to Native Hawaiians. The pretense was to place on Congress a sacred obligation to care for native Hawaiians, or as one leading politician said, “it’s about achieving parody on behalf of the Native Hawaiians for the wrongs suffered by Unites States.” This arrangement is totally unconstitutional and one of the darkest histories in the sorted story that is America. The next group to face political exploitation,? undocumented aliens who will soon be wards of the state if Hawaii is any example of how politicians here view civil rights. Its a power grab disguised as human rights, equality, and tolerance. Catch words for political rejection of everything remotely conservative. Again I say the Democrats have terrorized the native Hawaiian into compliance.

CosmosDan said:
If black folks let his skin color sway them I’m okay with that. He was a worthy candidate who ran an excellent campaign as well.

Sigh…

A clear definition of black liberation theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men:

“Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of ‘blackness.’ It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says ‘No’ to the encroachment of white oppression.” http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=796

CosmosDan said:
I’m afraid that doesn’t cut it when you look at the specific details. What skin color was MLK focusing on? He advocated almost identical principles as BLT and Cone has praised him to the point of saying MLK practiced BLT before the term was coined. MLKs close friend and adviser was a communist, something Beck is constantly ranting about,> MLK promoted reparations , while Beck shows the clip not Cone suggesting that and shakes his head about how awful it is. There are so many similarities when you look at the details that it’s ridiculous for Beck to be praising MLK while calling for religious unity one day and condemning BLT the next.

MLK’s neice seemed alright with how they honored him. She didn’t find it ridiculous. She said that he would attend the rally if he was alive. Again, BLT is about the color of your skin. You vs. the WHITE opressors. II don’t think most people think “reparations” when they hear MLK’s name (I didn’t know he promoted them until you mentioned it). Nor do they think “yay, communism!” Most people think “don’t be a racist.”

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”—Galatians 3:28

CosmosDan said:
That’s an interesting link. The problem I see is that the both terms are being defined by the author. Who says that’s what those terms mean? When you’re communicating with someone who wants social justice you need to discover how they define the term. You don’t get to define it for them and then hurl some accusation their way based on what you made up. It’s just not reasonable, and it’s not honest communication either.

Going by what you said in your next comment…

CosmosDan said:
BLT is about following the words of Jesus from the NT, Those principles were applied to a specific critical issue. It is not a race based religion. too little charity when there are many people in need is not Christian. It’s a repeating theme in the words of Jesus. Regardless, we’re actually talking about law and public policy. It doesn’t matter if it fits a definition of charity. We, as a society get to decide where the boundaries are.

Sounds like you agree that there’s forced “charity” going on, which would be redistribution of wealth by the government. Am I wrong? If I am, please explain to me what “Social Justice” is.

Calvin said:
That’s the claim the MSM makes. It’s always the “racist tea-baggers” and “angry white people with guns”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx4HqkqNnJU They never acknowledge any true racists, especially if they’re black. I said that end of the next paragraph . Should’ve put the “you’re a moron” part right there.

Wow that was incredibly inane. . I am so disappointed in our media in general. Sensationalism, contrived controversy. It’s ridiculous. They have become The National Enquirer and are headed toward Jerry Springer, with an occasional news story thrown in.That was just inane to turn that into a story about racism.
My knee jerk reaction to this was that it’s incredibly unnecessary to carry an assault rifle but when the guy rationally explained the point I got it.
I’m glad the narrative for the Tea Party is becoming more about the issues. Due in no small part to them doing the right thing and policing themselves. More groups should follow that example.
I know media is a business but I think they also have a certain responsibility to help inform and educate, to do investigative and present the facts, and to actual try to be fair and balanced.

Calvin said:
Sounds like you’re saying the ends justify the means, even though the ends would be better if we didn’t tax the devil out of people. Anyways, like I said above, Grover Cleveland, a devoted Christian, had a different viewpoint than yours:

No. I’m saying the means is based on the the reality of the day and the ends remains constant. The goal is to build and improve our society. When we disagree on the specific details of how to accomplish that we need honest open communication. Now that our TV media seems to want to cash in on fake hyped controversy and creating conflict with hyperbole , I guess it’s up to us to try and reign it in and remind Americans to communicate rather than fight it other.

“As a devoted Christian, Cleveland saw the notion of taking from some to give to others as a violation of the Eighth and Tenth Commandments, which warn against theft and envy. He noticed what 20th century welfare statists did not, namely, that there was a period after the word “steal” in the Eighth, with no added qualifications. It does not say, “Thou shalt not steal unless the other guy has more than you do, or unless a government representative does it for you, or unless you can’t find anyone who will give it to you freely, or unless you’re totally convinced you can spend it better than the guy to whom it belongs.”
http://www.mackinac.org/7440
I understand the principle. I definitely agree that we need to encourage personal responsibility and let people know that they have a responsibility to do all they are able to do. I prefer that we did it on a voluntary basis and more citizens freely gave. I think there would be less abuse if it wasn’t some bureaucratic government program. The problem I have is that if we abandon all programs too many Americans will needlessly suffer in a nation where we have plenty. If the voluntary aspect stepped up to make government programs unnecessary I’m all for it.
That said, I think the Democrats wielding this as a political tool for votes is a problem, but that problem permeates everything politics touches. Instead of looking at an issue from the perspective of what’s the right and best thing t do, the issue is approached from a “how do we play this for PR and votes. We need to recruit more honest informed people for congress and work on our communication as citizens as well.

I find it hard to believe that BLT is not based in race when it’s called BLACK Liberation Theology and when it’s founder says things like this: . Seems like he’s got race on the mind. The interviewer talks about the “dominant white church”. I didn’t know there was a white church. Anyways, I’ve got more to say about your comments and the videos later.

I’ve done the research and you;ll find the pertinent quotes in my earlier discussion with Pablo. He clearly says that even though BLK is primarily addressing discrimination in the US directed at black Americans, that the principle in the gospel applies to all people and black and white are are metaphors springing from a specific issue.
You didn’t know there was a white church? Even though there is no longer the segregation there was in Cone’s day, when white Christians would preach the words of Jesus but never dream of letting a black person in the church, Sunday morning is still spoken of as the most segregated time in America. I’m glad that has changed and is still changing. We don’t need to keep hashing this over. I’m sure there are things in BLT that I find objectionable just as I would in other denominations, or other religions. My point here was the obvious BS Beck was floating by the contradictions in his principles from one day to the next,{literally} Why do I care? Because I do see the need for informed honest discussion among concerned citizens who disagree. The media playing the racist issue concerning the Tea Party doesn’t help, but neither does Becks consistent distortion of the facts and it sure seems to me that too many people believe he’s presenting an accurate picture. He’s not.

Calvin said:
Sigh…

?? Let’s be real here, average voters don’t vote on because they really understand the issues. To often they vote based on a visceral reaction to exaggerated rhetoric, along party lines, and even on looks. I wish it was more ideal but we have to work with the reality we have. There are people in the Tea Party who have informed opinions and a whole lot that don’t. Just like the Dems and Pubbies. That’s America.
Check out the videos on youtube from Sam Seder. He was at the rally asking questions. I watched a video of a woman being interviewed at the rally. When they asked her what woke her up she said. “It was Reverend Wright” WTF!? We’re been in two wars for years and some clips of Wright woke her up?
It would be great if people voted based on research and being informed on the issues but that’s a goal we have to work on for the future. Do you think people would like Palin as much if she looked like Olympia Snow?

A clear definition of black liberation theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men:

“Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of ‘blackness.’ It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says ‘No’ to the encroachment of white oppression.” http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=796

What’s your point? You seem to be saying that since BLT focused primarily on the issue of discrimination in the US, they can’t really be Christian. Is that it?

MLK’s neice seemed alright with how they honored him. She didn’t find it ridiculous. She said that he would attend the rally if he was alive. Again, BLT is about the color of your skin. You vs. the WHITE opressors. II don’t think most people think “reparations” when they hear MLK’s name (I didn’t know he promoted them until you mentioned it). Nor do they think “yay, communism!” Most people think “don’t be a racist.”

EXACTLY!!! Here are a few more MLK quotes that I posted earlier.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society.

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality. {collective salvation?}

A riot is the language of the unheard.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
Now, he doesn’t say black, and white as Cone does, and maybe that makes him a better diplomat , but he’s talking about the same thing. Here are some Cone quotes

Cone; God does not will that people should be oppressed, and that was why he came in Jesus and why he is present as Holy Spirit today. God’s stand against oppression is his affirmation that all men have a common humanity in freedom.This means that I cannot be free until all men are free

Cone; Truth knows no color; it appeals to intelligence.”

Cone: “To sing about freedom and to pray for its coming is not enough. Freedom must be actualized in history by oppressed peoples who accept the intellectual challenge to analyze the world for the purpose of changing it.”
Cone”In the divine-human encounter, the particular experience of oppression and liberation, as disclosed in black-skinned people, is affirmed as God’s own experience; and through that divine affirmation, I encounter the universal meaning of oppression and liberation that is not limited by skin color. ”

I don’t expect the average person to know that. I sure didn’t, but it only took about an hour of research using google. I absolutely expect Beck, being a pundit and making his points, with time and staff available to him, to do at least as much research as I did before he starts slinging shit. He’s counting on the fact that the average person doesn’t know and won’t do the research I did. He purposely avoids presenting a more balanced , fair presentation. That reveals his intentional distortion of the facts. He plays his insincere “Well Maybe I’m wrong” card , but when capable people offer to come on his show and discuss it , they never get there. This is a repeating pattern with him so I agree with our former GOP congressman who got booed when he suggested his constituents turn Beck off. Anybody has a right to sell what they can and get rich if they can. It’s unfortunate when they knowingly sell defective merchandise and people seem eager to buy it.
One thing I’ve learned and believe. If you really want to be informed and understand the issue you must listen closely to reasonable people who disagree with you. You must make an effort to really hear and understand their POV, rather than being solely intent on convincing them of yours.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”—Galatians 3:28
There’s a lot of great stuff in there. One verse is balanced against the others to try and find the big picture. Do you think Jesus is saying we should passively accept abuse and just think loving thoughts about him? That slavery is okay, and women getting paid less for the same work is fine, as long as we are one in Christ?

Sounds like you agree that there’s forced “charity” going on, which would be redistribution of wealth by the government. Am I wrong? If I am, please explain to me what “Social Justice” is.

I think you could apply those terms and be correct. Then you’d have to look at the details to decide where those things become bad, or are they always bad? Terms are selected and then presented in a way to attach a negative connotation. Then somebody else takes the same action and uses different terminology to create a more positive image. I think we need to not get to attached to the terminology and the “feeling” it evokes , but look at the specifics of the issue.

Should we stop paying taxes altogether? If someone with no children is helping to pay for public schools are they being stolen from? Maybe the police and the fire dept. should be paid for per situation? I’m kidding but I hope you see my point. We already pool our tax money to and spend it collectively based on the greater good for our society. The realistic conversation is what’s too little and what’s too much?

Social Justice is realizing the truth of our connection to each other as a society. {or humanity in general} It ,means , as it says in founding principles, that I defend and protect, and reflect in my actions the rights of others, being the rights I want for myself. Equality Acknowledging the truth of our interconnection we assume a moral obligation to promote that equality so that our society progresses.
Translating that into the realities of day to day life and needs is much more complicated. Does it mean everybody should have the same stuff, equally divided. Nope. There are notable failures of that experiment. IMO it means equal opportunity, held up by a legitimate expression of real world concerns by some for others.
If more is given to you, then more is required of you. If you have more , you also have more responsibility concerning what you do with it. Basic principles found in the Bible.

If I have a small business and I employ 20 people , I have a right to reap the rewards of that business. I took the risk, invested time and capital. I have a choice on what to do with my employees. I could be generous and create some profit sharing and bonus plan so my success also rewards them, or I can be an ass an get them to work for as little as possible for as long as possible. I can offer a health care option or let that be their problem
The questions seems to be how much the government should step in to create laws and regulations that address thee issues. The same with poverty or even civil rights. As a nation we’ve addressed this issues and decided as a group to have social security, a public school system, medicare, etc. We can examine these programs and address problems at any time. Noting problems doesn’t mean the program has failed and needs to be abolished.
I really appreciate the time and effort you’ve put in. This is the kind of decent exchange of ideas I’d like to see happen more often among more people instead of the insults and “truth” drawn from far to limited information and perspective.

Man! Is there a way to bookmark these threads and come directly back to them.

it is a marvelous post. thanks for the information.