The peculiar theology of black liberation

[Yurt]

as we all know, obama's church is founded on:


Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

obama has tried very hard to quell any talk of his church. why would that be? maybe the truth is not as pretty as he would make us believe.

The peculiar theology of black liberation
By Spengler

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a "black messiah" and blacks as "the chosen people". At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

What played out last week on America's television screens was a clash of two irreconcilable cultures, the posture of "black liberation theology" and the mainstream American understanding of Christianity. Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash.

...

James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the "black liberation" school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:

Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

Theologically, Cone's argument is as silly as the "Aryan Christianity" popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the "chosen people". Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.

...

In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:
In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].

In this respect black liberation theology is identical in content to all the ethnocentric heresies that preceded it.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

[Yurt]

cont. from article:

Whether Obama takes seriously the doctrines that Wright preaches is another matter. It is possible that Obama does not believe a word of what Wright, Cone and Hopkins teach. Perhaps he merely used the Trinity United Church of Christ as a political stepping-stone. African-American political life is centered around churches, and his election to the Illinois State Senate with the support of Chicago's black political machine required church membership. Trinity United happens to be Chicago's largest and most politically active black church.

...

Obama holds his own views close. But it seems unlikely that he would identify with the ideological fits of the black-power movement of the 1960s.

-------------------
i disagree, you don't attend a church for twenty years and become very intimate with the pastor is you don't accept the views of the church and pastor. if he does not believe in what the church is founded on and attends solely for political gain, then he is a fraud.

so we are left with a racist or a fraud for a candidate. i believe that this particular theology has no foundation in the bible and quite possibly is a heresy.

[retiredman]

I find your repugnant intellectual dishonesty seemingly boundless in this thread where you cut a snippet of Reverend Wright's statement about black liberation theology and leave out the rest of the statement which completely clarifies the point:

• One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.
• Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.

• I use the word “systematized” because Black liberation theology was in existence long before Dr. Cone’s book. It originates in the days of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was systematized and published by theologians, Old Testament scholars, New Testament scholars, ethicists, church historians, and historians of religion such as Dr. James Cone, Dr. Cain Hope Felder, Dr. Gayraud Wilmore, Dr. Jacqueline Grant, Dr. Kelley Brown Douglas, Dr. Renita Weems, Dr. Katie Cannon, Dr. Dwight Hopkins, Dr. Linda Thomas, and Dr. Randall Bailey.

• These scholars, who write in various disciplines, also include seminary presidents like Dr. John Kinney and professors of Hebrew Bible, like Dr. Jerome Ross. Black liberation theology defines Africans and African Americans as subjects – not the objects which colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined “others” as.

• We [African Americans] were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like “others” defining themselves.

• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.

• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.

• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.

• Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.


your pathetic racism turns my stomach.

[retiredman]

i disagree, you don't attend a church for twenty years and become very intimate with the pastor is you don't accept the views of the church and pastor. if he does not believe in what the church is founded on and attends solely for political gain, then he is a fraud.

so we are left with a racist or a fraud for a candidate. i believe that this particular theology has no foundation in the bible and quite possibly is a heresy.


UCC Churches are about congregations, not pastors. They are about missions and not sermons. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

[Yurt]

didn't you get the pm about insults "preacher" if you going to be your typical asshole self, kindly stay out of this thread.

anyways, what i posted is fact, all your other points do nothing to dispell the fact that the church is founded on black power and black theology. why are you denying that? does it make you uncomfortable to hear the the truth? its clear as day, in print for all to see. no explanation is needed. what about the article i posted is not true? what about the thread makes me a racist? fact is, nothing. your lies can't help you this time.

[Yurt]

UCC Churches are about congregations, not pastors. They are about missions and not sermons. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

right, so if a white pastor stood up and said that this "congregation" was founded on white power and white theology, you would happily remain in your seat because it is about the "mission"

[retiredman]

didn't you get the pm about insults "preacher" if you going to be your typical asshole self, kindly stay out of this thread.

anyways, what i posted is fact, all your other points do nothing to dispell the fact that the church is founded on black power and black theology. why are you denying that? does it make you uncomfortable to hear the the truth? its clear as day, in print for all to see. no explanation is needed. what about the article i posted is not true? what about the thread makes me a racist? fact is, nothing. your lies can't help you this time.

when you own this board, you can own threads. until then, I'll go anywhere I please and make any comment I please with or without your blessing, "counselor".:pee:

You posted one short passage out of context. I posted the rest which puts black liberation theology in its correct historical context.

Like I said.... intellectual dishonesty: your stock in trade.

[Yurt]

all you have are insults phony preacher...

so, are you denying the tucc was founded on black power and black theology? yes or no, real simple, no insults, you can do it.

care to answer this:

right, so if a white pastor stood up and said that this "congregation" was founded on white power and white theology, you would happily remain in your seat because it is about the "mission"

[retiredman]

right, so if a white pastor stood up and said that this "congregation" was founded on white power and white theology, you would happily remain in your seat because it is about the "mission"

your implications that blacks and whites in America have equal footing or that there is not a long and legitimate history of black liberation theology going back hundreds of years is intellectually dishonest. If I, as a white man, lived in a predominately black nation where my white ancestors had been OWNED by the black population, and if my white people had struggled against a whole host of terrible inequities since being "freed", I would have absolutely no problem in attending a church whose white liberation theology was akin to TUCC's black liberation theology in ITS accurate context.

YOu really do hate blacks, don't you?

[retiredman]

all you have are insults phony preacher...

so, are you denying the tucc was founded on black power and black theology? yes or no, real simple, no insults, you can do it.

care to answer this:

right, so if a white pastor stood up and said that this "congregation" was founded on white power and white theology, you would happily remain in your seat because it is about the "mission"


asked and answered, phony counselor.

[Yurt]

your implications that blacks and whites in America have equal footing or that there is not a long and legitimate history of black liberation theology going back hundreds of years is intellectually dishonest. If I, as a white man, lived in a predominately black nation where my white ancestors had been OWNED by the black population, and if my white people had struggled against a whole host of terrible inequities since being "freed", I would have absolutely no problem in attending a church whose white liberation theology was akin to TUCC's black liberation theology in ITS accurate context.

YOu really do hate blacks, don't you?

so, like Cone you would believe Jesus is white? did you even read the article? is Jesus black? you would stay in a UCC congregation if the pastor said black people invented aids to kill white people. you would merely nod your head and focus on the "mission" and not the pastor?

and no, you did not answer the question... you have made excuses, but no answer. i don't hate blacks, your lies saying so over and over will not make me a racist. shows you are a racist though.

[retiredman]

so, like Cone you would believe Jesus is white? did you even read the article? is Jesus black? you would stay in a UCC congregation if the pastor said black people invented aids to kill white people. you would merely nod your head and focus on the "mission" and not the pastor?

and no, you did not answer the question... you have made excuses, but no answer. i don't hate blacks, your lies saying so over and over will not make me a racist. shows you are a racist though.


I did answer your question. if I lived in a black dominated nation where whites had been owned by blacks, and whites had been marginalized, I would support and belong to a church that was based upon a white liberation theology that mirrored TUCC's theology in America.

There is a fairly convincing case that white american pharmacutical companies did "create" AIDS and inflict it upon the children of Africa while trying to test a polio vaccine in the late 50's. YOu should read up on it, counselor. There might be an ambulance to be chased somewhere in all of that.

[Yurt]

=manfrommaine;236770]I did answer your question. if I lived in a black dominated nation where whites had been owned by blacks, and whites had been marginalized, I would support and belong to a church that was based upon a white liberation theology that mirrored TUCC's theology in America.

that is NOT an answer. that is a hypo masquerading as an answer. you haven't answered anything. more lies....and proof you are a racist. Jesus never advocated such theology, remember the woman at the well "preacher"...

it is simple:

is TUCC founded on black power and black theology? yes or no?


There is a fairly convincing case that white american pharmacutical companies did "create" AIDS and inflict it upon the children of Africa while trying to test a polio vaccine in the late 50's. YOu should read up on it, counselor. There might be an ambulance to be chased somewhere in all of that.

so then you support Wright in his statement. figures. "fairly" convincing evidence....and you insult my legal education oh alleged son of a lawyer....

btw, didn't you get the memo that using the same insult over and over is boring.... ambulances? LOL... how quaint mfm.

[retiredman]

that is NOT an answer. that is a hypo masquerading as an answer. you haven't answered anything. more lies....and proof you are a racist. Jesus never advocated such theology, remember the woman at the well "preacher"...

it is simple:

is TUCC founded on black power and black theology? yes or no?



so then you support Wright in his statement. figures. "fairly" convincing evidence....and you insult my legal education oh alleged son of a lawyer....

btw, didn't you get the memo that using the same insult over and over is boring.... ambulances? LOL... how quaint mfm.

it is an answer. your premise is, itself a hypothetical. My answer is one as well. you just don't care to deal with it. that's your problem. TUCC is founded on black liberation theology as one of its major precepts. I support that theology as does the national denomination of the United Church of Christ.

I personally think that Reverend Wright stepped over the line on several occasions, but not so far that I would ignore the good works of TUCC or that I would abandon that church if I were a member.

I take it you know nothing about the Wistar Institute and their support of polio vaccine development in the former Belgian Congo. you should do a little study.

[glockmail]

..... TUCC is founded on black liberation theology as one of its major precepts. I support that theology as does the national denomination of the United Church of Christ......



In his 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation, Cone advanced the notion of a deity that sided with blacks, and against whites:

"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."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2315

[Yurt]

The influence of the black liberation theology of James H. Cone appears in the political philosophy of Barack Obama as well as in the recent controversial statement about national pride made by Michelle Obama.


The spiritual role that Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ (UCC) and its just-retired pastor Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright have played in the lives of Barack and Michelle Obama is well-established, as is the Africentric theology that is the cornerstone of the church's self-proclaimed identity.


One largely unexamined element of that Africentric theology, though, is the pivotal role that black liberation theologian Dr. James H. Cone, Professor of Systematic Theology, Union Theological Seminary (NYC), and his 1969 book Black Theology & Black Power, have played in the life of that faith community. Examining Cone's theology may enlighten us on Barack's political philosophy and Michelle's recently controversial statement about not having been proud of her country until the favorable reception to her husband's candidacy.


The Trinity UCC website was updated early this year. Before that, Cone's book was singled out as required reading for Trinity parishioners who wished to more thoroughly understand the church's theology and mission. That highlighting was removed. Jason Byassee, of The Christian Century Magazine, wrote this about Cone and Trinity in May, 2007:


"There is no denying, however, that a strand of radical black political theology influences Trinity . James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he's asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. Cone's groundbreaking 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power announced: "The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'. . . Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement." Contending that the structures of a still-racist society need to be dismantled, [U]Cone is impatient with claims that the race situation in America has improved. In a 2004 essay he wrote, "Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison" (in Living Stones in the Household of God)."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/obamas_mentors_mentor.html

[avatar4321]

I find your repugnant intellectual dishonesty seemingly boundless in this thread where you cut a snippet of Reverend Wright's statement about black liberation theology and leave out the rest of the statement which completely clarifies the point:

• One of the biggest gaps in knowledge that causes the kind of ignorance that you hear spouted by this man [Erik Rush] and those like him, has to do with the fact that these persons are completely ignorant when it comes to the Black religious tradition. The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.
• Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.

• I use the word “systematized” because Black liberation theology was in existence long before Dr. Cone’s book. It originates in the days of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was systematized and published by theologians, Old Testament scholars, New Testament scholars, ethicists, church historians, and historians of religion such as Dr. James Cone, Dr. Cain Hope Felder, Dr. Gayraud Wilmore, Dr. Jacqueline Grant, Dr. Kelley Brown Douglas, Dr. Renita Weems, Dr. Katie Cannon, Dr. Dwight Hopkins, Dr. Linda Thomas, and Dr. Randall Bailey.

• These scholars, who write in various disciplines, also include seminary presidents like Dr. John Kinney and professors of Hebrew Bible, like Dr. Jerome Ross. Black liberation theology defines Africans and African Americans as subjects – not the objects which colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined “others” as.

• We [African Americans] were always seen as objects. When we started defining ourselves, it scared those who try to control others by naming them and defining them for them; Oppressors do not like “others” defining themselves.

• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.

• African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.

• There is more than one center from which to view the world. In the words of Dr. Janice Hale, “Difference does not mean deficience.” It is from this vantage point that Black liberation theology speaks.

• Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.


your pathetic racism turns my stomach.

Okay. with the added context, how does that change anything in the first post?

Moreover, how is a discussion of Black liberation theology racist?

[ranger]

UCC Churches are about congregations, not pastors. They are about missions and not sermons. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.


And just how many of these churches have you been too? Maybe you should look past the press releases and do a little digging.




Sorry, forgot you're a brainwashed moron who swallows whole whatever the DNC machine sends down. My bad..

[avatar4321]

UCC Churches are about congregations, not pastors. They are about missions and not sermons. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

The opening post is discussing the mission of the Church.

[retiredman]

The opening post is discussing the mission of the Church.


from the horse's mouth:

http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm


http://www.tucc.org/ministries.htm

[retiredman]

And just how many of these churches have you been too? Maybe you should look past the press releases and do a little digging.




Sorry, forgot you're a brainwashed moron who swallows whole whatever the DNC machine sends down. My bad..

I have been to a UCC church in every single American town I have ever found myself on a Sunday morning since 1972.... and I haven't missed a one.

[Yurt]

it is an answer. your premise is, itself a hypothetical. My answer is one as well. you just don't care to deal with it. that's your problem. TUCC is founded on black liberation theology as one of its major precepts. I support that theology as does the national denomination of the United Church of Christ.

I personally think that Reverend Wright stepped over the line on several occasions, but not so far that I would ignore the good works of TUCC or that I would abandon that church if I were a member.

I take it you know nothing about the Wistar Institute and their support of polio vaccine development in the former Belgian Congo. you should do a little study.

then you and your church are racist - black liberation theology:

Views America as an irredeemably racist nation
"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." -- James Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation
“This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective. What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” -- James Cone


Ordained by the African Methodist Episcopal Church, James Hal Cone is a theologian credited most notably with founding and advancing black liberation theology, which combines tenets of Christian socialism and the Black Power movement. He came into the forefront of public consciousness when Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s controversial pastor, named him in 2007 as the preeminent influence on his on theology.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2315


The Trinity UCC website was updated early this year. Before that, Cone's book was singled out as required reading for Trinity parishioners who wished to more thoroughly understand the church's theology and mission. That highlighting was removed. Jason Byassee, of The Christian Century Magazine, wrote this about Cone and Trinity in May, 2007:

"The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...rs_mentor.html


The leading theorist of Black Liberation Theology is James Cone. Overtly racist, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African-Americans as the “chosen people.” In Cone’s cosmology, whites are “the devil,” and “all white men are responsible for white oppression.” .....,” Cone has written. “What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...6-A896F0F44F02

[retiredman]

that is your opinion...I tend to disagree with it.

again...are you going to claim more knowledge of the UCC than me based upon your internet research?

[Yurt]

that is your opinion...I tend to disagree with it.

again...are you going to claim more knowledge of the UCC than me based upon your internet research?

so all those quotes from cone and quotes about TUCC are false? so why is it your links about TUCC are valid but mine are not? it is because you are intellectually dishonest. either prove my links are false or STFU

[Silver]

from the horse's mouth:

http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm


http://www.tucc.org/ministries.htm

From the horses mouth, huh?

Then lets listen to the words from the horses ass.....

-------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH9doywt5n4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prhnc2fxAzg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc&feature=related
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wright, who began the "Ministers in Training" ("M.I.T.") program at Trinity United Church of Christ, has been a national leader in promoting theological education and the preparation of seminarians for the African-American church.[20] The church's mission statement is based upon systematized Black liberation theology that started with the works of James Hal Cone.[

|So this is your church ???

Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.

This is your church ???

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.

This is your church ???

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 .

Is this your church ???
Is your god against white people???

[Silver]

that is your opinion...I tend to disagree with it.

again...are you going to claim more knowledge of the UCC than me based upon your internet research?

Why not?
Your knowledge seems to be hand-picked facts that promote only what you dare admit to about this church....We don't know what your particular pastor preaches but we do know what Rev Wright preaches....and he is a hate-filled anti-American racist......

[Yurt]

TUCC changed this after hannity made mfm's church's racism public:

WRIGHT: The black value system, which was developed by the congregation, by laypersons of the congregation, 26 years ago, very similar to the gospel (INAUDIBLE) developed by laypersons in Nicaragua during the whole liberation theology movement, 26, 28, 30 years ago, yes.

HANNITY: All right, but we're not dealing with — this is on the Web site today. Let me just inform our audience, and I want you to respond, if you can.

It says, "Commitment to God." By the way, I'm with you, and I hope you'll pray for me, Reverend. Commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. It goes on, pledge, you know, acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system.

Now, Reverend, if every time we said black, if there was a church and those words were white, wouldn't we call that church racist?

WRIGHT: No, we would call it Christianity. We've been saying that since there was a white Christianity; we've been saying that ever since white Christians took part in the slave trade; we've been saying that ever since they had churches in slave castles.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html

[avatar4321]

from the horse's mouth:

http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm


http://www.tucc.org/ministries.htm

yeah and how is that any different from the original post?

[retiredman]

yeah and how is that any different from the original post?

their mission and ministry is faith based, and fully supported by the UCC.

[retiredman]

Why not?
Your knowledge seems to be hand-picked facts that promote only what you dare admit to about this church....We don't know what your particular pastor preaches but we do know what Rev Wright preaches....and he is a hate-filled anti-American racist......


I disagree.

[Yurt]

from the horse's mouth:

It says, "Commitment to God." By the way, I'm with you, and I hope you'll pray for me, Reverend. Commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. It goes on, pledge, you know, acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system.

[avatar4321]

again how is discussing any of this racist?

[avatar4321]

their mission and ministry is faith based, and fully supported by the UCC.

I dont see anything in that mission that is faith based. It all seems racially based to me. But apparently pointing out that obvious fact makes me racist.

[retiredman]

I dont see anything in that mission that is faith based. It all seems racially based to me. But apparently pointing out that obvious fact makes me racist.

not at all.... just obtuse.

[Yurt]

from the horse's mouth:

It says, "Commitment to God." By the way, I'm with you, and I hope you'll pray for me, Reverend. Commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. It goes on, pledge, you know, acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system.

amazing how mfm has run from this and the other information about racist TUCC and his own church which support this....

why did tucc change this mfm?

[retiredman]

amazing how mfm has run from this and the other information about racist TUCC and his own church which support this....

why did tucc change this mfm?

how the hell would I know? maybe their mission and sevice committee decided to revise it? I, quite frankly, see no reason to change it in the first place.

[Yurt]

how the hell would I know? maybe their mission and sevice committee decided to revise it? I, quite frankly, see no reason to change it in the first place.

everything was black....they pledged allegiance to those that also support black only missions...

this fully contradicts your view that TUCC is not about blacks but about everybody....but i'm sure you will wuss out and say:

can we pretty please agree to disagree because i really can't debate, its just my opinion...if that is all you are going to say, don't bother saying anything, i am tired of your "its my opinion" cop outs on virtually everything

[avatar4321]

not at all.... just obtuse.

you know, from the beginning of this thread you've done nothing but insult people and act as though that somehow proves you right. You better be careful with that technique. Not only does it make you look like a total ass but if you do it in person to the wrong person you might end up in the hospital.

[retiredman]

you know, from the beginning of this thread you've done nothing but insult people and act as though that somehow proves you right. You better be careful with that technique. Not only does it make you look like a total ass but if you do it in person to the wrong person you might end up in the hospital.


is that a threat?

[retiredman]

everything was black....they pledged allegiance to those that also support black only missions...

this fully contradicts your view that TUCC is not about blacks but about everybody....but i'm sure you will wuss out and say:

can we pretty please agree to disagree because i really can't debate, its just my opinion...if that is all you are going to say, don't bother saying anything, i am tired of your "its my opinion" cop outs on virtually everything

TUCC ministers to their community. I am fine with that. clearly, you are not...but one wonders why you would even care.

[Silver]

TUCC ministers to their community. I am fine with that. clearly, you are not...but one wonders why you would even care.

why you would even care???
We care because.....

Would you care if you heard a minister condone racism against blacks being preached in the church?
Would you care if you heard a minister condone racism against whites being preached in the church? (Can you truthfully deny this is what Wright is doing)

He is a hate-spewing, anti-American racist.....thats not even debatable

[retiredman]

why you would even care???
We care because.....

Would you care if you heard a minister condone racism against blacks being preached in the church?
Would you care if you heard a minister condone racism against whites being preached in the church? (Can you truthfully deny this is what Wright is doing)

He is a hate-spewing, anti-American racist.....thats not even debatable


actually, if you are suggesting that Jeremiah Wright's decades of faithful service should be judged by five minutes of soundbites, I would say that yes, it IS debatable.

[ranger]

actually, if you are suggesting that Jeremiah Wright's decades of faithful service should be judged by five minutes of soundbites, I would say that yes, it IS debatable.

Decades of faithful service to what? Based on what I've seen and heard Rev Wright ranks right up there with David Dukes. The only thing stopping people from going to town on his ass is the fact that he is black. Too many libs are stopping and saying, "Well, we really treated the negros bad for awhile there. Maybe Rev Wright has a point." Can you imagine saying something like that about David Dukes?

[retiredman]

Decades of faithful service to what? Based on what I've seen and heard Rev Wright ranks right up there with David Dukes.


you need to see and hear more than what you have seen and heard.

but I am well aware that you have no desire nor intention of doing so.... gaining any insight into the man is nowhere near as important to you as using the man's words as a weapon. sad, really.

[Silver]

Thats your logic....so a minister that serves 50 years as a wonderful minister can be excused for raping a little boy in his 51st year?
We should not judge him for his 2 minute mistake.....

I don't think so dude....it don't work that way....

[Silver]

actually, if you are suggesting that Jeremiah Wright's decades of faithful service should be judged by five minutes of soundbites, I would say that yes, it IS debatable.

He should be excused because he kept his hate filled racism hidden from the general public for decades....? and you're a good, honest Christian? :poke:

[glockmail]

Are you aware that Wright cited Cone as the basis of his teachings in Black Theology?

[Yurt]

TUCC ministers to their community. I am fine with that. clearly, you are not...but one wonders why you would even care.

because unlike you i don't support racism

[Yurt]

Are you aware that Wright cited Cone as the basis of his teachings in Black Theology?

not only that, but before hannity called wright on his BS, cone was required reading for TUCC members if they wish to understand the mission of their so-called church

[retiredman]

because unlike you i don't support racism


I don't support racism.

[glockmail]

I don't support racism. Obama does. Are you aware that Wright cited Cone as the basis of his teachings in Black Theology?

[Yurt]

I don't support racism.

you support black power and black theology which is authored by cone and is the foundation of TUCC...cone is a racist, you support a racist ideology that seeks to destory whitey...you are intellectually dishonest in not allowing a white church to have a white commitment to their white community but have no problem with blacks doing the same...

[retiredman]

you support black power and black theology which is authored by cone and is the foundation of TUCC...cone is a racist, you support a racist ideology that seeks to destory whitey...you are intellectually dishonest in not allowing a white church to have a white commitment to their white community but have no problem with blacks doing the same...

do you have "intellectually dishonest" programmed as a macro? you grossly overuse that phrase to the point of absurdity.

and like I have said many times before - but you are intellectually dishonest for not acknowledging it - if a white church in a country ruled by blacks, where whites had been owned as property for 200 years and had only been granted the right to vote in the past 40 years, and where whites had been lynched and forced to ride on the back of the bus and drink out of separate drinking fountains and send their children to substandard schools... if that white church had, as one of its missions, the uplifting of those long suffering white people in their struggle to gain economic and social equity with those long powerful blacks, I would have no problem whatsoever with a theology that served to empower and uplift those whites in their stuggle against the black power structure that was working to keep them down.

[Yurt]

do you have "intellectually dishonest" programmed as a macro? you grossly overuse that phrase to the point of absurdity.

and like I have said many times before - but you are intellectually dishonest for not acknowledging it - if a white church in a country ruled by blacks, where whites had been owned as property for 200 years and had only been granted the right to vote in the past 40 years, and where whites had been lynched and forced to ride on the back of the bus and drink out of separate drinking fountains and send their children to substandard schools... if that white church had, as one of its missions, the uplifting of those long suffering white people in their struggle to gain economic and social equity with those long powerful blacks, I would have no problem whatsoever with a theology that served to empower and uplift those whites in their stuggle against the black power structure that was working to keep them down.

are you facking stupid? you just use the same phrase against me dumbass :laugh2: and with you the phrase is apt, so of course i necessarily must continue as it perfectly describes your "debate" and so-called intellect...

you will excuse racism until when, 200 years of slavery has past? did Christ teach the jews to hate the egyptians for 400 years because they were slaves? there is no biblical justification for your false morality, it is liberalism... and white guilt...Christ would say forgive, not hate and seek to destroy whitey... in your ignorant guilt you ignore that many whites have been impoverished by whites, browns, blacks -- the poor -- but oh no, if they are white, they cannot have pride in their skin and their white community because ""unfortunately"" they did not get to have relatives that endured slavery, so no community for you.

how pathetic and unchristian.

[retiredman]

are you facking stupid? you just use the same phrase against me dumbass :laugh2: and with you the phrase is apt, so of course i necessarily must continue as it perfectly describes your "debate" and so-called intellect...

you will excuse racism until when, 200 years of slavery has past? did Christ teach the jews to hate the egyptians for 400 years because they were slaves? there is no biblical justification for your false morality, it is liberalism... and white guilt...Christ would say forgive, not hate and seek to destroy whitey... in your ignorant guilt you ignore that many whites have been impoverished by whites, browns, blacks -- the poor -- but oh no, if they are white, they cannot have pride in their skin and their white community because ""unfortunately"" they did not get to have relatives that endured slavery, so no community for you.

how pathetic and unchristian.

I do not think that black liberation theology suggests that whitey needs to be "destroyed". Empowering blacks does not require the denigration of whites.
Seeking to empower blacks and get them to find pride in themselves is not synonymous with destroying the caucasian race.

how intellectually dishonest of you to suggest otherwise...that, and racist, of course.

[Sitarro]

actually, if you are suggesting that Jeremiah Wright's decades of faithful service should be judged by five minutes of soundbites, I would say that yes, it IS debatable.

Faithful service to himself....... he is an ass and the fact that you don't see that says so very much about how little you know about black hatred of whites.

[Yurt]

I do not think that black liberation theology suggests that whitey needs to be "destroyed". Empowering blacks does not require the denigration of whites.
Seeking to empower blacks and get them to find pride in themselves is not synonymous with destroying the caucasian race.

how intellectually dishonest of you to suggest otherwise...that, and racist, of course.

if you are going to discuss things with me, especially when mentioning intellectually honest (again, though you harp on me for hypocrite) you should actually read what i have posted in this very thread...


“This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective. What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” -- James Cone

(so whiteness is the only source of human misery, oh no, thats not racist and the call for destruction of whiteness, thats not racist either, nope, white people have contributed nothing positive to this country or the world, nope)


The Trinity UCC website was updated early this year. Before that, Cone's book was singled out as required reading for Trinity parishioners who wished to more thoroughly understand the church's theology and mission. That highlighting was removed. Jason Byassee, of The Christian Century Magazine, wrote this about Cone and Trinity in May, 2007:

"The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.


Overtly racist, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African-Americans as the “chosen people.” In Cone’s cosmology, whites are “the devil,” and “all white men are responsible for white oppression.”
i know such things will fall on deaf ears and you will deny than anything written above is racist because you are a racist. simply because of slavery you will see the wanton desire to destroy evil whitey as a sympton of a past wrong. you are not like Christ at all, you have no biblical ground to stand on. in fact, you disobey by not forgiving and being as one. defend those statement mfm, come on, i know you will.

you are racist for supporting this ideology because NOT all white people are bad and not all white people believed in slavery. but don't let facts stop you now

[retiredman]

If you are incapble of discerning the difference between destroying whitey and destroying whiteness, we really have little common ground from which to build a framework for understandng,,, but methinks such an understanding was never part of your agenda in the first place.

[Yurt]

If you are incapble of discerning the difference between destroying whitey and destroying whiteness, we really have little common ground from which to build a framework for understandng,,, but methinks such an understanding was never part of your agenda in the first place.

there is a difference? are you that ignorant? i am sure al sharpton would put loving arms around me if i said i wanted to destroy blackness, but not blackey, just his entire culture and self, he can keep the shell of his body, i don't care. now address the biblical points you keep running from. address the part where not all whites owned or supported slavery instead of playing your mamby pamby semantics games son of a lawyer....

[glockmail]

double post

[glockmail]

I do not think that black liberation theology suggests that whitey needs to be "destroyed". Empowering blacks does not require the denigration of whites.
Seeking to empower blacks and get them to find pride in themselves is not synonymous with destroying the caucasian race.

how intellectually dishonest of you to suggest otherwise...that, and racist, of course.



Working from a strong Marxist base, liberation theology teaches that the New Testament gospels can be understood only as calls for social activism, class struggle, and revolution aimed at overturning the existing capitalist order and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia where today’s poor will unseat their “oppressors” and become liberated from their material (and, consequently, their spiritual) deprivations. An extension of this paradigm, black liberation theology seeks to foment a similar Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial rather than class solidarity….

Claiming that "black values" are superior to American values, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African Americans as the “chosen people.” "This country was founded for whites, and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective," he writes. "What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”…

"The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people.... All white men are responsible for white oppression.... Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.' ... Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2315

[Yurt]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2315

Claiming that "black values" are superior to American values, Cone’s writings

excellent post glock.

[Yurt]

notice how mfm ran from the questions posed to him and left with a stupid question about the difference of something irrelevant....he is a racist

[manu1959]

• To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else.



so the founding principal of the church.....its center.....is black liberation theology.....

is that correct.....

[Yurt]

mfm's silence is telling.... he finally back himself into a corner he can't get out of

[manu1959]

mfm's silence is telling.... he finally back himself into a corner he can't get out of

you know he got dog piled by all of us pretty hard.......tough being the only liberal in a sea of conservatives......

he does do the martyr thing well.......

[retiredman]

I said:

Seeking to empower blacks and get them to find pride in themselves is not synonymous with destroying the caucasian race.

Nothing posted has disproven that statement, IMO.

[glockmail]

I said:

Seeking to empower blacks and get them to find pride in themselves is not synonymous with destroying the caucasian race.

Nothing posted has disproven that statement, IMO.


Do you agree with the tenets of Black Liberation Theology as quoted in post 61?

[retiredman]

Do you agree with the tenets of Black Liberation Theology as quoted in post 61?

no. If I did, I'd attend a church that used that particular theology.

[glockmail]

no. If I did, I'd attend a church that used that particular theology.
Would you support a presidential candidate that agreed with the tenets of Black Liberation Theology as quoted in post 61?

[retiredman]

Would you support a presidential candidate that agreed with the tenets of Black Liberation Theology as quoted in post 61?

Not if there was full agreement without reservation.

[glockmail]

Not if there was full agreement without reservation. Fair enough. I don't agree with the Catholic Church 100%; probably closer to 98%. But how can someone be a member of a church for 20 years and not have a consensus agreement with it? What parts is your candidate in disagreement with, as stated publicly?

[retiredman]

Fair enough. I don't agree with the Catholic Church 100%; probably closer to 98%. But how can someone be a member of a church for 20 years and not have a consensus agreement with it? What parts is your candidate in disagreement with, as stated publicly?

Someone can be a member of a church because the church is involved in missions that meet the individual's needs. Myself personally, I remain a member of my church because it has always had, as its primary mission the feeding of hungry people. It is substantive, and concrete and the results can be immediately witnessed. I happen to believe in a great deal of the overriding denominational mission of the UCC....I believe that Obama does as well. I don't thnk that Obama has been directly questioned about which specific portions of black liberation theology he supports and which portions he does not. From my reading of the man, I believe he has certainly been quite forthcoming about his vision for America in statements that contradict several elements of your quote. Like I said, if he agrees with the denominational direction and overarching philosophy, if he believes in the local missions that the church is committed to, it is very feasible for him to be a faithful member without buying into the more radical tenets of BLT.

[glockmail]

Someone can be a member of a church because the church is involved in missions that meet the individual's needs. Myself personally, I remain a member of my church because it has always had, as its primary mission the feeding of hungry people. It is substantive, and concrete and the results can be immediately witnessed. I happen to believe in a great deal of the overriding denominational mission of the UCC....I believe that Obama does as well. I don't thnk that Obama has been directly questioned about which specific portions of black liberation theology he supports and which portions he does not. From my reading of the man, I believe he has certainly been quite forthcoming about his vision for America in statements that contradict several elements of your quote. Like I said, if he agrees with the denominational direction and overarching philosophy, if he believes in the local missions that the church is committed to, it is very feasible for him to be a faithful member without buying into the more radical tenets of BLT.
I realize that your candidate, Obama, is loathe to define his position on specifics. Do you suppose he is working from a strong Marxist base, and is seeking to overturn the existing capitalist order in favor of a socialist utopia? Do you suppose that he believes “black values” are superior to American values? Do you suppose that he believes “white America” should be silent? Do you suppose that he believes that all white men are responsible for white oppression? Do you suppose that he believes that the “white man” is ‘the devil’ and wish to enslave black?

I was just wondering about those issues, since that’s exactly what Black Liberation Theology is all about.

[Yurt]

I said:

Seeking to empower blacks and get them to find pride in themselves is not synonymous with destroying the caucasian race.

Nothing posted has disproven that statement, IMO.

no one here has posted anything that says what you just said. you are creating a strawman argument. some of us have underlined key portions that you have failed to refute and that really have nothing to do with simply empower blacks and letting them find pride. destroying whiteness is racist. it is unfortunate that most liberals and TUCC do not let whites find pride in themselves as well. there is not one single thing from TUCC that allows whites to have pride. not one single idea from BLT that allows whites pride.

since glock has pretty much asked the questions i would have, i'll not be repetitive. what say you to destroying whiteness? you have never answered that. also, you have never answered what i posted about forgiveness and making whitey pay as opposite of biblical teaching despite at least two requests to do so.

[retiredman]

I don't see anything in the post from Glock, which is someone's description of what Cone's teachings are, where anyone wants to "destroy" anyone else. I do not see the word "destroy" in the quote at all, for that matter.

Regarding forgiveness: forgiveness is really an individual concept, I think. Individuals can forgive individuals. Whereas individual black americans can forgive individual white americans for past racist acts and thoughts, I think it is much more difficult to suggest that all blacks must forgive all whites. I can imagine that a Jew, for example, might find it in his or her heart to forgive a german who had served as a guard at a concentration camp and who asked for forgiveness - or the child of such a guard simililarly asking for forgiveness...I find it a bit more difficult to expect Jews - en masse - to forgive all germans and nazis - en masse - even if those germans and nazis remain unrepentent.

In the excerpt glock posted from the descriptive overview of black liberation theology, I do not see any suggestion that forgiveness be denied to anyone, but rather that white society should not be allowed to escape responsibility for the historical as well as current oppression of blacks in our society.

[retiredman]

another viewpoint from Wake Forest University:

"The Starting Point for a Black Theology of Liberation

To develop a theology that speaks to African-Americans, black liberation theologians such as James Cone begin with the person of Jesus, and specifically the Jesus revealed in the Gospel of Luke. In Luke's gospel, Jesus has a concern for the oppressed that does not always come through in the other gospels. Luke's Jesus begins his ministry with this announcement:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)

From this text, Cone draws a fundamental lesson about Jesus: his "work is essentially one of liberation." Jesus inaugurates "an age of liberation in which 'the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.'" (Luke 7:22) "In Christ," Cone argues, "God enters human affairs and takes sides with the oppressed. Their suffering becomes his; their despair, divine despair."

Cone continues his line of argument with a force that cuts to the marrow of contemporary American Christianity: "Jesus had little toleration for the middle- or upper-class religious snob whose attitude attempted to usurp the sovereignty of God and destroy the dignity of the poor," Cone writes, "The Kingdom is not for the poor and not the rich because the former has nothing to expect from the world while the latter's entire existence is grounded in his commitment to worldly things. The poor man may expect everything from God, while the rich man may expect nothing because he refuses to free himself from his own pride. It is not that poverty is a pre-condition for entrance into the Kingdom. But those who recognize their utter dependence on God, and wait on him despite the miserable absurdity of life are typically the poor, according to Jesus."

When black people hear this message, Cone insists, they discover a message that resonates with their experience of life. Their experience of struggling for liberation is the same as the struggle of Christ himself. And if Jesus was resurrected, and is now alive, then he is now fighting for the very same things, working against the structures of injustice."


http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html

[Yurt]

I don't see anything in the post from Glock, which is someone's description of what Cone's teachings are, where anyone wants to "destroy" anyone else. I do not see the word "destroy" in the quote at all, for that matter.

Regarding forgiveness: forgiveness is really an individual concept, I think. Individuals can forgive individuals. Whereas individual black americans can forgive individual white americans for past racist acts and thoughts, I think it is much more difficult to suggest that all blacks must forgive all whites. I can imagine that a Jew, for example, might find it in his or her heart to forgive a german who had served as a guard at a concentration camp and who asked for forgiveness - or the child of such a guard simililarly asking for forgiveness...I find it a bit more difficult to expect Jews - en masse - to forgive all germans and nazis - en masse - even if those germans and nazis remain unrepentent.

In the excerpt glock posted from the descriptive overview of black liberation theology, I do not see any suggestion that forgiveness be denied to anyone, but rather that white society should not be allowed to escape responsibility for the historical as well as current oppression of blacks in our society.


i've posted it and asked you to comment on it, you quipped back with a question, i asked a question in return and this was never resolved. you should really pay attention.

What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” -- James Cone

[retiredman]

i've posted it and asked you to comment on it, you quipped back with a question, i asked a question in return and this was never resolved. you should really pay attention.

What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” -- James Cone

Since I only have that one sentence, I am not entirely sure how Cone meant it...I would suggest that "whiteness" might have been used in terms of that particular human presumption of right, priviledge, exclusivity, and ownership. I would suggest that "whiteness" might refer to all that has been negative about the caucasian-black dynamic in America.

But I would imagine you want to make it mean the slaughter of whites by blacks. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that interpretation.

[Yurt]

Since I only have that one sentence, I am not entirely sure how Cone meant it...I would suggest that "whiteness" might have been used in terms of that particular human presumption of right, priviledge, exclusivity, and ownership. I would suggest that "whiteness" might refer to all that has been negative about the caucasian-black dynamic in America.

But I would imagine you want to make it mean the slaughter of whites by blacks. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that interpretation.

you haven't read a single thing here. typical. i never said that, they want to destroy the white culture and destroy whitey by making white people shut up and listen to blacks. what a cop out. i have repeated my questions to you, i have reposted previous posts, its tiring, you don't care and your answers are intellectually dishonest. are all white people to blame? you see, you never address substantive issues, you deflect and change the subject.

[glockmail]

[I]another viewpoint from Wake Forest University: ....
http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html
Is this supposed to address post 74? Sorry, but a page from a lecture from an adjunct assistant professor don't address the points raised. :lame2:

[retiredman]

you haven't read a single thing here. typical. i never said that, they want to destroy the white culture and destroy whitey by making white people shut up and listen to blacks. what a cop out. i have repeated my questions to you, i have reposted previous posts, its tiring, you don't care and your answers are intellectually dishonest. are all white people to blame? you see, you never address substantive issues, you deflect and change the subject.


you quoted a line from Cone. I directly addressed that line. and didn't try to deflect anything.

and wow... you really should find some other catch phrase. you have insulted me with the intellectually dishonest line a few too many times, methinks.

[retiredman]

Is this supposed to address post 74? Sorry, but a page from a lecture from an adjunct assistant professor don't address the points raised. :lame2:

I merely point out that discoverthenetworks.org is not the only source of black liberation theology. I think that your source is a particularly slanted look at BLT, and I don't believe that Barack Obama believes in the supposedly anti-american portions of that theology as protrayed by your source.

[Yurt]

you quoted a line from Cone. I directly addressed that line. and didn't try to deflect anything.

and wow... you really should find some other catch phrase. you have insulted me with the intellectually dishonest line a few too many times, methinks.

no, i haven't, it fits you to a tee. do you believe jesus is black? the line stands, you however, wish to sweep it under the carpet. the line is completely able to stand on its own, it mentions the subject and details the subjects atrocity. the fact you won't address shows you are an intellectual coward at best and intellectually dishonest most probably and i don't think you are an intellectual coward given your rapacious desire to come here and tackle 50-1. now, address the line and stop playing your games. the line is self explanatory :poke:

[Yurt]

as we all know, obama's church is founded on:



obama has tried very hard to quell any talk of his church. why would that be? maybe the truth is not as pretty as he would make us believe.

The peculiar theology of black liberation
By Spengler

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a "black messiah" and blacks as "the chosen people". At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

What played out last week on America's television screens was a clash of two irreconcilable cultures, the posture of "black liberation theology" and the mainstream American understanding of Christianity. Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash.

...

James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the "black liberation" school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:

Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

Theologically, Cone's argument is as silly as the "Aryan Christianity" popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the "chosen people". Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.

...

In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:
In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors ... Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].

In this respect black liberation theology is identical in content to all the ethnocentric heresies that preceded it.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html


apparently mfm is having difficulty keeping up with this debate, so i felt is appropriate to give him another chance by posting the OP. if he is honest, he will go through and address the many points he has ignored.

[theHawk]

I merely point out that discoverthenetworks.org is not the only source of black liberation theology. I think that your source is a particularly slanted look at BLT, and I don't believe that Barack Obama believes in the supposedly anti-american portions of that theology as protrayed by your source.



Of course you don't believe it, because you don't want to. You'll do anything to spin the facts and would love it if everyone just "moved on" from this issue. Black liberation theology is every bit as racist as what the Nazis believed in and there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise.

I always find it amazing when people choose to ignore whats going on. This church writes down on its website and publications the very racist ideaology they believe in, then they put preachers on the pulpit preaching the exact same message, and they have a congregation willing to eat it up. And yet political hacks like you are completely willing to overlook these facts.

Either way, Barack comes up a complete looser on this issue. Because he either did know and fully accepted what was being taught and preached at his church of twenty years, or he was a complete phoney only doing it to fit in with the elite black liberals of Chicago for his political career, or he is just a complete fucking moron and "didn't know" what was going on for twenty years(this is what he wants us to believe).

[retiredman]

no, i haven't, it fits you to a tee. do you believe jesus is black? the line stands, you however, wish to sweep it under the carpet. the line is completely able to stand on its own, it mentions the subject and details the subjects atrocity. the fact you won't address shows you are an intellectual coward at best and intellectually dishonest most probably and i don't think you are an intellectual coward given your rapacious desire to come here and tackle 50-1. now, address the line and stop playing your games. the line is self explanatory :poke:

I think that Jesus is "black", not in a literal sense of ethnicity...clearly he was Semitic and not black.... I think that, in terms of BLT, Jesus is "black" in that he came to earth in his own words "to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed."

I think Cone uses "white" as a synonym for power and privilege and control and oppression. In that sense, certainly from the perspective of BLT and, from the perspective of the writer of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was - and is "black".

[retiredman]

Of course you don't believe it, because you don't want to. You'll do anything to spin the facts and would love it if everyone just "moved on" from this issue. Black liberation theology is every bit as racist as what the Nazis believed in and there is nothing you can do to prove otherwise.

I always find it amazing when people choose to ignore whats going on. This church writes down on its website and publications the very racist ideaology they believe in, then they put preachers on the pulpit preaching the exact same message, and they have a congregation willing to eat it up. And yet political hacks like you are completely willing to overlook these facts.

Either way, Barack comes up a complete looser on this issue. Because he either did know and fully accepted what was being taught and preached at his church of twenty years, or he was a complete phoney only doing it to fit in with the elite black liberals of Chicago for his political career, or he is just a complete fucking moron and "didn't know" what was going on for twenty years(this is what he wants us to believe).


you speak as if you know what was going on at TUCC for twenty years and you base that opinion on nothing but a biased smattering of soundbites.

[Yurt]

I think that Jesus is "black", not in a literal sense of ethnicity...clearly he was Semitic and not black.... I think that, in terms of BLT, Jesus is "black" in that he came to earth in his own words "to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed."

I think Cone uses "white" as a synonym for power and privilege and control and oppression. In that sense, certainly from the perspective of BLT and, from the perspective of the writer of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was - and is "black".

bs- heretic

[Yurt]

you speak as if you know what was going on at TUCC for twenty years and you base that opinion on nothing but a biased smattering of soundbites.


I always find it amazing when people choose to ignore whats going on. This church writes down on its website and publications the very racist ideaology they believe in, then they put preachers on the pulpit preaching the exact same message, and they have a congregation willing to eat it up. And yet political hacks like you are completely willing to overlook these facts.

moron, more ignoring peoples words on purpose, you see that is why intellectually dishonest fits you :poke:

[retiredman]

bs- heretic


perhaps, in your denomination, I am a heretic.

In the catholic church, Martin Luther was a heretic.

In the united church of christ - the denomination that I have been a member of since it was formed in 1957 - such a view is not heretical.... and not bs.

But I would hope, given the eloquence of your last response, that we might just agree to disagree rather than continue this lofty discourse.

[retiredman]

moron, more ignoring peoples words on purpose, you see that is why intellectually dishonest fits you :poke:

and their website fully encapsulates what has been going on at TUCC for twenty years...

sure thing.

or perhaps, given all of the work and all of the missions and all the good works that have been accomplished by that church in those two decades, that website and the youtube clips of wright sermons might very well just be a smattering of what was going on at TUCC for twenty years.

and WHO is it that is intellectually dishonest??

:lol:

and you really ought not to complain about insults when you continually insult me. moron? really?

[theHawk]

I think that Jesus is "black", not in a literal sense of ethnicity...clearly he was Semitic and not black.... I think that, in terms of BLT, Jesus is "black" in that he came to earth in his own words "to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed."

I think Cone uses "white" as a synonym for power and privilege and control and oppression. In that sense, certainly from the perspective of BLT and, from the perspective of the writer of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was - and is "black".

What garbage. If its not literal then why not say Jesus was white, like "light" or goodness, as opposed to black, like dark and evil. Jesus and God are always referred to as "the light", never as darkness or blackness.

I do have to hand it to you though, you are a fucking spinmeister.

[theHawk]

or perhaps, given all of the work and all of the missions and all the good works that have been accomplished by that church in those two decades, that website and the youtube clips of wright sermons might very well just be a smattering of what was going on at TUCC for twenty years.

and WHO is it that is intellectually dishonest??

:lol:

and you really ought not to complain about insults when you continually insult me. moron? really?

So are you willing to give Hitler some credit too? Hitler did alot of good work and missions for his Aryan followers.

Or are YOU intellectually dishonest?

[glockmail]

I merely point out that discoverthenetworks.org is not the only source of black liberation theology. I think that your source is a particularly slanted look at BLT, and I don't believe that Barack Obama believes in the supposedly anti-american portions of that theology as protrayed by your source.
The source of Wrights BLT is Cone, and my link gives quotes from Cone's writings. Do you deny that?

Your "source" was an interpretation from an adjunct assistant professor, which means that it wasn't a source at all, but an opinion.

[retiredman]

The source of Wrights BLT is Cone, and my link gives quotes from Cone's writings. Do you deny that?

Your "source" was an interpretation from an adjunct assistant professor, which means that it wasn't a source at all, but an opinion.

your link also gives interpretation and opinion of Cone's writing which you gave credence to. I give credence to my source.

[retiredman]

So are you willing to give Hitler some credit too? Hitler did alot of good work and missions for his Aryan followers.

Or are YOU intellectually dishonest?

comparing Jeremiah Wright to Adolf Hitler is pretty fucking intellectually dishonest, pal.:lol:

[Yurt]

and their website fully encapsulates what has been going on at TUCC for twenty years...

sure thing.

or perhaps, given all of the work and all of the missions and all the good works that have been accomplished by that church in those two decades, that website and the youtube clips of wright sermons might very well just be a smattering of what was going on at TUCC for twenty years.

and WHO is it that is intellectually dishonest??

:lol:

and you really ought not to complain about insults when you continually insult me. moron? really?

so if the KKK did good, are you willing to overlook their bad side? if saddam did good, are you willing to overlook his bad side? if pol pot did good, are you willing to over look his bad side? what about a man of god who commits a grave murder, then eats the person, are you willing to overlook that because he did good?

you can't handle the facts son of lawyer. crybaby

[Yurt]

“This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective. What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” -- James Cone

[glockmail]

comparing Jeremiah Wright to Adolf Hitler is pretty fucking intellectually dishonest, pal.:lol:

Not really:


During the black-power heyday of the late 1960s, after the murder of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, the mentors of Wright decided that blacks were the Chosen People. James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the "black liberation" school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:
Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.
Theologically, Cone's argument is as silly as the "Aryan Christianity" popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the "chosen people". Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

[glockmail]

your link also gives interpretation and opinion of Cone's writing which you gave credence to. I give credence to my source.
I'm citing Cone's actual words, and asking if you believe this shit:


Claiming that "black values" are superior to American values, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African Americans as the “chosen people.” "This country was founded for whites, and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective," he writes. "What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”…

"The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people.... All white men are responsible for white oppression.... Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.' ... Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement."

[retiredman]

I'm citing Cone's actual words, and asking if you believe this shit:
asked in #68

answered in #69

got anything else?

[retiredman]

Not really:


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

yeah...really.

comparing an american minister to a man who killed seven million jews is intellectually dishonest.

really.

[retiredman]

so if the KKK did good, are you willing to overlook their bad side? if saddam did good, are you willing to overlook his bad side? if pol pot did good, are you willing to over look his bad side? what about a man of god who commits a grave murder, then eats the person, are you willing to overlook that because he did good?

you can't handle the facts son of lawyer. crybaby

intellectual dishonesty. to compare an american church to murderers is intellectually dishonest. period.

shame on you.
and once again...please keep my father out of it. ok?

when I continued to bring YOUR father into it, after you had asked me not to, you threw a hissy fit. to continue to bring my father in now is an indication of your ethics, or rather lack thereof.

[glockmail]

asked in #68

answered in #69

got anything else?

Actually I've been trying to get you to answer post 74, repeated here for your convenience:
I realize that your candidate, Obama, is loathe to define his position on specifics. Do you suppose he is working from a strong Marxist base, and is seeking to overturn the existing capitalist order in favor of a socialist utopia? Do you suppose that he believes “black values” are superior to American values? Do you suppose that he believes “white America” should be silent? Do you suppose that he believes that all white men are responsible for white oppression? Do you suppose that he believes that the “white man” is ‘the devil’ and wish to enslave black?

I was just wondering about those issues, since that’s exactly what Black Liberation Theology is all about.

[glockmail]

yeah...really.

comparing an american minister to a man who killed seven million jews is intellectually dishonest.

really.

The discussion focuses on their common mis-use of Christianity to further a political goal. It's entirely relevant, but I can see why you'd rather not talk about it, as it raises some serious issues for your candidate.

[retiredman]

Actually I've been trying to get you to answer post 74, repeated here for your convenience:
I realize that your candidate, Obama, is loathe to define his position on specifics. Do you suppose he is working from a strong Marxist base, no
and is seeking to overturn the existing capitalist order in favor of a socialist utopia?no
Do you suppose that he believes “black values” are superior to American values? I think that, in the context of BLT, he might very well think that black values are better than white values - black being symbolic of the oppressed and white being symbolic of the oppressing
Do you suppose that he believes “white America” should be silent? noDo you suppose that he believes that all white men are responsible for white oppression?probably not "all", but certainly some
Do you suppose that he believes that the “white man” is ‘the devil’ and wish to enslave black? the "devil"? no. wish to enslave blacks? they certainly have a track record of having done so! I am sure that Obama is well aware of that.

I was just wondering about those issues, since that’s exactly what Black Liberation Theology is all about.

actually... to say that black liberation theology is "exactly" about that really oversimplifies a rather complex theology into a handful of soundbites. I don't think that, therefore, your snippets are anywhere NEAR "EXACTLY what Black Liberation Theology is all about".

[glockmail]

actually... to say that black liberation theology is "exactly" about that really oversimplifies a rather complex theology into a handful of soundbites. I don't think that, therefore, your snippets are anywhere NEAR "EXACTLY what Black Liberation Theology is all about".
Nice straw man, but again, I can see why you'd rather not talk about it, as it raises some serious issues for your candidate.

[theHawk]

comparing Jeremiah Wright to Adolf Hitler is pretty fucking intellectually dishonest, pal.:lol:

I am not the one justifying immoral, racist behavior by pointing out the good things the perpetrator has done.

[retiredman]

I am not the one justifying immoral, racist behavior by pointing out the good things the perpetrator has done.

my statement stands, pal.

comparing a minister to a man who murdered seven million jews is intellectually dishonest.

it really is.

[Yurt]

intellectual dishonesty. to compare an american church to murderers is intellectually dishonest. period.

shame on you.
and once again...please keep my father out of it. ok?

when I continued to bring YOUR father into it, after you had asked me not to, you threw a hissy fit. to continue to bring my father in now is an indication of your ethics, or rather lack thereof.

i never compared anyone. i asked questions that you obviously cannot answer. i find it humorous that you whine about me saying intellectual dishonesty yet you use it quite frequently yourself....catchy isn't it...

as to fathers, i never brought my father up, huge difference. you, on the other hand, threw your father into my face on almost a daily basis. the only time i ever mentioned my father was when you lied about the jewish stuff. i never said how my father was better than you. you however did. are you going to stop that petty BS and not compare your father to me? if so, i have no problem cutting your dad out of anything.

as you can see, it is your ethics that are sorely lacking. now answer the question i posted above. or are you saying that because these guys murdered, they can't be good.

ok:

when hagee said that stuff about catholics and whatnot, i did not once see you defend him and say - see all the good he has done though. you accused the right of being hypocritical. if hagee or some other pastor had 30 years of doing good and then started to espouse white power and calling people n*ggers, would you defend them? are you only excusing wright because it is racism and not murder?

is that your moral difference?

[Yurt]

mfm, do you have any support for this wild notion of "symbolism" in regards to BLT? because i can find zero to support your excuses. and you still fail to address the notion that whiteness is the only evil and that all white people are responsible for racism....i think you so anyway

[Yurt]

The Trinity UCC website was updated early this year. Before that, Cone's book was singled out as required reading for Trinity parishioners who wished to more thoroughly understand the church's theology and mission. That highlighting was removed. Jason Byassee, of The Christian Century Magazine, wrote this about Cone and Trinity in May, 2007:

"The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.


Overtly racist, Cone’s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African-Americans as the “chosen people.” In Cone’s cosmology, whites are “the devil,” and “all white men are responsible for white oppression.”

posted again for the third time because mfm is purposefully ignoring and denying the racism. the very definition of intellectual dishonestly

[theHawk]

my statement stands, pal.

comparing a minister to a man who murdered seven million jews is intellectually dishonest.

it really is.

Of course it is. But once again you missed the point. I was simply applying your logic to another situation. I'm not saying 'Rev. Wright is just as bas as Hitler', I am saying its rediculous to justify immoral(in this case racist) acts by pointing to "the good things" someone has done. That is relativism, and its morally bankrupt.

[manu1959]

my statement stands, pal.

comparing a minister to a man who murdered seven million jews is intellectually dishonest.

it really is.

he didn't actually murder them personally.......

[retiredman]

Of course it is. But once again you missed the point. I was simply applying your logic to another situation. I'm not saying 'Rev. Wright is just as bas as Hitler', I am saying its rediculous to justify immoral(in this case racist) acts by pointing to "the good things" someone has done. That is relativism, and its morally bankrupt.

except, in Hitler's case, the bad he did so completely overwhelmed the "good" he and his party may have done, discussing the good is insulting to the seven million people he killed. In Reverend Wright's case, the "bad" he did is so completely overwhelmed by the powerfully good things that his church accomplished in the community and in the region that to dwell on the bad things, as all of you righties have done, is equally insulting.

Your argument is like this:

Albert Schweitzer got a speeding ticket once. WHAT AN ASSHOLE HE WAS. Suggesting he did a world of good in his life is the same thing as pointing out that Jeffrey Dahmer rescued a kitty from a tree once!

[retiredman]

he didn't actually murder them personally.......

yes manu... that is correct. that's very nice that you provided that clarification. thank you.

[Dilloduck]

except, in Hitler's case, the bad he did so completely overwhelmed the "good" he and his party may have done, discussing the good is insulting to the seven million people he killed. In Reverend Wright's case, the "bad" he did is so completely overwhelmed by the powerfully good things that his church accomplished in the community and in the region that to dwell on the bad things, as all of you righties have done, is equally insulting.

Your argument is like this:

Albert Schweitzer got a speeding ticket once. WHAT AN ASSHOLE HE WAS. Suggesting he did a world of good in his life is the same thing as pointing out that Jeffrey Dahmer rescued a kitty from a tree once!

I saw a thread that says Obama hung out with communists a lot though. Is that true ?

[Yurt]

i never compared anyone. i asked questions that you obviously cannot answer. i find it humorous that you whine about me saying intellectual dishonesty yet you use it quite frequently yourself....catchy isn't it...

as to fathers, i never brought my father up, huge difference. you, on the other hand, threw your father into my face on almost a daily basis. the only time i ever mentioned my father was when you lied about the jewish stuff. i never said how my father was better than you. you however did. are you going to stop that petty BS and not compare your father to me? if so, i have no problem cutting your dad out of anything.

as you can see, it is your ethics that are sorely lacking. now answer the question i posted above. or are you saying that because these guys murdered, they can't be good.

ok:

when hagee said that stuff about catholics and whatnot, i did not once see you defend him and say - see all the good he has done though. you accused the right of being hypocritical. if hagee or some other pastor had 30 years of doing good and then started to espouse white power and calling people n*ggers, would you defend them? are you only excusing wright because it is racism and not murder?

is that your moral difference?


mfm, do you have any support for this wild notion of "symbolism" in regards to BLT? because i can find zero to support your excuses. and you still fail to address the notion that whiteness is the only evil and that all white people are responsible for racism....i think you so anyway

:salute:

[retiredman]

I saw a thread that says Obama hung out with communists a lot though. Is that true ?


I saw on a liberal website that McCain betrayed our nation to the north vietnamese communists. is THAT true?

I saw on another website where Laura Bush has supposedly given birth to a child fathered by a space alien. Is THAT true?

[82Marine89]

I saw on a liberal website that McCain betrayed our nation to the north vietnamese communists. is THAT true?

I saw on another website where Laura Bush has supposedly given birth to a child fathered by a space alien. Is THAT true?

I saw in another thread that you are a liar. Is that true?

[retiredman]

I saw in another thread that you are a liar. Is that true?

no. it is not.

I saw somewhere that you were a cowardly and disreputable marine and an embarrassment to the corps, is that true?

[82Marine89]

no. it is not.

I saw somewhere that you were a cowardly and disreputable marine and an embarrassment to the corps, is that true?

That was something PussBoyfromMaine lied about.

[retiredman]

That was something PussBoyfromMaine lied about.

whatever, jarhead. keep insulting my integrity and see how quickly I become your pal.

[82Marine89]

whatever, jarhead. keep insulting my integrity and see how quickly I become your pal.

What integrity?

[Kathianne]

Can anyone say Steel Cage or shutting someone the f up?

[manu1959]

well said kath....well said...

[retiredman]

Can anyone say Steel Cage or shutting someone the f up?


oh yeah...well said, kath, well said. who would you like to shut the fuck up?

no wait...let me guess.

[dread]

whatever, jarhead. keep insulting my integrity and see how quickly I become your pal.



Since when were you anyones PAL on this board?

[dread]

oh yeah...well said, kath, well said. who would you like to shut the fuck up?

no wait...let me guess.


You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. She could be talking about wanting me to STFU. But NOoooooooo. You have to be alll arrogant and think it is ALL about you.

[retiredman]

Since when were you anyones PAL on this board?


not too often, I will grant you that. this is a overwhelmingly partisan conservative board. I certainly don't come here because of the camraderie, that's for sure.

The owner did, however, think enough about my writing ability to ask me to post on the debate policy blog.... I wonder why he didn't ask you?:laugh2:

[dread]

not too often, I will grant you that. this is a overwhelmingly partisan conservative board. I certainly don't come here because of the camraderie, that's for sure.

The owner did, however, think enough about my writing ability to ask me to post on the debate policy blog.... I wonder why he didn't ask you?:laugh2:



There is a blog?

Look dude...I dont wrap my sense of self worth in such things. I come here to have a good time talk with those I like and fight with those I dont. It's all good!

[retiredman]

There is a blog?

Look dude...I dont wrap my sense of self worth in such things. I come here to have a good time talk with those I like and fight with those I dont. It's all good!


I don't wrap my sense of self worth in anything that is remotely concerned with the internet.

I come here to piss off conservatives and try to get them to debate issues.

they hardly ever do.... but that is no big surprise. I still walk away laughing, and that is never a bad thing.

[Yurt]

Originally Posted by Yurt
i never compared anyone. i asked questions that you obviously cannot answer. i find it humorous that you whine about me saying intellectual dishonesty yet you use it quite frequently yourself....catchy isn't it...

as to fathers, i never brought my father up, huge difference. you, on the other hand, threw your father into my face on almost a daily basis. the only time i ever mentioned my father was when you lied about the jewish stuff. i never said how my father was better than you. you however did. are you going to stop that petty BS and not compare your father to me? if so, i have no problem cutting your dad out of anything.

as you can see, it is your ethics that are sorely lacking. now answer the question i posted above. or are you saying that because these guys murdered, they can't be good.

ok:

when hagee said that stuff about catholics and whatnot, i did not once see you defend him and say - see all the good he has done though. you accused the right of being hypocritical. if hagee or some other pastor had 30 years of doing good and then started to espouse white power and calling people n*ggers, would you defend them? are you only excusing wright because it is racism and not murder?

is that your moral difference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yurt
mfm, do you have any support for this wild notion of "symbolism" in regards to BLT? because i can find zero to support your excuses. and you still fail to address the notion that whiteness is the only evil and that all white people are responsible for racism....i think you so anyway

apparently mfm is to cowardly to debate the issues and has conceded defeat in this thread and resorts to insulting others instead of rising above and actually debating the issues with me.

you see, everytime he gets stuck in a corner, he lashes out or runs from the thread. too bad, he used to be an interesting guy to debate with, now, just a moral coward and an intellectually dishonest person.

[Pale Rider]

I come here to piss off conservatives

And then in another thread talking about "me"....


you are a partisan hack

...... :laugh:...... :lol: ....... :lmao:...... like I've said before, you are your own worst enemy.... you have such bad diarrhea of the mouth and tell so many lies, you can't keep track of them.

Can you say HYPOCRITE????!!!!

[retiredman]

And then in another thread talking about "me"....



...... :laugh:...... :lol: ....... :lmao:...... like I've said before, you are your own worst enemy.... you have such bad diarrhea of the mouth and tell so many lies, you can't keep track of them.

Can you say HYPOCRITE????!!!!

I am not a hypocrite. I admit that I am here to piss off conservatives. You, on the other hand, try to play this righteously indignant role of some sweet, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth, my shit doesn't stink nice guy when you are every bit as partisan as me. If this board were predominantly liberal, you'd have been ridden out of here on a rail a long time ago. All you conservatives pile on me and I STILL stick around and give it right back at you. Conservatives can insult me and my family in foul and repugnant ways and you could give a shit...conservatives can question the patriotism and the courage of a career military man and you applaud their actions because that military retiree has a different political philosophy than you. You should stop patting yourself on the back long enough to realize who the real hypocrite is here.

[Yurt]

I am not a hypocrite. I admit that I am here to piss off conservatives. You, on the other hand, try to play this righteously indignant role of some sweet, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth, my shit doesn't stink nice guy when you are every bit as partisan as me. If this board were predominantly liberal, you'd have been ridden out of here on a rail a long time ago. All you conservatives pile on me and I STILL stick around and give it right back at you. Conservatives can insult me and my family in foul and repugnant ways and you could give a shit...conservatives can question the patriotism and the courage of a career military man and you applaud their actions because that military retiree has a different political philosophy than you. You should stop patting yourself on the back long enough to realize who the real hypocrite is here.

why are you afraid to debate the issues? where is the higher moral ground? i guess you can't handle debating and thus resort to insults.

you lost this one. your boy is racist.

[dread]

I don't wrap my sense of self worth in anything that is remotely concerned with the internet.





Yeah you do...




"The owner did, however, think enough about my writing ability to ask me to post on the debate policy blog.... I wonder why he didn't ask you?"

[retiredman]

Yeah you do...

no. I don't. I do not measure my self worth by what anyone thinks of me on the internet.

the fact that the owner thinks enough of my writing style to invite me to post on his blog is nice, but my self worth has zero to do with such an "honor".

[Yurt]

what are you scared of MFM? you know you are wrong and so instead of debating the issues, you engage in insults with other members.

you have lost all respect. you should really leave.

[manu1959]

what are you scared of MFM? you know you are wrong and so instead of debating the issues, you engage in insults with other members.

you have lost all respect. you should really leave.

yea...but he won't.....i was reading the ucc home page and they basicly let thier churches preach whatever they want ....so you can have mfm church fededing the homeless and obamas preaching jessie jackson ....the man is keeping you down.....just so long as you send the tithes in.....what crap....

[Yurt]

yea...but he won't.....i was reading the ucc home page and they basicly let thier churches preach whatever they want ....so you can have mfm church fededing the homeless and obamas preaching jessie jackson ....the man is keeping you down.....just so long as you send the tithes in.....what crap....

what? all the "independant" congregations have to send their tithe to the main UCC "godhead?" no freakin wonder they are supporting that congregation, 6-8000 faithful taxpayers...

[Pale Rider]

I am not a hypocrite. I admit that I am here to piss off conservatives.

Yeah... you are a hypocrite, and I just proved it.

[retiredman]

Yeah... you are a hypocrite, and I just proved it.


how is that?

you can't even fucking spell it!:laugh2:

[manu1959]

I am not a hypocrite. I admit that I am here to piss off conservatives.

i wouldn't give up your day job.......being a lying racist.....it pays better.....ask obama's mentor....

[82Marine89]

whatever, jarhead. keep insulting my integrity and see how quickly I become your pal.


Since when were you anyones PAL on this board?

Personal Ass Licker. He wants to be my PAL.

[avatar4321]

I don't wrap my sense of self worth in anything that is remotely concerned with the internet.

I come here to piss off conservatives and try to get them to debate issues.

they hardly ever do.... but that is no big surprise. I still walk away laughing, and that is never a bad thing.

just alittle tip for future reference:

If you want to debate issues, then actually create a good argument with some sort of facts backing you up.

Calling people names, while it might be amusing to you, is not a valid argument about the issues.

[Yurt]

it is clear mfm is not here to debate the the issues in the thread, only insult people. he lost the debate and is now lashing out at anyone he can. i request he be banned from this thread unless he stops insulting and sticks to the thread topic.

[theHawk]

Your argument is like this:

Albert Schweitzer got a speeding ticket once. WHAT AN ASSHOLE HE WAS. Suggesting he did a world of good in his life is the same thing as pointing out that Jeffrey Dahmer rescued a kitty from a tree once!

No sir, you are the one using relativism to justify bad behavior, I am not.


Why are you simply unable to admit that the ideaology of BLT is racist at its core?

[Yurt]

No sir, you are the one using relativism to justify bad behavior, I am not.


Why are you simply unable to admit that the ideaology of BLT is racist at its core?

because he is intellectually dishonest

[glockmail]

how is that?

you can't even fucking spell it!:laugh2:
Looks correct to me. :lame2:

[Abbey Marie]

Looks correct to me. :lame2:

I agree that it was spelled correctly. :confused:

[retiredman]

I agree that it was spelled correctly. :confused:

you might notice that both pale's post, and mine that quoted his, were both mysteriously edited by avatar.

odd, eh?

[retiredman]

No sir, you are the one using relativism to justify bad behavior, I am not.


Why are you simply unable to admit that the ideaology of BLT is racist at its core?


I am not justifying any bad behavior. I am putting someone's bad behavior in the context of their life's body of work. Condemning Albert Schweitzer for a speeding ticket while ignoring his the overwhelmingly great work of his life, is the same thing as exalting the great job Jeffrey Dahmer did rescuing a kitty from a tree while ignoring his overwhelmingly evil life.

Condemning Jeremiah Wright for the more radical portions of his sermons or even the more radicale portions of his theology while ignoring the overwhelming body of great work he has done for his church and for his community is nothing I care to do.

[theHawk]

I am not justifying any bad behavior. I am putting someone's bad behavior in the context of their life's body of work. Condemning Albert Schweitzer for a speeding ticket while ignoring his the overwhelmingly great work of his life, is the same thing as exalting the great job Jeffrey Dahmer did rescuing a kitty from a tree while ignoring his overwhelmingly evil life.
You're the one doing that, not me. When did I ever say anything about Albert Schweitzer or Jeffrey Dahlmer?




Condemning Jeremiah Wright for the more radical portions of his sermons or even the more radicale portions of his theology while ignoring the overwhelming body of great work he has done for his church and for his community is nothing I care to do.
Again, what does his good deeds have to do with his bad ones? We're not talking about something Wright did accidently or just once. Its his beliefs, its his ideology, its the BLT ideology. Since when are people not allowed to debate ideologies?

[Abbey Marie]

you might notice that both pale's post, and mine that quoted his, were both mysteriously edited by avatar.

odd, eh?

Oh, I see what you mean.

Forget I was here, lol.

[retiredman]

Oh, I see what you mean.

Forget I was here, lol.

as a staff member, maybe you could explain how avatar was able to do that to my posts?

[retiredman]

You're the one doing that, not me. When did I ever say anything about Albert Schweitzer or Jeffrey Dahlmer?


you didn't. You were the one who said something about Jeremiah Wright and Adolf Hitler, or did you forget that?

[glockmail]

you might notice that both pale's post, and mine that quoted his, were both mysteriously edited by avatar.

odd, eh?
I agree. Your avatar is odd.

[Abbey Marie]

as a staff member, maybe you could explain how avatar was able to do that to my posts?

You should ask Avatar, in a PM.

[retiredman]

You should ask Avatar, in a PM.


I did.

My question to you was what is the process that any member can use to surreptitiously edit the content of another member's posts?

[Abbey Marie]

I did.

My question to you was what is the process that any member can use to surreptitiously edit the content of another member's posts?

Did Avatar not answer your question?

[retiredman]

Did Avatar not answer your question?


he did not.

will you answer my question to you?

how do members do that, and is that process within the rules of the board?

or because it is bad old manfrommaine, is the rulebook tossed out?

[glockmail]

Did Avatar not answer your question?


When a member’s rep falls below 20% of his post count, those members with a rep in excess of 2000% of his post count may edit the low-life’s posts.

:coffee:

[82Marine89]

I agree. Your avatar is odd.

I think he looks funny with that pornstache.

[manu1959]

I did.

My question to you was what is the process that any member can use to surreptitiously edit the content of another member's posts?

he is a mod.....

[Kathianne]

I am not a hypocrite. I admit that I am here to piss off conservatives. You, on the other hand, try to play this righteously indignant role of some sweet, butter wouldn't melt in my mouth, my shit doesn't stink nice guy when you are every bit as partisan as me. If this board were predominantly liberal, you'd have been ridden out of here on a rail a long time ago. All you conservatives pile on me and I STILL stick around and give it right back at you. Conservatives can insult me and my family in foul and repugnant ways and you could give a shit...conservatives can question the patriotism and the courage of a career military man and you applaud their actions because that military retiree has a different political philosophy than you. You should stop patting yourself on the back long enough to realize who the real hypocrite is here.

Not really jumping into the fray here, been backtracking from the end and the seeming change of spelling or posts by Avatar, the most mild mannered and least intrusive mod I've ever known. Did you really say the bolded, about PR?

Then the diatribe about conservative insults, as if you have NEVER attacked others via family, service, etc? C'mon, man up, don't whine.

[82Marine89]

he is a mod.....

There you go with facts again. :slap:

[retiredman]

Not really jumping into the fray here, been backtracking from the end and the seeming change of spelling or posts by Avatar, the most mild mannered and least intrusive mod I've ever known. Did you really say the bolded, about PR?

Then the diatribe about conservative insults, as if you have NEVER attacked others via family, service, etc? C'mon, man up, don't whine.

avatar changed the misspelled word in both pale rider's post and mine for the express purpose of making it appear as if I were calling pale rider on misspelling a word that was apparently not misspelled. It is no big deal, but it is a cheap partisan shot and done by a moderator who ought not to display such partisan motivations. I really don't give a shit, but I do think it betrays any sense of impartiality that the moderators should be trying to convey.

I HAVE attaacked others via family...and others have attacked me. I have taken enormous amounts of shit from everyone whenever I resort to those tactics yet No one EVER goes after the conservatives who insult liberals on this board...

but again...I knew that going in. I don't expect fair treatment here and am not surprised nor disappointed when my expectations are met.

[retiredman]

he is a mod.....
and that allows him to play games to make one party look wrong when they were not? of course. I understand.

maybe if I had said pretty please.

[Kathianne]

avatar changed the misspelled word in both pale rider's post and mine for the express purpose of making it appear as if I were calling pale rider on misspelling a word that was apparently not misspelled. It is no big deal, but it is a cheap partisan shot and done by a moderator who ought not to display such partisan motivations. I really don't give a shit, but I do think it betrays any sense of impartiality that the moderators should be trying to convey.

I HAVE attaacked others via family...and others have attacked me. I have taken enormous amounts of shit from everyone whenever I resort to those tactics yet No one EVER goes after the conservatives who insult liberals on this board...

but again...I knew that going in. I don't expect fair treatment here and am not surprised nor disappointed when my expectations are met.

Once again, you are spewing bullshit, many have negged and posted bout those that go that route, not just you. You love when it happens, you get to be the victim. Just like when others don't follow what you think should be the path, you set out.

I don't care if it's a liberal or a klucker, saying sick things about people not here, just to insult another member, demented.

[82Marine89]

avatar changed the misspelled word in both pale rider's post and mine for the express purpose of making it appear as if I were calling pale rider on misspelling a word that was apparently not misspelled. It is no big deal, but it is a cheap partisan shot and done by a moderator who ought not to display such partisan motivations. I really don't give a shit, but I do think it betrays any sense of impartiality that the moderators should be trying to convey.

I HAVE attaacked others via family...and others have attacked me. I have taken enormous amounts of shit from everyone whenever I resort to those tactics yet No one EVER goes after the conservatives who insult liberals on this board...

but again...I knew that going in. I don't expect fair treatment here and am not surprised nor disappointed when my expectations are met.

Not sure, but I don't think you should be publicly calling out a moderator.

[retiredman]

Once again, you are spewing bullshit, many have negged and posted bout those that go that route, not just you. You love when it happens, you get to be the victim. Just like when others don't follow what you think should be the path, you set out.

I don't care if it's a liberal or a klucker, saying sick things about people not here, just to insult another member, demented.

If anyone ever called glock on his denigrations of my father, I can honestly say, I missed it.

[retiredman]

Not sure, but I don't think you should be publicly calling out a moderator.


not sure this is any of your fucking business in the first place....

but then again...I'm not sure.

[Pale Rider]

you might notice that both pale's post, and mine that quoted his, were both mysteriously edited by avatar.

odd, eh?

No... I have a google toolbar and it has a built in spell checker. I use it every time I think I might have misspelled something.

Type "hypocrit" and then click the spell checker, it tells me this "hypocrite" is the correct spelling. So does dictionary.com.

You thought you were right when you weren't, which happens a lot with you. You're half as smart as you think you are.

[Pale Rider]

If anyone ever called glock on his denigrations of my father, I can honestly say, I missed it.

You better read the new post by Jim in the announcement section. The next ANYBODY drags FAMILY into their insults, they're banned, no questions asked.

[retiredman]

You better read the new post by Jim in the announcement section. The next ANYBODY drags FAMILY into their insults, they're banned, no questions asked.

I read that. what does that have to do with the fact that I have been pummeled by folks - like you - critical of my posts to glock, but those same folks have been strangely silent in their prior criticism of him for essentially the same thing.

it's partisan bullshit from you and your ilk, pale. You have something stuck in your craw about me and could give a shit if your response is appropriate.

I understand.

[retiredman]

No... I have a google toolbar and it has a built in spell checker. I use it every time I think I might have misspelled something.

Type "hypocrit" and then click the spell checker, it tells me this "hypocrite" is the correct spelling. So does dictionary.com.

You thought you were right when you weren't, which happens a lot with you. You're half as smart as you think you are.


avatar changed it to be "hypocrite" in both your post and my one quoting it. His editing in noted at the bottom of both posts. you originally misspelled it as "hypocrit" without the "e". He covered up for your error.... an example of the lack of "moderation" on the part of some moderators.

and if you think I am wrong in that recounting of the events, bet me $50,000. I have it in an account and will gladly pay you if you are right. If not, STFU.

[82Marine89]

not sure this is any of your fucking business in the first place....

but then again...I'm not sure.

Nice language squidward. So much for that higher standard held by naval officers.

[retiredman]

Nice language squidward. So much for that higher standard held by naval officers.


did you find my use of the adjective "fucking" to be a personal insult, jarhead?

[82Marine89]

did you find my use of the adjective "fucking" to be a personal insult, jarhead?

Nope. You fucking idiot.

[retiredman]

then what, pray tell, prompted post #179?

[retiredman]

avatar changed it to be "hypocrite" in both your post and my one quoting it. His editing in noted at the bottom of both posts. you originally misspelled it as "hypocrit" without the "e". He covered up for your error.... an example of the lack of "moderation" on the part of some moderators.

and if you think I am wrong in that recounting of the events, bet me $50,000. I have it in an account and will gladly pay you if you are right. If not, STFU.


thank you for shutting the fuck up.

it is the only graceful thing I have seen from you in months.

[82Marine89]

then what, pray tell, prompted post #179?

Like I said, nice language squidward. Good to see someone who gives sermons dropping an f-bomb every now and then.

[retiredman]

Like I said, nice language squidward. Good to see someone who gives sermons dropping an f-bomb every now and then.

did you find it insulting, yes or no? I pledged to take the high road in relation to my attacks against other members... I made no such pledge about my language.

and if you ask you buddy yurt, he doesn't believe I have ever given a sermon in the first place!:lol:

[Kathianne]

Maybe it's me, but this seems past due to go to steel cage?

[retiredman]

Maybe it's me, but this seems past due to go to steel cage?

just send a PM to avatar to move it...he'll gladly go back and correct any of your spelling errors in the process. You're on his team.

[Kathianne]

just send a PM to avatar to move it...he'll gladly go back and correct any of your spelling errors in the process. You're on his team.

Shoot, I made a spelling error? Dang it.

[retiredman]

Shoot, I made a spelling error? Dang it.

I don't know if you did or not, but I DO know that avatar fixes them for his buddies...I'm sure if you go back and find any, he'll gladly fix them for you... that's what an immoderate moderator does for those on his side.

[Kathianne]

I don't know if you did or not, but I DO know that avatar fixes them for his buddies...I'm sure if you go back and find any, he'll gladly fix them for you... that's what an immoderate moderator does for those on his side.

You didn't like that he changed some things. Why don't you pm him and stop with the public board? As for his being immoderate, sheesh. Seriously, he's the most laid back guy around.

[retiredman]

You didn't like that he changed some things. Why don't you pm him and stop with the public board? As for his being immoderate, sheesh. Seriously, he's the most laid back guy around.

been there. done that.

and I must admit that if the "most laid back guy around" routinely fixes posts for his buddies to the detriment of his enemies, then the term "moderator" is a fucking joke.

[Kathianne]

been there. done that.

and I must admit that if the "most laid back guy around" routinely fixes posts for his buddies to the detriment of his enemies, then the term "moderator" is a fucking joke.

I'll bet you he didn't know you were making a POINT about someone's spelling. Weird that.

[82Marine89]

did you find it insulting, yes or no? I pledged to take the high road in relation to my attacks against other members... I made no such pledge about my language.

and if you ask you buddy yurt, he doesn't believe I have ever given a sermon in the first place!:lol:

I would say you're a hypocrite. You can't do one without the other. Either you take the high road or you don't.

[retiredman]

I'll bet you he didn't know you were making a POINT about someone's spelling. Weird that.

bullshit. you wanna bet some real money or is that just a rhetorical bet?

post #143 and #144. both "edited by avatar"

In the unedited version, palerider misspelled hypocrite in post #143, leaving off the final "e".

I called palerider on it in post #144.

avatar edited palerider's spelling in both the original and my response which prompted replies by both glock and abbey that suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about.

moderator, my ass.

but like I said, use it to your advantage...he plays for your team.

[Kathianne]

bullshit. you wanna bet some real money or is that just a rhetorical bet?
Just rhetorical, I don't bet, besides I'm trying to pay my bills tonight. ;)

[retiredman]

I would say you're a hypocrite. You can't do one without the other. Either you take the high road or you don't.


I take the high road vis a vis insulting others. If you don't like my language, tough shit. using the "f" word is not insulting to you personally, which is what I said I would avoid....personal insults, and I have done so.

[retiredman]

Just rhetorical, I don't bet, besides I'm trying to pay my bills tonight. ;)

rhetorically...you lose.

[82Marine89]

I take the high road vis a vis insulting others. If you don't like my language, tough shit. using the "f" word is not insulting to you personally, which is what I said I would avoid....personal insults, and I have done so.

This shows you are still a liar. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=250288&postcount=10)

[manu1959]

I take the high road vis a vis insulting others. If you don't like my language, tough shit. using the "f" word is not insulting to you personally, which is what I said I would avoid....personal insults, and I have done so.

selective morality by thread.........i like it.....

[manu1959]

This shows you are still a liar. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=250288&postcount=10)


it is a different thread......plus it is me......:laugh2:

[dread]

bullshit. you wanna bet some real money or is that just a rhetorical bet?

post #143 and #144. both "edited by avatar"

In the unedited version, palerider misspelled hypocrite in post #143, leaving off the final "e".

I called palerider on it in post #144.

avatar edited palerider's spelling in both the original and my response which prompted replies by both glock and abbey that suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about.

moderator, my ass.

but like I said, use it to your advantage...he plays for your team.





You know...I voted for you NOT to get banned. I dont like seeing people getting banned period. But you take the cake. You ACTIVELY shit on this board and its rules. What part of IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH A MOD TAKE IT TO A PM dont you get?


And dont plead the old tired whiney game of he hasnt answered me bullshit.

[retiredman]

You know...I voted for you NOT to get banned. I dont like seeing people getting banned period. But you take the cake. You ACTIVELY shit on this board and its rules. What part of IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH A MOD TAKE IT TO A PM dont you get?


And dont plead the old tired whiney game of he hasnt answered me bullshit.

he hasn't.

and he did, in fact, edit posts by palerider and me to cover up an error by his "buddy". I took it to him in the form of a PM and he has not offered any form of redress or even acknowledged that he did anything inappropriate to begin with.

[dread]

he hasn't.

and he did, in fact, edit posts by palerider and me to cover up an error by his "buddy". I took it to him in the form of a PM and he has not offered any form of redress or even acknowledged that he did anything inappropriate to begin with.




This is not your board. You cant be fighting with a mod ( or two in this case) out in the open with impunity. You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO RESPECT FOR JIMMY AND HIS RULES!

[retiredman]

This is not your board. You cant be fighting with a mod ( or two in this case) out in the open with impunity. You have ABSOLUTELY ZERO RESPECT FOR JIMMY AND HIS RULES

I can - and have - complained about the immoderate treatment by moderators.

It is interesting, and quite telling, that you would support and defend such immoderate behavior... I guess it really doesn't matter to you what is right as long as the perpetrator is from the "right".

[dread]

I can - and have - complained about the immoderate treatment by moderators.

It is interesting, and quite telling, that you would support and defend such immoderate behavior... I guess it really doesn't matter to you what is right as long as the perpetrator is from the "right".



You are soooo fucking stupid. The ONLY thing I have supported in this thread is you shutting the fuck up lest you get banned.

[jimnyc]

MFM - I discussed this issue with you. I told you I would look into it. I told you no posts would be edited going forth. I told you to contact me directly should you have any further problems.

I don't expect you to carry on with this and continually bash one of my moderators publicly. You send him a PM directly if you take issue with his actions, and if that doesn't help, you contact me. I'm not asking you to like the staff here, but you need to respect them (as per the rules anyway). If they run afoul, then it's my job to handle it.