Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Stuff it? Sorry dude. I didn't get the memo regading a change in the snarkiness policy. Please send me a copy. Or were you just being snarky?

As to the post, so Wright was merely quoting Peck? Is that the story now? Well if we were to take a look at the comment, we see immediately an idiot who makes the outrageous statement that we nuked Japan without batting an eye. What unmitigated crap! The decision to unleash such weapons was NOT made lightly. In fact, reluctance was high, but unlike the typical modern Democrat, Truman faced the situation and made the hard decision without thought to his approval ratings, but with much anguish over what it will mean for future generations. But that was overridden by the certainty that something drastic was needed to stop what was likely to be a protracted struggle with a nation that had shown a propensity for dying before giving up. It was a sound decision.

In addition, our foreign policies have nothing to do with the actions of Islamic extremists. How many times must they say that before boobs like Peck or Wright (or anyone left of center) will get the idea?

So to compare Wright to a Biblical prophet is, to say the very least, over the top. Prophets spoke truth. Wright speaks crap and verifiable lies (AIDS invented to eradicate blacks). Somehow, I don't see such obvious sins as being less than a perceived "sin of silence" by preachers who likely don't share his outrageous point of view or care to speak lies to their congregations. One lie is excess if spoken from the pulpit.
 

"Yeah, whatever." Yer just rude, without provocation. The "rule" on snark is it's fine when appropriate. And I'd say that when one is giving personal testimony, "yeah, whatever" -- a diss -- is never appropriate.
 

As for your remarks on Wright:

Yeah whatever.
 

Oh, wait.

Re, "One lie is excess if spoken from the pulpit."

You mean stuff like: "The Bible is God's Word, inerrant, infallible and complete."

I'd agree with that one.


Come on, y'all! What other lies are regularly spoken from the pulpit??
 

Let's not change the subject, ER. Marshall pointed out an obvious truth here: Prophets spoke only truth, yet Wright's assertion that AIDS was invented to kill blacks is an obvious lie.... and yet you insist on calling him a prophet. Why? Because his people, his congregation, call him a prophet?

He hasn't passed the test. But then, according to your own response....

Yeah, whatever.
 

But since this is your place, let's address your last question.

"What other lies are regularly spoken from the pulpit??"

And adding to the above with a slice of previous post, you also said:

"Preachers say stupid, unfounded crap all the time. I'll give Obama a pass."

The point of Wright saying stupid things on occasion is not-- to my mind --the issue at present. Instead, let's address your insistence upon calling him a prophet. You want to give Obama a pass for what Wright said? Go ahead. After all, Obama didn't say those things... that any of us know of. But Wright does not pass the test as a prophet any more than Benny Hinn does. And for the record, Hinn is ALSO a false prophet, with proofs aplenty against him because of stupid things he said from the pulpit. Any man who will tell such an obvious lie from the pulpit cannot be a prophet, and to my mind, his ministry is suspect, not his entire ministry, but its validity from the time he lied, and on.
 

Re, "Prophets spoke only truth."

Not to be cute, but "truth" is, at times -- most times -- in the ear of the listener. There you go again with an inerrant-infallible-factual template, which you drape over everything.

One good thing that could come from this is that I, and others, restudy the O.T. prophets. I am almost positive I could find utterances in them that either are false or that don't ring true.
 

EL, I'll decide what the topic at hand is here.

You may proceed.

But first, I want to know if you have any personal experience with black church folks or the prophetic preaching tradition.

And: Parables are LIES. Stories! Rhetoric.
 

LOL! Comparing Wright to Benny Hinn is like comparing a performance artist to a birthday-party clown. Nice try. Benny Hinn actually IS a false teacher and charlatan. Wright might've let his rheoric get away from him -- but maybe not. I don't profess to know the facts of the matter.
 

So why is the theory that AIDs was introduced to kill blacks a lie? It's a fairly wide-spread conspiracy theory and is based on a number of facts that taken individually don't prove anything, but in combination appear to do so. I happen to believe the theory is wrong, but given some of the horrible things governments (including the U.S.) have done in the past (anyone remember the Tuskegee experiment?) I can understand why many blacks would believe it.

As for bombing Japan, Hiroshima one might have been justifiable, but Nagasaki definitely was not. The U.S. military knew Japan was about to surrender but they dropped that bomb anyway because they wanted to send a message to Stalin.
 

Nan, Re, "I happen to believe the theory is wrong, but given some of the horrible things governments (including the U.S.) have done in the past (anyone remember the Tuskegee experiment?) I can understand why many blacks would believe it."

EXACTLY.
 

ER, the only place I can find this quote attributed to Peck is at Gloria Vanderbilt's son's CNN site of 360. Even though Wright says he is quoting Peck, it doesn't smell like one of Peck's statements at the time. Remember Peck was originally a Regan man.

As for TCU Divinity School honoring Wright. So? We Disciples of Christ have been deeply into social Justice for Decades and Wright qualifies under that criteria. That doesn't mean his international politics aren't stupid on the side however. I mean would you trust Mother Teresa to negotiate an Bosnian cease fire?

This is the trap I warned about.
We are letting the opposition set the trap of "us" defending the indefensible.
 

If I thought it was indefensible, I wouldn't be talking about it. But I'm not sure I'm trying to defend it as much as draw out the hypocrisy of most of his damn critics.
 

Which is it that's indefensible?
 

Nan said: "As for bombing Japan, Hiroshima one might have been justifiable, but Nagasaki definitely was not. The U.S. military knew Japan was about to surrender but they dropped that bomb anyway because they wanted to send a message to Stalin."


You are aware that the message to Stalin was necessary and save countless American lives as well? Stalin was debating whether to use his standing army to continue to move across Europe all the way to the Atlantic. While the U.S. and Brittan were debating whether or not to push Russia back to their own borders. Russia was also looking at a much larger territorial grab in Asia where we were weakest. Stalin thought we didn't have a readily available second bomb. (the New Mexico and Hiroshima bombs were the U-234-35 types which he knew were being made) He did not know that the Manhattan Project had developed two kinds of atomic bombs. He was unaware of the Plutonium bomb and thus thought we had shot our wad and that he was free to do what he could get away with under conventional arms in the immediate future.
Hiroshima stopped Japan. Nagasaki was a bluff that stopped the Soviet Union and turn a potential Hot War into the historical Cold War. Nagasaki said to Stalin we are ruthless and have the means to be so. Playing Moral Monday Morning Quarterbacks in 2008 to the decisions made between VE day and VJ day in 1945 is a rather arrogant activity on our part.

"The U.S. military knew Japan was about to surrender..."

They knew that the "Civilian Japanese" "wanted" to surrender.
The Military had not abdicated yet. Reasons to believe they might not? See Okinawa.
 

" Erudite Redneck said...
Which is it that's indefensible?"

Already gone over that ground. You didn't notice?
 

One, note that I do not secon-guess the nukes that ended WWII. Mainly, maybe, because I haven't studid it that much.

Two, sorry, but I do this as I work, on the fly, and I miss some things.
 

Nukes comments just a historical footnote. Don't expect many people to know much about that time. If my father-in-law had not been involved I may not have learned much about it either.

"God Damn America..." is the indefensible. No candidate can be associated with that. It doesn't matter what the reason it was said was, that it was said is all that has to be known. Every minute you defend it, is a minute the opposition scores. Simple math.
 

By the way, check out my blog for a tribute to your damn obstenance!
 

Pbhthth! The extremes of the Christian Right have been calling for Prayers of Condemnatio (Not what they're called, but something like that) for some time.

So, you don't try to defend it. You acknowledge, yeah, it's pretty extreme. So are they.

I'll put Jeremiah Wright up against John Hagee -- and McCain's love-dovey relationship, ongoing, with THAT freak any day.
 

"Imprecatory prayer" -- that's what it's called. Praying for God to strike dead those who disagree with you!

MM-mm. Makes me feel all Jesusy just thinking about it. Not.
 

Wow. OK, partisanship aside.

The spectacle of the Democratic Party eating itself alive is going to be a sight to behold. Dr. ER just texted me to say that Carville just called Bill Richardson's defection from Hillary to Obama "Judas-like." Probably, I said, but this is politics, not eternity, and Hillary ain't Jesus.

But Jeremiah Wright, with the aid and comfort of talk radio, may be making Obama as unelectable as Hillary.
 

No. This is the point. That Obama is making himself unelectable (which he always was in my mind) by how he responds to issues like Wright and Rezko. Wear the other guy's sandles for a moment. How easy is it for you to swallow the explanations by right-wing politicos for the things for which they might stand accused? Here, the explanations are wanting due to the long relationship with Wright, and the reasonable assumption that these are not so isolated.

As to Wright himself, though it may be understandable what the average black man on the street might believe, Wright is not the average black man, but a spiritual leader who assumed a position of guiding his flock. He is guiding them down the wrong path by spouting such nonsense. So, though the Tuskeegee situation was blatantly wrong and exploitative, I would hope someone in Wright's position would seek out confirmed instances of such behavior by the white oppressors that are a tad more recent rather than lie about the AIDS problem, and should nothing be found, speak on that instead of dredging up past history.

" "Yeah, whatever." Yer just rude, without provocation."

C'mon, my friend. Your not much different in responding to the beliefs of your opponents. In fact, you get nasty with us for our traditional perspective on Christianity. I apologize nonetheless. Still, stuff and/or bite what, exactly?

Back to the issue:

"The Bible is God's Word, inerrant, infallible and complete."

Calling that a lie is just rude without...nevermind. However, it is a belief in the same manner that one believes in God Himself. It is based on the speaker's faith that the Bible is those things and as such is not, certainly by definition, a lie. What Wright said is without doubt a lie.

Parables are not lies as they were not presented as factual events. Otherwise, Jesus is a liar. I know you won't go that far.

Drlobojo's input regarding WWII conforms with what I read in McCullough's book "Truman". So the info is indeed out there for those who want to find it.

Here's a lie spoken from the pulpit: that God would bless a homosexual union.
 

Re, "How easy is it for you to swallow the explanations by right-wing politicos for the things for which they might stand accused?"

It's no easy at all. I don't care whether YOU swallow it or not. It's the mushy middle we're both fighting for.


Hey, as I said, snark in the face of one "testifying" as to God's goodness is plain rude. I think this is a Yankee thing. I see it a lot.


Re, "The Bible is God's Word, inerrant, infallible and complete."
... it is a belief in the same manner that one believes in God Himself."

Ah. OK. Does anybody know if the Rev. Wright believed what he said? I assume that he did. If he did when he said it, it's not a lie is it? So those who are calling what he said lies should get off his ass. Right?


Re, "Here's a lie spoken from the pulpit: that God would bless a homosexual union."

That's mild blasphemy. One it rains on the just and unjust, and blessings fall on the unjust and just. That is the single most outrageous thing I've ever seen you write -- and that is saying a lot. I'd be damn sure to stay inside when it's cloudy. We probably agree that God doesn't care some things: Puny humans who pretend they are Him probably rank right up there.

I can hear God now:
"MA, do you know my Son? Well, yer fixin' to meet Him." Kablooey.
 

I mean, do you really believe that condemns any kind of love? Really?
 

At the risk of no-one getting the bigoted humor, ER I'll vote for even a high yellow dog Democrat.
 

Well I get it! Hoot!

LOL and again, I say, LOL!

Heel, I'd vote for Grover effing Cleveland, the Bourbon!
 

"Heel." Hell, "hell," I mean!
 

"It's the mushy middle we're both fighting for."

What are you talking about? I'm not looking for compromise on right and wrong, I'm looking for what is right. And as far as explanations of a politician for actions, behaviors or words, I'm looking for truthfuness and not a Texas two-step.

"I think this is a Yankee thing."

What do you call it when you rip on another's testimony regarding God's Will? An Oklahoma thing?

"Does anybody know if the Rev. Wright believed what he said?"

There's no empirical, no-doubt-about-it evidence to prove or disprove the Bible's inerrancy or infallibility. Indeed, what that even means is a topic of debate and faith. To believe that the US government created AIDS to eradicate blacks? Who the hell thinks this is in any way true? It's preposterous and means Wright, for whatever good he may have done in his life, is a complete idiot and his retirement is his best move ever.

"That's mild blasphemy."

Which? That God doesn't bless sinful behavior, or that it's a lie to say He does? If you want to say that God might bless a strong friendship, I wouldn't disagree. But the use of the terms homosexual union, implies a marital, thus sexual, relationship and no, He does not bless such sinful behaviors. A cursory knowledge of the Bible is enough to make that plain. It should have been obvious that my meaning was regarding the sanctioning of such a union wherein blessings follow and I simply do not believe that He would do so. I don't believe He would bless the love of a man for someone else's wife, if lust for her is a part of it. In the same manner, I don't believe there's any reason to believe from Scripture that He would bless a union between same sex partners that is more lustful than a platonic union. Erotic love is simply not a topic that gets much play in the Bible, except to say what is and is not permissable. It's not the kind of love that He concerns Himself with. Not in the least bit blasphemous.

So am I to assume that YOUR version of Biblical truth equates to you believing yourself to be God? Between this and your sensitivity to my earler "Yeah, whatever", I'm hearing a bit of "it's OK when I do it, but not you." But then it's your crib, your rules. I can deal.

Sidebar: I once, not too long ago, tried to search out the instances where "eros" was mentioned in the NT. I even tried from original language and came up empty. It's like NEVER mentioned. "Agape" love, however is all over the place Old and New. And that's the love the Bible teaches. God's love. Not lust.
 

"I think this is a Yankee thing. I see it a lot."

Now, now, ER ... let's not stereotype. Not all of us Yankees are jerks.
 

While it is true that the Greek word "eros" is never used in the Greek writings of the Bible, there sure was a lot of it going on there. To say "it never gets much play" is a little short of the volume. The Greek writers never used "storge" either( storge: warm affection, feelings for family, satisfaction of relief, etc.), yet all that must be understood to have been in their world as well.

Agape and philos are used exclusively in the Greek documents. I was taught that they were always used distinctly, in that philo meant brotherly love and agape meant spiritual love or love for the world. But it seems that was a little too exaggerated. John for one, switches back and forth in his use of the two words, sometimes to make a point, most generally he just interchanges them.

It does seem strange that if God wanted his Greek amanuenses to be condemning erotic love that he wouldn't have had them use "eros" specifically doesn't it?
 

MA, two words:

Yeah, whatever.

Three more: You're just pitiful.
 

Thank you. I love you, too.
 

Just tryin' to walk away before it got any further out of hand. Just can't fathom where yer comin' from, at all. That's all. And tired of goin' 'round and 'round about some of this stuff.

The last word's yers if ya want it (I mean betwixt you and me; others can carry on if they want).
 

Doc,

I don't know what "amanuenses" means, and I'm not sure what you mean by that whole paragraph. Please clarify.

For my part, I was mostly referring to the NT with regard to "eros" love, and despite the fact that it was "goin' on", I think it's safe to say that where it was, it was mostly for the purpose of showing what is apart from God's Will. I say "mostly" because I can't off the top of my head think of any positivie examples. Since the word "context" gets thrown at those like myself so often, I think it's clear that in the context of the entire Bible, only sex between a man and woman married to each other is tolerated (for fun, that is).

Now, I don't know what I said that can be considered "pathetic", but I've obviously upset ER, so I guess I'll have to bear such talk for a while. But to clarify, there is a difference between love and lust, as well as a difference between brotherly love (or agape, for that matter), and, if you will, a "lustful" love. God would surely bless a platonic love, or a brotherly love or a sumbissive, self-sacrificial love between two men. I just don't see how one can support the notion that he'd bless a lustful love between the two or the same between a man and someone else's wife, for example. I just can't think of anything within Scripture that would contradict this notion, though I'm as always, open to suggestions.
 

And how did a post about Rev. Wright end up going around the groin issues again?

Oh right... because some "straight" guy is obsessed with teh gays' groins again. *yawn*
 

MA said:
"Doc,
I don't know what "amanuenses" means, and I'm not sure what you mean by that whole paragraph. Please clarify."

I kinda bet you actually do, but sure MA, well, what am saying is if God wanted those he had writing the Gospels on his behalf (AKA amanuenses) to be laying down rules and prohibitions for masturbation, non vaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature in and of themselves, he would have had them spell such out in the appropriate Greek words describing the acts (and the Greeks were not lacking for such terms), but he didn't. He did lay down the rule of Grace.
In fairness, I admit, he did lay down big frowns directly on fornication, prostitution, and adultery.
 

Marshall Art is the only one talking about lust, notice. God is against that, too. But the topic that Marshall Art himself brought up was homosexual unions. Not lust.
 

Ding dang it. I meant to give MA the last word. But I couldn't help myself.

To type "homosexual unions" and mean "lust" is just ... arrrgh, there is not a word I can think of that means all the ideas crashing through my brain.

BTW, MA, I didn't say you were pathetic. I said pitiful. And, I do pity you and yer pitiful, flaccid, weak-puss concept of God's love and grace!

I mean, Jesus Christ!

Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ!

Where theeeeee hell is Jesus H. Christ in your idea of Christianity and faith anyway??


Jesus!
 

Hey, muh man. You asked for lies from the pulpit. I offered one and you took it from there. Then, I felt compelled to clarify my position in response to your response. I, too, am not willing to turn every discussion toward that direction, but frankly, in this case, we have an example of how it happens. Take Doc's response at 9:46 PM (Yeah, I did know what you were talking about, but had enough doubt to require clarification. Thanks for delivering.) in which he supposes that God would have spelled out that which I feel is His Will in this regard. That seems like a good gotcha until one realizes that He doesn't spell out ANYWHERE that He now accepts homosexual unions as being no different than the traditional union. So at worst, I guess it's a wash. Except for where I mentioned "context" and how the context of the entire Book plainly points to only hetero sex between married partners as being sanctioned by Him. So that's MY last word for this thread, since it's way the heck off topic now.
 

One more thing: no need to take His name in vain. Where's my idea of Christ in etc, etc?

Christ=God=Holy Ghost. If you've seen Christ, you've seen the Father. Didn't He say that? I suspect the inverse is true. I think you're listing toward that place that says I hate people because I disagree with their behavior. It's the same place you often go when we speak of things on which we disagree. I speak of behavior, and you think I hate people. You think I'm forcing my religion. How else can we discuss these issues if I can't explain my belief? You show more hostility toward people of my persuasion than I do toward people of Elton John's persuasion. I want all to come to Christ on His terms, not mine or theirs. It's to everyone's benefit to do so. Where we differ is on what those terms might be. To me and Eric and Bubba and Neil and Mark and others like us, those terms are spelled out pretty plainly in the Bible whether it "errant" or not. To you, they're mysterious and ambiguous. That is the cavernous gulf between us which may never be bridged. That would be sad.
 

MA said: "Take Doc's response at 9:46 PM (...) in which he supposes that God would have spelled out that which I feel is His Will in this regard. That seems like a good gotcha until..."

No not a gotcha, as far apart as we are on the concepts of God, his kingdom, and his will; I wouldn't presume to to try to pursuade you or convert you to my positions. It's taken me much of my life to get here myself, ain't got enough time to bring anyone else here unless they wanted to come and were more than half way here already. Besides as unknowable as "God" really is, probably no-one actually has it right and probably couldn't understand it if we did.
But if you have it down pat already, power and the glory to you.
Nope, just trying to explain where I am and what I think I know , 'today'.
 

MA! There was nothing "vain" at ALL in what I wrote! I was trying to get us both back on somethijng I'd hoped we could agree on: Jesus Christ, and his undying love for ALL.

As for yer comment on behavior: Every time someone mentions homosexuality -- in this case, the someone was yourself -- you go off that tangent.

"Homosexual union" is not about plumbing. It's about relationships, and it's about love, not lust. There should be no more assumption that lust drives homosexual love than heterosexual love. Gah.

So, to repeat: You are the only one talking about lust, and you are the only one talking about behavior. Or, at least, you are the only one here equating "homosexual unions" with lust and behavior.
 

Hey ER--

I love the Payne Hollow link where Dan is accused of being WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING, then in the very next sentence the writer berates Dan for arrogance.

Talk about forest and trees!! Hoot!!!