Over the last six months I have, on numerous occasions, accused elements of the right-wing of being racist. I am not claiming that everyone on the right is racist, or even that most people on the right are racist. Some are. You can see some of my posts on the topic here:
http://hippieprofessor.com/2010/02/06/teabag-racism-where-is-the-outrage/
and here:
http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/25/ralphie-and-aldo-and-stephen-and-barak/
and here:
http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/16/the-subtlety-of-modern-racism/
and here:
http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/16/the-subtlety-of-modern-racism/
You may think I am posting these links merely to increase traffic to my blog, and to expose more people to my obviously brilliant rhetorical skills. Tempting as that might be, it is not my purpose.
Nor is it my purpose to once again accuse elements of the right of being racist. No, my purpose is to point out a pattern in the comments to my posts. If you click on the links above and read through the comments you will note that on every occasion someone makes the counter-accusation that Obama himself is a racist. When I go to conservative blogs and point out incidents of what I see as racism I get the same response – a counter-accusation that Obama is the real racist. It is as predictable as finding dog drool on Pavlov’s lab coat……
It is a ridiculous accusation. Oh – I understand – it is indeed a great debate tactic. If your side is on the defensive, deflect the criticism by turning the tables and accusing the other guy of the same thing.
I have done my best do address those accusations – but I have recently come to the conclusion that I have taken the wrong approach. See, as an academic, I have taken an academic approach and I have made an academic argument. I have argued that it is impossible for Obama to be a racist because in order to be a racist you must actually have power over the other racial group – and certainly blacks do not have such power in America. You can see that argument in detail in the second link above.
I still stand by the power argument – but it is an academic argument – and indeed it is founded on the specific ways one defines specific terms. It becomes difficult to defend an argument if people don’t even agree with your basic definitions.
So, my strategy was wrong.
Here is the better strategy.
What specific evidence do you have to support an accusation that Obama is racist?
“Ahhhhh, Rush said it!”
Sorry, doesn’t count as evidence. I don’t care what Beck said either. I don’t care what anyone in the conservative echo chamber said. I want evidence – real evidence.
I have been asking this question for the last few weeks, on conservative blogs and elsewhere. I have received a few responses. As far as I can tell, Obama’s accusers cite two things as evidence.
First, some passages in Obama’s books are commonly cited. One famous quote making the rounds on the internet is:
“I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”
Seriously – the comment to me seems pretty ambiguous as evidence of racism – to me it sounds more like a sincere reflection on the difficulty of growing up biracial….. but…..
OBAMA DIDN’T EVEN SAY IT!
That’s right. These words are nowhere to be found in Obama’s books. They are instead taken from an article, written by one of Obama’s critics, published in The American Conservative.
In fact, it turns that most of the supposedly racist statements Obama has made are either outright fabrications or quotes taken badly out of context. Here is a nice summary:
OK – so Obama is a racist because other people have made up racist quotes and attributed them to him.
Is that all you got?
Of course that isn’t all you got….. There is the oh-so-serious matter of Obama’s long association with the Reverend Wright. Why – Obama sat in Wrights church for all those years while Wright spouted that hateful racist rhetoric! Of course Obama must be a racist!
Get real…..
Even if we assume that the Reverend Wright is in fact a racist (and for the record I don’t think he is – but that is a different story for a different day) are we to believe that Obama is a racist simply because he attended Wright’s church?
“Guilt by Association” is one of the weakest rhetorical tools in the book, because there is absolutely no necessary relationship between a person’s attitudes and the attitudes of those with whom he or she associates. Further, those who might levy this accusation seem to think that it is an easy thing to leave a church. They seem to think that listening to the Pastor is the only reason to stay in a church. They would be wrong.
Let me tell you a bit about myself. I have been Catholic all my life – born and raised with 12 years of Catholic education. Over my lifetime the church has become increasingly conservative to the point that I share few of its views. In recent years I have heard some very strange claims coming from the pulpit, or coming from the teachers at the parochial school. I have heard two different pastors make the outrageous claim that abortion doctors are the moral equivalent of 911 terrorists. My daughter has been told by her religion teacher that homosexuals and axe murderers are the same in the eyes of God. My kids have heard that single woman get cancer as punishment for choosing career over making babies. I will of course be going to hell for the sin of using birth control. If that isn’t enough to cause my eternal damnation, I voted for John Kerry too – and I was told that to do so was a sin as well.
I could go on and on and on – but you get the point.
Have I left the church? No – I tolerate it. My beliefs have not matched the teaching of the church for years – yet I still consider myself Catholic and I always will. See – it isn’t an easy thing to leave a church. It is a part of my upbringing and my culture. I have friends at the church. I have family in the church. I have enjoyed community activities like singing in the choir and going to the pancake breakfast and performing with my band at the annual carnival. Until recently my kids went to school there.
To follow the logic of Obama’s accusers I certainly must adhere to all of the crazy beliefs and ideas I hear coming from the church because, after all, I have remained in the church all this time. Let me assure you, I don’t believe those things. In fact, I find many of the ideas abhorrent. Perhaps that makes me a hypocrite in your eyes. I would suggest instead that I understand a bit more about the role a church plays as a centerpiece of a community. It is about far more than the beliefs of its Pastor.
So let’s recap. You say Obama is a racist. As evidence you cite fabricated quotations, fortified by an extremely weak argument of guilt by association.
Seriously, is that all you got?
You got nothing….
Tags: Catholic, conservative, democrat, left-wing, liberal, Obama, political, racism, republican, right-wing, wordpress-political-blogs
February 21, 2010 at 11:19 pm |
If you don’t recognize liberal black theology as racist at its core, if you don’t believe Jeremiah Wright a blatant racist, hypocrite, and anti-Semite, if you don’t question how Obama could sit the pews of a church of that cloth for twenty and truthfully deny the many accusations, then I would tell you that you are not looking for truth or fact, but to confirm your own bias which makes you comfortable or supports your political positions.
And being that you have stated I believe a psychologist by training, I would tell you my “professional” prognosis of your malady would be the term “confirmational” bias.
I have a question for you Hippie, if you be honest enough to answer. You attend the Catholic Church yet do not believe many of its basic tenets. One core question if you could be truthful enough to answer?
Who do you say Jesus Christ is and do you believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, as documented in a verse like John 14:6?
February 22, 2010 at 9:34 am |
Tex – good to see you didn’t go away for too long….
There was a reason I said that the Reverend Wright’s alleged racism is another story for another day – I don’t want to get distracted from the main point of this article. Indeed there are things I find troubling in his views. There are aspects of black evangelical churches that are quite foreign to me – they are not part of my culture and I don’t understand them. Some of them I find disturbing. But, I won’t call them racist – racism requires power. But, as I said, that is a discussion for another day.
My religious views are pretty complex – there isn’t the space here to fully describe them. To answer your specific question – I think Jesus was a real person, and I believe he had wonderful ideas and should serve as a true role model for everyone. If everyone lived by Christian principles of love and acceptance I believe the world would truly be a better place. On his divinity I am agnostic, as I am about virtually any claims regarding the spiritual world.
I most certainly do not believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, though. If indeed there is a spiritual world I do not believe that any of our religions fully capture its essence. I suspect all religions capture probably capture some of it – but I don’t think any religion captures all of it. There is a lot more I could say – my views would stretch to book length I suspect – but this is my basic belief.
You may want to say that I cannot claim to be a Christian or a Catholic with such contradictory beliefs. I would say you are wrong. I am baptized and confirmed and until the Pope chooses to excommunicate me I am Catholic. To me, it is most certainly not a sin to question and to be skeptical. Thomas has long been my favorite Apostle – for he had the courage to question.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 11:08 am |
As I expected:
So in otherwords, you think Jesus existed and you think Jesus serves as a great role model, but you think His claims bogus and He was just human? Kind of a combination of really nice guy with a nice message, and crazed loon?
Sounds about as meaningful as my opinion of Kris Kringle. Except I’m not introducing Kris as a large part of my children’s life or entrusting the child’s education to his apostles.
The same Thomas who claimed, “My Lord and My God?” It would appear you only read his questioning, but missed Thomas’ conclusion.
February 22, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Tex said…. So in otherwords, you think Jesus existed and you think Jesus serves as a great role model, but you think His claims bogus and He was just human? Kind of a combination of really nice guy with a nice message, and crazed loon?
Tex, that is decidedly NOT what I said. I said I was agnostic on the issue of divinity. In other words, I don’t know. Christ may indeed be divine, as Christianity claims him to be. Christ may also be one of a number of truly exceptional individuals with truly exceptional ideas – but not divine. I am not claiming that either possibility is true – I DON’T KNOW.
Be honest with yourself, Tex – you don’t know either. You have faith – but faith is most certainly not the same thing as certain knowledge. You will not know for certain until the day you die.
The same Thomas who claimed, “My Lord and My God?” It would appear you only read his questioning, but missed Thomas’ conclusion.
Thomas questioned, and then made an act of faith. I find nothing wrong with that. I also find absolutely nothing wrong with questioning. As I said before, an unexamined faith is no faith at all. To take it a step farther, there are theologians who have said that the only true faith comes after you have accepted the fact that you are believing in something totally impossible – yet choose to believe it anyway.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Hippie,
A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell. ~ C.S. Lewis
Though you will call me liar, you would be wrong. My “faith” goes way beyond just simple acceptance. That is, unless you would call it “faith” that I believe when I jump off my roof, I will hit the ground.
I have made a lifetime of reading what was written about Christ, believing it to be of Christ, and measured its prophetic nature. I took what the Bible said was, is, and even shall be, and observed what has happened. I compared it to my life, observed the physical universe, the nature of man, my own weaknesses, and concluded there is no other way to explain it.
Now I readily admit I do not understand the mind of Jesus. How could I? Can a worm understand the mind of man? If Jesus was simply a role model, a man with a good message, He would be no different than George Washington. To be admired for sure, by worthy of worship? Absolutely not.
You should take these words to heart Hippie. There can be no argument about their wisdom:
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
February 22, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I have made a lifetime of reading what was written about Christ, believing it to be of Christ, and measured its prophetic nature. I took what the Bible said was, is, and even shall be, and observed what has happened. I compared it to my life, observed the physical universe, the nature of man, my own weaknesses, and concluded there is no other way to explain it.
Tex – please understand that in all sincerity I admire your faith. True faith is indeed something beautiful. There are times I wish that I indeed had it. People sometimes think that agnosticism is an easy way out. Believe me, it isn’t. To truly confront the idea that after death there is NOTHINGNESS and that all of this is MEANINGLESS is not an easy thing. I am not saying that I believe in the nothingness and meaninglessness of atheism – but I have indeed endured some very dark nights when I have confronted the possibility.
To reiterate, I greatly admire your faith.
Here is the kicker, though.
I have heard very similar comments from the faithful in other religions – from Buddhists and Hindus and Jews and Muslims. Their expressions of faith are every bit as sincere as yours. I admire their faith too.
How am I to judge which (if any) of you speak the true faith? I do not believe I am in any position to do so – and frankly I believe that none of you are really in a position to question the faith of others.
I am comfortable with the idea that all religions have a bit of the picture – and that none of them have the whole picture.
I suspect you are not comfortable with that idea – this conversation started with your asserting that Christianity was the one true faith.
This goes to my statement a few days ago that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives. I am comfortable with the idea that other religions might share in the “truth” – I suspect that you and other conservatives would not be willing to concede that.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 8:39 am |
That was 5 minutes I will never get back.
Standard course.
Minorities can’t be racist. Yawn.
The “academic” definition of racism that we all get shoved down our throat in Sociology 101 defies the real world where human relationships are not the macrocosm you dill weed professors love to wax the dolphin to.
One day I will tell you the story of how I watched my friend suck the end of a snub nose 38 while on his knees becuase he was too good at basketball and white. It’s amazing who is empowered and who isn’t on a school yard basketball court when a gun is involved.
Obama is or isn’t racist. Another yawn.
Like most people, Obama has been racist a few times in his life. He certainly was when he stereotyped the Cambridge Police Department over an issue he didn’t have the facts on. As a whole, he hung out with racists when he deemed it expedient.
I’m sure he is well versed in your university poop, but I doubt the man wakes up thinking how to screw the white man over.
Boring topic. Predicable prose. Read the same exact blog at Rutherford’s.
On a side note, I would pay 50 bucks to see you get self conscious and overly introspective while hanging out with black people far away from your ivory tower. Or for that matter, anyone in the blue collar community etc.
ps. Your not a Catholic if you believe killing a baby in the womb is acceptable. You’re just not. Dude, people have the balls to go to
Afghanistan and fight the Taliban, leaving everything they know at home. You can conjure up the balls to leave the church and strum your geeeetar with Unitarians or some shit. The church views it as a mortal sin.
pss. On another note. As I said at Rutherford’s. I WAS tempted to cite the professor that shot those people over lack of tenure as proof that you bestow way too much sunshine on your self created Mount Olympias you reserve for members of the collegiate science department.
I still can’t get over the irony of a 24 hour window in which you both claimed the infallible objectivity of scientists like yourself and the wrongheaded quackery about weather in your own backyard.
February 22, 2010 at 12:25 pm |
DR – good to see you back again – and again I am sorry about the spam issue earlier.
A few comments….
Boring topic. Predicable prose. Read the same exact blog at Rutherford’s.
Yadayadayada…. tell me, DR, what do you find interesting? You have made this same complaint about my blog before, and you have made it about Rutherford’s too. Maybe I need to change my ideas to make certain you find them interesting. Perhaps you should start your own blog so you can talk about things that interest you? (apologies if you do have a blog that I might have missed.)
You go on to say…. On a side note, I would pay 50 bucks to see you get self conscious and overly introspective while hanging out with black people far away from your ivory tower. Or for that matter, anyone in the blue collar community etc.
I guess you owe me 50 bucks, then. Seriously, you really love to make assumptions about me. I have plenty of blue collar folks in my family, thank you. I have worked blue collar jobs and I have blue collar friends. I don’t judge them. You, on the other hand, seem to be happy to judge me…
Hmmmm…. let me reconsider what I just said. There are plenty of people in blue collar jobs who did not have the educational opportunities I had. They didn’t have the money for college or perhaps had family circumstances that prevented them from pursuing higher education. Or, perhaps they have a love for what they do – I have a friend who is an auto mechanic and an absolute genius at it – it is the best job in the world for him because he LOVES it. Who am I to judge him.
I will be a tad judgmental about another group, though. As I have said, I was given lots of great educational opportunities – and I worked hard and made the most of them. I had friends in high school and college who were given the same opportunities – and chose not to take advantage of them. The spent high school drunk and/or stoned and loved to make fun of people like me who took school seriously. We all make choices. I chose to take school seriously. They chose not to. I have a better job than they do. Sorry – they have no right to resent me for that.
As I said at Rutherford’s. I WAS tempted to cite the professor that shot those people over lack of tenure as proof that you bestow way too much sunshine on your self created Mount Olympias you reserve for members of the collegiate science department.
Yeah – but we call it “going postal” instead of “going professorial” for a reason……
One day I will tell you the story of how I watched my friend suck the end of a snub nose 38 while on his knees becuase he was too good at basketball and white. It’s amazing who is empowered and who isn’t on a school yard basketball court when a gun is involved.
That sounds like an interesting – and frightening – story. Do you think whites incapable of such things?
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
You guys both have a knack for periodically writing boring shit, in particular your pieces on race.
What do you want me to say? Regurgitating and then applying the academic theory of race is boring, man.
We’ve all heard it before.
What would be cool is if you were willing to honestly debate it. But your not. Please see your simplistic question in response to my little story about what I saw happen to my friend. Why would you ask if whites are incapable of such things? Did you miss my point?
Power can’t be defined by broad social swipes and grand theories. I know that you know that i know that you know this.
Sadly, I have found your theory on “power” to be dogma in college classrooms. My theory isn’t cool enough to even be acknowledged. Yet every person living in the real world knows that your definition of racism is full of shit.
As for assuming things about you, I apologize. I suppose I was reading too much into your nick name.
I will say this, it’s been my experience that you academic liberals have a real hard time “being yourself” amongst the very people you think you are defending. In fact, I imagine you secretly classifying every person you ever meet so that they fit in your rigid notions of the machinery at play in society. But, then again, maybe it’s just my imagination.
February 25, 2010 at 1:19 pm |
Wow. That’s an odd tone to take to a post and two comments that were – as far as I can see – polite and respectful. Hippie hasn’t called anyone names. I love to follow these threads but am saddened when I see someone attacked for being honest.
February 22, 2010 at 8:39 am |
i think i’m banned here
February 22, 2010 at 9:56 am |
DR – you are most certainly not banned here. Nobody is banned, and I have never rejected a non-spam comment. In fact, I don’t have “moderator screening” turned on. I would never do so in anything less than extreme conditions. For some reason my spam filter grabbed your post – hopefully this will not happen again.
Anyway, good to have you here – I am about to head to work and will get back to comment on your mail post a little later.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 9:08 am |
Whether you believe you are Catholic HP isn’t really important. by definition the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize you and many many others. Unfortunately they tend not to make a big deal out of it as long as the pew pay function is working well. Sad.
I think you are biased beyond return due to your ingrained academic viewpoint. Although I don’t think Obama a racist in the traditional manner he is like way too many post modernist Americans racist,racialist,race something.
Barack Obama,Justice Sotomoyor and a litany of others on the right and left are more a part of the problem than the solution.
February 22, 2010 at 9:46 am |
Alfie said…. Whether you believe you are Catholic HP isn’t really important. by definition the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize you and many many others.
No – I think you are wrong. Like I told Tex, I am baptized and confirmed and indeed in the eyes of the church I AM Catholic. Now – there are certainly elements of the church that would claim I was a great sinner be cause I question the dogma. Other elements – Jesuits, for example – would respect my questioning.
An unexamined faith is no faith at all – it is rote memorization.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 11:27 am |
Hippie,
You may call yourself Catholic. But you are really no different than the Jew in Hollywood like Bill Maher who calls himself Jewish and atheist. It is irrational and illogical to do so. Maher has to reject the covenant between Abraham and God, reject the entire message of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, and Solomon, reject the prophets, etc…It makes you both sound crazy and uneducated about the history of your banner of religion and core tenets of faith.
Another question. Why would you bother to attend a mass if you reject what the mass stands for? Why would you take communion? Do you lie each time you read the Apostolic Creed?
I hope you realize your claims of the Catholic faith when analyzed are a non sequitur.
February 22, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Tex said….
Another question. Why would you bother to attend a mass if you reject what the mass stands for? Why would you take communion? Do you lie each time you read the Apostolic Creed?
Tex, you seem to be unable to grasp what I mean by agnostic. I have not said that I reject the beliefs of the church – I have said that I don’t know. Those are very different things.
As a matter of fact, I do quite a bit of self-reflection when I recite the creed. Honest self reflection is the antithesis of lying.
Why do I attend mass? Why do I sing in the choir? Because the church is a community and it is a culture – and that community and culture transcend what is prescribed as beliefs.
You know – I try my best to live a moral life. I certainly fail at times – but I indeed try my best. Do you want to know why I first started to drift away from the church’s teachings? It is because I encountered people who professed great faith and belief in the ideals of the church – yet were true a$$holes when it came to living a moral life.
Who is the better Christian? The person who honestly questions some beliefs while trying to live a moral – dare I say Christian – life, or the person who claims great faith but makes no attempt to be moral?
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Hippie, at the risk of proselytizing which is not my intent:
You fail to grasp the nonsense of your own claims. The very first words of the Apostolic Creed are “I believe”, not “I don’t know”. You’re not being truthful with yourself.
But you’ve got the purpose of a mass exactly backwards, which is an affront to the One you question. The worship and glorification of Christ and your own redemption are the purpose of a mass. The sense of community and culture are a by product of that purpose. If you’re only looking for a sense of belonging and culture, you can get that from your rock band and be almost as meaningful.
I have no doubt I would like you Hippie. I do here. But trying to live a moral life is irrelevant without a standard to measure your morals. You are not qualified to state you live a moral life, and neither am I. Most people believe they live a moral life, yet there is not one of us that does. We all fail and fall short of the glory of God. That is a purpose of your mass – the very admission you do not live a moral life.
Do you know that God would consider your good and moral works as “filthy rags”? And those filthy rags aren’t referring to cleaning up the Harley. Same with my works. That is biblical and without dispute. Ask my opinion, to even make the statement, “I try to live a moral life” is sheer foolishness, because none of us can live a moral life with complete obedience to Jesus Christ. And none of us are capable of doing as much – not the Pope, not Mohammad, not Tex, not Mother Theresa, nor Barack Obama; none of us.
So here is what I would tell you Hippie. Something my mother once explained to me when I complained of the hypocrites in the church and how they interfered with my faith – and yes, the hypocrites are legion. My mom said, “What better place for them to be?”
Don’t make the mistake of judging a Holy and Righteous God on account of fallible men. Yes, we are called as Christians to exemplify Christ. But we are as imperfect as you are. You look in the wrong place. You’ll never find God if you simply look to man, because salvation comes from within and man is not capable of reaching your soul Hippie.
You need to let go and let Christ be your example. As a Christian, I profess the good news of Jesus Christ. But Hippie, without even knowing me, you can tell I’m a far cry from saint. If you were to try to find Jesus through me, you would be sorely disappointed. I’m as flawed as you are, but I have one recognition that you don’t. I know the one who is without flaw – and of that, I am sure.
February 22, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Very well said Tex. Masterful and completely true. He who is without flaw is He who we worship. The Man and the Glory, Jesus Christ. I could not have said it better myself.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 22, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Informed mind said…
Very well said Tex. Masterful and completely true. He who is without flaw is He who we worship. The Man and the Glory, Jesus Christ. I could not have said it better myself.
OK – I have heard similar statements before. Here is a question – one I have asked many times in the past but for which I have never received a very good answer.
In both the Old Testament and the New Testament God is described as doing things that would seem to me to indicate flaws. For example, God is prone to anger – even rage. I would consider anger and rage as emotions indicative of a flaw.
It seems like we are left with two possibilities then: Either God is in fact not without flaw, or the Bible cannot be taken literally and perhaps is not a particularly accurate description of what God is. I don’t think you or Tex would want to accept either of those options.
– hp
BTW – I am working my way to your longer post – I haven’t ignored it.
February 22, 2010 at 8:35 pm
For some reason Tex made me finally understand the Protestant “faith alone” concept. I superficially have always understood it. But never really could wrap my mind around it and “see it”.
Personally, I have faith (sometimes) that Jesus makes the choice to consider good works.
I think that is where Catholics are coming from.
February 23, 2010 at 11:51 am
D.R.,
You’re not confused D.R. Grace is provided through Christ and there is nothing you can humanly do to earn that. The confusion stems to the best of my knowledge from a verse in James that says, “Faith without works is dead.”
And that is true.
The works themselves are not your redemption because your redemption can not be earned, but an indicator of your obedience and testimony to your obedience. In other words, if you really believe, the belief should manifest yourself in your own works.
Mockers attempt to use it as a roadblock to stir up confusion, as our Professor did from above is his reference to Leviticus. It’s the oldest trick in the book, and I believe I could explain that one to, given time. But it would take some doing and I’ve cluttered the board enough. Even then, the Professor really should ask a Jew to explain it, being you and I do not live under the Law. If we did, we’d have a blood sacrifice out in our backyard every Sabbath.
February 23, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Tex said…. Grace is provided through Christ and there is nothing you can humanly do to earn that.
Except faith, right? I thought you claimed that Grace is earned via faith – and hence it is humanly possible to earn it by being faithful. You are not going Calvinist on me are you?
You go on to say…. The works themselves are not your redemption because your redemption can not be earned, but an indicator of your obedience and testimony to your obedience.
OK – suppose a person with a lifetime of strong faith screws up and does something really wrong – they commit a mortal sin. Before they have time to reflect on it and atone for it – boom – they are flattened by a bus. The traditional Catholic interpretation is that they are on the fast train to hell. My understanding from conversations with those of Protestant persuasion is that indeed they are not headed to hell because their faith will take them to heaven.
Am I correct in that description?
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Tex said: Mockers attempt to use it as a roadblock to stir up confusion, as our Professor did from above is his reference to Leviticus.
Here is another recent invocation of Leviticus.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/crimesider/entry6235745.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.6
I don’t know how I can possibly argue with such deep scholarship.
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Hmmm…Well, I am not sure how to respond to the deep scholarship either. Sigh. Sometimes it is difficult to argue with the heretics, and have clean up the dummies messes who believe they side with you at the same time.
I won’t the one picking up the first stone, nor the last. However, it is clear that homosexuality is considered an abomination Hippie. I need not go to Leviticus to read that. Nor do I need the Bible to determine that. I can look at the equipment furnished us to figure that one out.
Let’s see…N.T. Romans, Chapter 1
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
February 25, 2010 at 1:22 pm |
So you are saying that for Muslims to be real Muslims they must adhere to every tenet of their religion, even when they disagree? So they cannot oppose Sharia law or they’re not Muslims?
If that’s so, we’re in a world of hurt.
February 22, 2010 at 11:16 am |
lol…how are you “examining” your faith if you are not “examining” abortion? Watch abortions. Truly witness what takes place. See exactly how it’s done with your own eyes. Learn about the baby in a womb. Devote weeks of study to it. That’s how you examine your faith.
If you come back and decide that hacking up human beings with eyebrows and REM sleep so that a woman can afford community college or Starbucks is your cup of tea, then the dishes are done, man. You got to go.
You probably take communion every Sunday too.
I too question my faith. But I don’t get up and take communion either. I also realize that mortal sin is mortal sin.
February 22, 2010 at 12:42 pm |
DR said….
lol…how are you “examining” your faith if you are not “examining” abortion? Watch abortions. Truly witness what takes place.
Again, you are making lots of assumptions about me DR. My views on abortion are pretty complex – and I won’t be able to go over them in detail here. Suffice it to say that it is something I have thought about a lot. Besides, this post is not about my views on abortion.
For the record, I think abortion is an awful thing. I would never want to be party to one occurring – I would probably never forgive myself if I was. This became especially clear to me after having my own children – to realize that how easy – and how wrong – it would have been to terminate that pregnancy.
I have made a moral decision to not be a party to abortion. What I will not do is make that moral decision for someone else. Yeah – I know you will claim that “pro choice, anti-abortion” is a cop-out. It is not. It is, in fact, a rather nuanced position that one arrives at after considerable thought and consideration.
The church does indeed consider abortion to be a mortal sin. My conscience is clear here. I have never participated in an abortion and I have never counseled someone to have an abortion. If someone does choose to have an abortion, that is between them and their God. Who am I to judge that?
I would also note that there are many mortal sins that are perfectly legal. Lets take adultery, for example. It is a mortal sin, but we do not (in modern western nations) make laws against it. The matter is between the adulterer and his or her God, and it is not for me to judge.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 11:35 am |
HP,
I agree totally with both Alfie and Tex. Your statement that one cannot be racist unless his/her race is in power is insane. Even though the Ku Klux Klan’s race is in power, none of those in office share their views. Does that make their racist ideology any less racist and reprehensible? And at whichever point that the white population of this country ceases to be the majority race does that mean that the Ku Klux Klan is no longer racist?
Moving on to the point about Jeremiah Wright and church attendance. Church is supposed to be where you go to fellowship with other believers that have your same beliefs and to grow in faith through the preaching of the word of God. If I was a Pentecostal Christian I most certainly would not attend (or make my home church) a Catholic or Baptist church. It seems that church goers are all to often going just for the socialization and not for the spiritual nourishment and growth through listening to God’s word preached. Since you don’t agree with the church’s teachings, why don’t you find another church more becoming of your beliefs? The basic tenets of the church include that abortion is murder and that gay marriage is against God’s word. If my friends were in a church that I didn’t agree with or my beliefs did not meld with the church’s, I’m sure there is some other place to meet up with them without being in a place where my beliefs are not welcome.
As for Barack Obama, a supposedly brilliant man, excellent at controlling his message and image, why would he stay in the church that espoused hatred of America, hatred of white people (“Hillary ain’t never been called a *N-word*”) and ‘black theology’. David Cone, one of the heroes of Jeremiah Wright stated that:
“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. ”
Wow, sounds a lot like Jihad only the perpetrators are black liberationists instead of Islamic Jihadists. THIS IS THE CHURCH OBAMA ATTENDED? If my pastor admitted respect or admiration for the Ku Klux Klan I would run from that church as fast as I could and tell others not to go there as well. There are two possible reasons why Obama did not leave that church. 1. He didn’t hear any of those sermons about ‘God D*mn America’ or ‘Hillary ain’t never been called a *N-word*’. This is highly suspect as he was there for 20+ years. 2. He agrees with the man. There are no other options.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http:/aninformedmind.wordpress.com
(from William R Jones, “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology”)
February 22, 2010 at 2:39 pm |
Informed mind….
I have put off responding to this comment because it will take a bit – and now I find myself with perhaps too little time before I go off and teach. I will do my best.
Lets start with the long quote from David Cone:
“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. ”
Wow. Powerful stuff. It certainly sounds racist to me…..
Except it really isn’t.
Here is a paraphrase of what Cone said: “I reject the gods of those who enslaved me, and I seek gods who will free me from enslavement.”
Worded that way, it sounds a bit more reasonable, does it not? In fact, it sounds downright rational to me.
We have a biblical precedent too. Think about Moses. What did he do? He rejected the Gods of those who enslaved his people and sought out a God who would liberate him from slavery. With the help of that God he indeed brought all manner of plague and pestilence and death and famine down upon the Egyptians. In fact, it is a fair to say that Moses and his God participated in the destruction of the enslaving Egyptians.
Are you willing to call Moses a racist? What Moses did, as described in the bible, is EXACTLY what David cone is talking about in the passage you quote.
I have to get ready for class. I will be very interested in your response.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 3:24 pm |
HP,
Paraphrases are illegitimate. If Cone wanted to say that, he would have said that. I could paraphrase ‘Thou shalt not kill’ into ‘kill as many people as you want in whatever way you want’. It wouldn’t mean the same thing. Paraphrases are very tricky, especially when the paraphrase is done by someone who has a bias towards making the original statement ‘acceptable’ to society.
As to your mentioning Moses. Moses did not say ‘I refuse to accept a God that is not identified totally with the goals of the Hebrew society. If God is not for us and against the Egyptians, He is not really God and we should kill Him.” Moses knew God, accepted Him and was lead by Him. He did not try to fit God into a box that was acceptable to him and Hebrews in Egypt. God is God and all that He does is pure and perfect. The ‘god’ that Cone speaks of is a hateful ‘god’ who is not good or pure or loving. Moses said what God said to say and he lead the Hebrews out of Egypt and didn’t do it by saying, “We gotta kill all those Egyptians that oppressed us.” On the contrary to that, very few Egyptians died due to the plagues of Egypt, as opposed to what Cone seems to want to inflict upon white people.
As to you saying that Moses sought out a God that would help him: Moses did not seek out a God that would help him, God revealed himself to Moses and commanded him to lead the Hebrews. Moses wanted freedom for himself and his people. He got it through remarkably un-violent ways. Most revolutions are bloody and violent and include many evil actions. Moses and the Hebrews left Egypt with the spoil of Egypt and with very little bloodshed of the Egyptians. Moses was not a racist in that he hated the oppression, but not because it came from Egyptians. He hated it in general.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
PS: Your argument for his words was really quite weak. Paraphrasing his words with your own is not viable refutation of his violent call to action. If he didn’t mean violence against white people, he should come out and say it. And you seem to be actually condoning his words through trying to explain them into acceptability.
February 22, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Informed Mind said: On the contrary to that, very few Egyptians died due to the plagues of Egypt, as opposed to what Cone seems to want to inflict upon white people.
I have to run out and pick up kids – but I want to get a quick response off.
Apparently killing all of the firstborn sons isn’t significant? I absolutely guarantee that if a group of militant blacks managed to kill off the firstborn of every white person in America you would find it quite upsetting. Even if we controlled for the different population sizes you would find it very upsetting and very significant.
Don’t fool yourself – we are talking about the exact same thing here – a release from the bondage of slavery and oppression accomplished via violence. Apparently that is OK if it is in the Bible.
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 6:39 pm
HP,
The difference here is that we are talking about Moses and Cone as if they are equals. Moses led his people out of bondage, Cone created an imaginary bondage as a call to arms to eliminate the ‘white enemy’. There is no comparison between a bitter, violent black man who sees race as a dividing line and the white race population as the enemy and Moses who was trying to end oppression as his God commanded.
Again, this goes back to the actions of God being above our thoughts and ways. God was justified in what He did, I can’t explain why, I already said so. Sometimes to us God’s actions seem unfair or wrong, yet as He is perfectly holy we cannot question our Maker’s actions. On the other hand, Cone was trying to foment violence through human and entirely unacceptable ways. Cone is denying the very God that Moses was led by. Cone apparently believes that men are greater than gods because no person can kill a god. If God were against the black people, no black person could change that. God is calling out for all to repent and turn to Him through His Son Jesus Christ but eventually the judgment day comes and the chances for repentance ends. There is no racism with God. He loves all men equally, the Jew and the Arab, the white and the black, the European and Asian. No one is loved more or less by God.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 23, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Informed Mind said: Moses led his people out of bondage, Cone created an imaginary bondage as a call to arms to eliminate the ‘white enemy’.
Whoa whoa whoa!
First – we are talking about James Hal Cone – not David Cone as you mentioned in your first post. David Cone was the 1994 AL Cy Young winner, and pitched a perfect game for the Yankees. I don’t think he has much to say about black liberation theology….
James Hal Cone was born in 1938 in Arkansas. That means he spent the first 28 years of his life living in the pre-Civil Rights Jim Crow south. Do you SERIOUSLY contend that he created an “IMAGINARY BONDAGE”?
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 8:13 pm
HP,
I realized too late that I singled out the wrong Cone, apologies to all involved
However, while he did spend much of his life under Jim Crow laws in the south, that is hardly the same as what the Hebrews endured under the Pharaohs in Egypt for 400 years. I think that Jim Crow laws were horrible travesties that robbed many of their dignity and God-given rights as free men. However, the slavery era is more of a comparison to Israel in bondage than Jim Crow.
Also, yes to a large degree I do contend that his bondage was largely imaginary. Even under Jim Crow, the vast majority of blacks did not use those heinous laws as justification for violent and explosive language such as he did. And I think he exploited that bondage as a basis for his racism and belief that white people in general were evil. When Cone says this: “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’” That sounds pretty racist to me.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 23, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Informed Mind said: Also, yes to a large degree I do contend that his bondage was largely imaginary. Even under Jim Crow, the vast majority of blacks did not use those heinous laws as justification for violent and explosive language such as he did.
Perhaps – just maybe – because they were lynched for stepping out of line? Even for stepping out of line in non-violent ways?
I don’t know how old you are – but I am old enough (just barely) to remember the south before Civil Rights. Half of my family lived in the deep south and they ranged from mildly prejudiced to fire breathing racists. Even the ones who claimed they were not racists qualified it with “as long as the ni&&@r$ don’t get uppity.” There was a very clear penalty for uppity blacks. Southern whites in the early 60s were OK with “Uncle Toms” – but God help them if they stepped out of line.
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 10:55 pm
HP,
I will admit that I am too young to see firsthand the Jim Crow era in the south. In fact I have never lived in the south either. However, using half of your family as a microcosm of the entire white population is disingenuous at best and downright fallacious at worst. A small sample of white racist persons in the south does not make the entire race so. I am sure that there was a sizable (and powerful) minority that were extremely racist and carried out acts of violence against blacks that became too outspoken in their eyes. (The KKK and other hate groups come to mind.) However, saying that the feared repercussions was enough to make blacks silent or un-provocative is asinine. Booker T. Washington spoke out against racism, yet he did so in a way that did not classify the entire white race as racist. And he did it in a time where there was even more danger to black people than under Jim Crow.
Here you are stereotyping the black people as a monolithic entity that had the same fears, thoughts, emotions and actions with little disparity. You are essentially saying that black people were either, A. Fearful and thus silent, or B. Secretly admiring and agreeing with Cone that white people in general were the enemy instead of racism itself. There have been many people throughout history that have spoken out despite grave threats and danger, yet they didn’t classify an entire race as racist. As such, the majority of black people, while hating the oppression and racism shown by many whites, did not hate the whites because they were white. Seeing racism firsthand made many realize the absolute insanity of hating a person or race because of melanin (or lack thereof).
Liberals haven’t all smoked pot, Conservatives aren’t ready to nuke anyone at any time, libertarians aren’t anarchists. Black people aren’t all good at basketball, white people aren’t all rich and suburban, Asians aren’t all good in school and Latinos don’t all jump the border. The point is, stereotyping an entire group of people is unproductive and false. You basically stereotyped the entire white population south of the Mason-Dixon line circa 1960s as racist.
Yes I agree that black people have been treated badly in the south AND the north in past years. Yes Jim Crow laws were evil, heinous. However, that gives no rights to current blacks to play the victim card when the playing field has been leveled and racism is only a factor in a very small majority of persons. If everyone that was ever oppressed could have a beef with everyone that has oppressed them before, the whole world would be at war over past injustices. The Jews (Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, Assyrians etc.), the Native Americans, the Aborigines of Australia and Canada, the Ethiopians (Italy in WWII etc.), the Boers of Africa, the Poles, Swedes, people from Belarus, Chinese (Japan), Japanese (China), North Koreans, South Koreans, Vietnamese, Indians (Britain), etc. The list goes on and on.
Oppression needs to be addressed wherever it rears its ugly head. But there is little oppression against blacks in America anymore with the exception of self-created oppression and big government oppression that makes black people more and more dependent on the state. And making a generation removed from Jim Crow (and who sees the evil thereof and has no prejudice toward blacks) pay through AA or making us PC by not allowing us to speak out against racists like Cone or Wright is making us atone for the sins of our fathers. Martin Luther King Jr. said that we should be judged by the content of our character and not by the color of our skin. That sounds pretty anti-affirmative action to me, but that’s for another topic.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 24, 2010 at 8:49 am
Informed Mind said:
However, using half of your family as a microcosm of the entire white population is disingenuous at best and downright fallacious at worst.
I wasn’t trying to use my family as a microcosm of southern society – I was just trying to establish that I had indeed traveled in the south during the Jim Crow era, and that I had interacted with southerners of that time. To be honest, I suspect most of my family was on the more tolerant end of the scale – to my knowledge none of my family was in the KKK or anything close. They were generally well educated middle class folks. For example, my Grandfather was a retired Admiral and a highly respected citizen in the small town in which he lived. He wasn’t the type of person who would spew racial hatred in public. But – if you sat and talked to him – indeed the racism would come out. Remember, I am talking about the mid sixties – immediately prior to the passage of the civil rights act. MLK and others were described as “uppity rabble rousers who didn’t know their place.” I was told that blacks had best be careful lest they “get what was coming to them.”
You are right that my personal experiences of the south cannot be used to stereotype the whole region – but I have read Anouilh about the south that is consistent with my impressions. I didn’t read “To Kill a Mockingbird” until years after civil rights had passed – but it immediately rang true to me. That is what it was like. Sure – there was an occasional Atticus Finch – but they were few and far between.
Oppression needs to be addressed wherever it rears its ugly head. But there is little oppression against blacks in America anymore with the exception of self-created oppression and big government oppression that makes black people more and more dependent on the state.
I think that there is very little overt repression – but don’t fool yourself – the racism still exists – it is simply a lot more subtle. I wrote something about that quite a while back:
http://hippieprofessor.com/2009/09/16/the-subtlety-of-modern-racism/
Look – here is perhaps something we can agree on. I much prefer the message of Dr. King to that of Malcolm X or Rev Cone. King advocated for a peaceful uprising – and I obviously have the greatest respect for his mission.
Still, much as I prefer the peaceful message, I cannot condemn the angry violent reactions that Malcolm and Cone and others have had. I don’t like their anger – in fact it scares me – but if I am honest with myself I believe that their anger was justified by the intolerable conditions they experienced. Had I lived under such conditions I suspect I would be angry as well.
– hp
February 24, 2010 at 11:05 am
HP,
If you would have read a previous statement, I acknowledged that racism still exists in a small portion of society. However, due to the sinful and fallen nature of man, no government or law can extinguish that. Back in the sixties there were far more racists than there are now. By now most of the old, hardened racists have died off and their children and grandchildren are more tolerant and respectful of other races.
However, to your point about Malcolm X and Cone; their is a definitive difference between anger and racism. You state that if you had been treated as blacks were in the pre-Civil Rights south you would be angry as well. So would I. However, allowing today’s racist black people to use the past as justification really brings us no closer to inter-racial harmony then the KKK did back then. I can be rightfully angry with my sister, a black friend or a Hispanic co-worker. This does not mean that I have a license to be racist against the latter two or sexist against the former.
And you shouldn’t fool yourself into thinking that Cone or Malcolm X would have any less problem with you than any other white person back then. Extreme racism in blacks, as in whites, does not differentiate between a white person with no prejudice toward blacks and a KKK member. White racists didn’t think any higher of an outspoken but respectful black man like Cosby or a black man with violent, anti-white ideology like Malcolm X.
Racism is not based on attitude but on color. I for instance can’t stand Malcolm X for his vitriolic and violent ways, yet I like Condoleeza Rice, Bill Cosby (Yes I know he voted for Obama) and Thomas Sowell. I do not discriminate based on color. I choose whom I respect based upon their character and actions. Yet racists like a KKK member hate all blacks regardless of their character.
I have the utmost respect for what King did through his peaceful protests and trying to bring blacks and whites together. The reason why, besides the underlying message of racial harmony, is because he did exactly that. He tried to bring us together, rather than X or Cone trying to destroy the other, either figuratively or literally. King was a great man that realized that harmony was the goal rather than victory. Perhaps the race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson and racists like Jeremiah Wright could take a lesson from his playbook.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 22, 2010 at 11:42 am |
HP,
I also agree with DR in that you cannot claim to be a true Christian or Catholic without believing in the tenets of the faith.
I agree with DR in that if you witnessed abortions firsthand you would likely have a different opinion. I’ll write more later.
PS: My first reply was started before the comments started flowing but finished after. Evidence of why the disparity between what I said and not mentioning everyone else’s comments.
February 22, 2010 at 12:53 pm |
I find this whole topic rather silly (because I don’t have much interest in it) but I will try to play along and use no fabrications. Just facts, as you requested.
1. Candidate Obama described his grandmother, whom he said feared people of color, as a “typical white person.” That could be seen as a racist comment.
Are there “typical” white people? Not really. Describing one white person as “typical” while at the same time pointing out that person’s prejudices would be somewhat racist as it strongly implies that all whites fear minorities or hold the same “typical” white views — “typical” views which can be attributed to an entire race do not exist to a non-racist.
2. Blaming [white] police officers while siding with a black professor (when he had just stated he didn’t know the facts of the matter) could be another example of being predisposed to racism. If no facts are known what would cause Obama to immediately side with a black man?
“I have argued that it is impossible for Obama to be a racist because in order to be a racist you must actually have power over the other racial group – and certainly blacks do not have such power in America. ”
I have read your arguments regarding the above statement and this statement is without a doubt one of the most idiotic things I have ever read. Sometimes it is best to use a dictionary and just accept the definition without trying to redefine it. This quickly devolves into a “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” exercise and none of your arguments do anything to support changing the accepted definition of racism, especially when it concerns the most powerful man in the free world… not having enough power?
Anyway, back on topic, I have given two concrete examples of how/why Obama has been “perceived” as racist by some and neither is guilt by association. For many, perception becomes reality and these are two events that may have caused many to percieve Obama as racist.
February 22, 2010 at 1:58 pm |
Hey J….
Hmm… you start with….
I find this whole topic rather silly (because I don’t have much interest in it)
Well, DR is bored here too – perhaps you need to visit his blog….
But, seriously now:
1. Candidate Obama described his grandmother, whom he said feared people of color, as a “typical white person.” That could be seen as a racist comment.
That is very very borderline. The use of the word “typical” is a bit problematic – but note that the word “typical” is not required to convey the meaning of the statement. The statement could easily be reworded to say “Many white people fear people of color. My grandmother was one of those.” Nobody could claim that such a statement is racist.
So – I will concede that it was sloppy use of language. If there were a huge number of those out there I might be more willing to concede racist intent.
2. Blaming [white] police officers while siding with a black professor (when he had just stated he didn’t know the facts of the matter) could be another example of being predisposed to racism. If no facts are known what would cause Obama to immediately side with a black man?
I have said elsewhere that Obama bungled the Gates affair. But – you ask a good question – why did he side with the black man not knowing the details? Perhaps because racial profiling by the police is part of the experience of virtually every African American in the US? Put that to a test sometime – ask a black person if they have ever been harassed by police for simply walking down the street or driving through a white neighborhood. My black students are regularly stopped by police for the “crime” of walking across their own campus.
I understand you don’t like my definition of racism – so lets do it without using the word “racism.”
Person A holds negative stereotypical attitudes about the race of person B. Person A’s race has historically held great power over person B’s race, even to the point of person A once being able to legally own person B.
Person B holds negative stereotypical attitudes about the race of person A. Person A’s race has historically held great power over person B’s race, even to the point of person A once being able to legally own person B.
I would suggest that, whatever you want to call it, those are two very different things.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 4:00 pm |
“…but note that the word “typical” is not required to convey the meaning of the statement.”
But it was used. That’s the point.
“The statement could easily be reworded to say…”
But it wasn’t.
The way the statement was worded was construed by many to have racial undertones. Changing the words used in the statement to remove any racial undertones changes the actual statement.
“because racial profiling by the police is part of the experience of virtually every African American in the US?”
So you are saying that Obama’s views regarding race have been shaped by the racial profiling experience shared by virtually all blacks towards whites… and this further dissuades those pinning the racist label on Obama how?
He definitely made a very poor choice of words in each case, on that we are in total agreement. Looking at his associations to confirm Obama’s racism is then made just a little more plausible for those seeking to pin the racist label on Obama, whether true or not.
February 23, 2010 at 9:23 am
J. Smith said (regarding Obama’s use of the word “typical.”)
But it was used. That’s the point.
I have taken a while to get back to you on this because I wanted to think through it a bit. After having done so, I have concluded that while use of the word “typical” is unfortunate (because it invokes a stereotype) in this case it is not racist because the stereotype isn’t particularly pejorative. The word “typical” can obviously be used to invoke a positive stereotype. If Obama said “like a typical white person my grandmother was well educated and articulate” the (false) stereotype he is invoking would not be considered racist because it is positive.
Is it pejorative to say that the “typical” white person has a fear of colored people? Is that a negative stereotype? I don’t think so. You may claim that I am being too easy on Obama here – but I don’t think I am.
Regarding the Gates affair, again I believe he bungled it. You do admit, don’t you, that the early news reports certainly sounded like an incident of racial profiling? That was certainly what jumped into my mind. I know that police departments do in fact engage in such profiling (I even ran some statistics on it regarding practices of our local police department) – and the initial facts we had in this case – a distinguished black professor arrested in his own home – certainly fit the pattern.
Obama made a mistake by speaking out on the matter before he had all of the facts. His conclusion was not unreasonable given the facts he had.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
DR has no blog
February 22, 2010 at 1:53 pm |
Sorry about the quotation’s source being at the end of the post. It got screwed up when I transferred it.
February 22, 2010 at 2:13 pm |
Hippie, again I don’t mean to turn your own blog into the 1st Baptist Church of Tex but at the risk…
Quite true. And if it weren’t for the Jews, I might concede you have a great point. But none of those religions have two things that mine does. And understand that the Jew and Christianity are not diametrically opposed. We believe everything the Jews do within scripture with one proviso. The seek their messiah. We believe the messiah they will soon find died for our sins to return again. They have missed their own requirement for a blood sacrifice. I won’t bother that further as that really does require more time and gets incredibly deep. But I have debated many a person claiming a rabbi before – and it never gets too far before my questions can be answered without stepping foot outside the Old Testament.
But here’s the kicker back to you. None of these religions you listed short of Judaism (and it is incomplete), nor any other you will find provide what Christianity does: (1) A personal relationship with a perfect God. Man does not work his way to heaven through his good works. God provides the gift freely to anyone for the taking through His own sacrifice; (2) The “faith” of predicting what is to come.
And part of that has already been fulfilled. Look to Jerusalem Hippie. The covenant with Abraham still holds. You’ve seen part of it in your own lifetime. Do you know how many of those prophecies have already been fulfilled and you fail to fully absorb the supernatural aspect of it? Gog, Magog, Meshech, Tubal, and Rosh ring any bells? The rise of Israel as a nation?
I am incredibly comfortable with saying Christianity, based on the Judaic message of the Old Testament and fulfilled by the New Testament through Jesus Christ, is the one true faith. But don’t take it on my account, because my account doesn’t mean anything. Why don’t you take it on Christ’s account, because that is exactly what He said? That is the reason of the mass you attend.
I’ll leave it at that Hippie. My intent is not to browbeat or even to proselytize, but to simply point out the flaws in your logic. I am glad you are still seeking answers, because with that there is always hope.
February 22, 2010 at 5:20 pm |
Tex said….
I am incredibly comfortable with saying Christianity, based on the Judaic message of the Old Testament and fulfilled by the New Testament through Jesus Christ, is the one true faith. But don’t take it on my account, because my account doesn’t mean anything. Why don’t you take it on Christ’s account, because that is exactly what He said? That is the reason of the mass you attend.
Certainly Tex you see some circularity in your argument here? Like this:
Tex says: I am incredibly comfortable with saying Christianity, based on the Bible, is the one true faith.
hp says: How do you know that?
Tex says: Because Christ said it was.
hp says: How do know Christ is correct?
Tex says: Because Christ is the Son of God.
hp says: How do you know Christ is the Son of God?
Tex says: Because it says so in the Bible.
I am not meaning to pick holes in your faith – and in fact faith need not be logical. Still, I feel compelled to point out circularity when I see it.
One other point. You note:
Man does not work his way to heaven through his good works. God provides the gift freely to anyone for the taking through His own sacrifice
This is an interesting difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholics do indeed feel that you get to heaven through good works – or at least through an absence of bad works. As you note, Protestants don’t. It has always struck me as odd that in Protestant theology an unrepentant sinner could enter heaven, yet a person who lived a saintly life but did not avow Christianity could not enter heaven. Seems backwards to me.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 8:39 pm |
Hippie,
Did you know that besides quoting me correctly by copying, you either misconstrued, added, misquoted, or simply fibbed in every point you tried to refute?
That was pitiful…sigh. And no, even your knowledge of Catholicism is bunk. Matter of fact, I’m beginning to wonder if you have bothered to even listen to one thing said in a mass. I mean, you are absolutely clueless concerning this subject at hand. No Catholics do not believe “you work your way” into heaven. That is a complete bald faced lie.
I’ll be back later to refute everything you said.
February 22, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Tex said….. I’ll be back later to refute everything you said.
Tex – don’t bother. I have 12 years of formal Catholic education plus a lifetime of thinking about Catholicism. I know what I know.
Here is a pretty decent two part article on the issue. Note that it is written by someone not particularly fond of Catholicism. The article is pretty long, but here is the conclusion:
So the conclusion to this article is that the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) clearly teaches salvation by faith plus works. However, the Bible teaches people are saved by grace through faith apart from works (Rom 4:6; Eph 2:8,9; Gal 2:16).
It is not the greatest article – but it is the first relevant thing that showed up when I googled “Catholicism and salvation.” It also conforms quite closely to what I have been taught.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 2:35 pm |
Hippie,
Do you not believe justice often times requires righteous anger? There is no sin in anger Hippie. I doubt Jesus was smiling and whistling happy tunes when He grabbed the whip at the temple.
————————–
The mistake you make by even asking that question, is you framed your question incorrectly to Informed Mind. You can’t ask that question with validity because you don’t understand the issue at hand.
To ask that question, you have to make yourself the measure of all things. You believe in the sovereignty of yourself, and frankly you are not qualified. Neither I am. You attempt to put yourself in the role only Christ worthy to fulfill. If you are going to get an answer to your question Hippie, you will need to ask it differently.
Something like, “Why does Almighty God allow me, an imperfect, flawed, unworthy human, knowing everything I think, and do, and say, not wipe me from existence? Why did He even bother to make me?” Learn to ask the question that way, and you will have your answer.
February 22, 2010 at 2:38 pm |
Does WordPress have a difficult time applying responses to the correction questions, or am I just too dumb to recognize which response corresponds to which question?
I’d turn that reply button off if it were my blog until they get their bug fixed.
February 22, 2010 at 2:48 pm |
Tex – I think I figured it out. WordPress allows you to set a limit on how deeply nested comment threads can be. Mine was set to 3 levels. I have increased it to 6 – hopefully that will solve the problem.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 2:52 pm |
Though now with 6 levels of nesting the deeper comments are in REALLY narrow columns. I will have to play with this.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I N O T I C E D!!!
February 22, 2010 at 4:35 pm |
Amazing how a simple call for evidence backing up a statement resulted in a flood of irrelevant arguments (mostly circular, since they assume that which they seek to prove), plus a few restatements of the original claims for racism which haven’t improved in the repetition.
February 22, 2010 at 5:01 pm |
Quite the contrary.
Hippie’s own statements of faith and how they were derived told me exactly what I needed to know in how he formulates his worldview of everything else. And that is exactly what we are discussing.
The fact that the secular mind doesn’t recognize this fact doesn’t invalidate the most basic of truths.
February 22, 2010 at 4:55 pm |
HP,
You leave out a third option. God is above us and His ways are above our ways. Since our minds are polluted with the influence of sin, we cannot comprehend how rage (which in humans is a evil thing) can be holy with God. While we cannot comprehend His mind or His ways, we can know that He is holy and his actions are perfect regardless of how we perceive them.
Since I am a sinful person, I cannot attempt to explain His holiness or His actions, but I can say that His actions are perfect. For instance He says that He is a jealous God. Perhaps you are confusing rage with eventual judgment. For He says, “I am a merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness.” (Not sure which verse exactly, but I can find it if given enough time.) He gives all multiple opportunities to repent and turn from their wicked ways and to Him. But eventually time runs out and judgment comes. I’m sure this won’t satisfy you, but it is something that we must accept in faith.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 22, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
Informed Mind said: You leave out a third option. God is above us and His ways are above our ways. Since our minds are polluted with the influence of sin, we cannot comprehend how rage (which in humans is a evil thing) can be holy with God. While we cannot comprehend His mind or His ways, we can know that He is holy and his actions are perfect regardless of how we perceive them.
You are right – I did leave out that option. It does seem to imply, does it not, that our descriptions of God, as found in the Bible, are at best imperfect reflections of something that is indeed beyond our comprehension? If this is the case, then indeed the Bible cannot be taken as a literal description of God because humans do not possess the capacity for such.
Your argument actually forms the basis for my claim (presented earlier) that all religions may capture some of the essence of God – but none capture it all. Hence the Bible and the Koran are both correct in their way because they seek to describe the same thing – yet both are incomplete as well because they fail to capture it fully.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 5:45 pm |
HP,
Wrong again, God chose what to reveal of himself in the Bible through human authors. God can be both incomprehensible and absolute. God can be infinite and His actions incomprehensible yet we can know who He is and how He chose to reveal Himself to us and how He offered to save us through the blood of His Son on Calvary.
In Islam, Muhammed denies that Christ is the Son of God: “Allah begetteth not nor is He begotten.” yet in Christianity Jesus says, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” (John 14:10) and “No one comes to the Father but through me.” John 14:6 NASB. How then can these two be compatible? They cannot. The Bible is how God chose to reveal Himself to us through divinely inspired human authors.
In trying to use my argument against me, you fail.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 22, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Informed Mind, you are absolutely correct.
What Hippie refuses to admit in his suggestion that many religions probably have a part of answer to the equation, is that simply can not be by definition.
Jesus made it very clear that wide is the path leading to destruction, but narrow is the path to salvation and there are few that find it, and it through only Him.
Christ was either a lying lunatic or God manifested in flesh. There can be no in between. Mohammad never made these kinds of claims, Buddha never made these claims, Confucius never made these claims.
Christ did not call himself a prophet or enlightened. He called Himself God. So did Isaiah 700 years before when he called Christ Immanuel – so did Christ’s Apostle Matthew who penned the 1st Gospel. All of the following apostles called Christ Lord.
BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.” (NASB) Matt. 1:23
February 22, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Tex said….. What Hippie refuses to admit in his suggestion that many religions probably have a part of answer to the equation, is that simply can not be by definition. Jesus made it very clear that wide is the path leading to destruction, but narrow is the path to salvation and there are few that find it, and it through only Him…..
Tex, in all due respect, can you provide justification for that statement without referencing the Bible? What you are saying, in essence, is that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. Much as I admire your faith, I do think that is tautological…
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Informed mind said: In Islam, Muhammed denies that Christ is the Son of God: “Allah begetteth not nor is He begotten.” yet in Christianity Jesus says, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” (John 14:10) and “No one comes to the Father but through me.” John 14:6 NASB. How then can these two be compatible? They cannot. The Bible is how God chose to reveal Himself to us through divinely inspired human authors.
First – I should state that I am not trying to attack or belittle anyone’s faith. As I said to Tex, I admire people with sincere faith. To be honest, I love Theological discussions. I love ideas and I love playing with different notions – that is what I am doing here.
This having been said, I don’t think you can dodge my argument quite so easily. Indeed those statements appear irreconcilable. However, I made the claim that all religions have part of the picture but none have the whole picture. Perhaps the exclusivity bit is one of the parts none of the religions have right.
I am curious – how can you be so sure that your version is correct and the Koran is wrong? I am looking for an answer that does not reference the Bible – because to do so is to be circular.
I honestly don’t think there is a way to justify the claim that you are correct independently of the Bible – other than to say that it works for you personally.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 9:07 pm
HP,
Firstly, the archaeological evidence in support for the Bible and its claims is vastly superior to the evidence supporting the Koran. Even if you don’t like evidence pertaining to the Bible, the manuscripts from it are more evidence about God. All of the manuscripts contain the Word of God with no contradictions that in any way change the nature of God or His message. The Koran has no such claims.
Other evidence is that in several places in the Bible, written thousands of years before scientists discovered these things, it has accurate information on containing the spread of viruses, how the earth is round instead of flat, and others.
I am certain because if you travel to Israel, Jesus’ body is not there. Muhammed died and was buried, Ghandi died and was buried, Buddha, Confucius, everyone else died, buried and their body rotted. Jesus’ body is not there.
As to your point that exclusivity is not accurately conveyed in any religion. If you believe that God exists, why would you believe that he would allow all religions to have some part of truth to them but are imperfect? If God is really God, why would He not reveal Himself through a written book that is absolutely perfect? Why would He allow people to be mislead by a faulty testimony of His love or wrath?
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Mind
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
PS: If this gets thrown out of the order, I tried to keep it inbounds.
February 23, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Informed mind said….
I am certain because if you travel to Israel, Jesus’ body is not there. Muhammed died and was buried, Ghandi died and was buried, Buddha, Confucius, everyone else died, buried and their body rotted. Jesus’ body is not there.
Sorry it has taken a while to get back to this….
I don’t think Muhammad or Gandhi or Confucius ever claimed divinity so this is not particularly revealing. I don’t believe that Buddha did either, though the case is a bit less clear. Buddha’s body was supposedly cremated, and his ashes sent to various temples – so it is technically incorrect to say his body rotted (though of course this is not relevant to the argument at hand)
But – seriously – you don’t really believe that the absence of a body in Christ’s tomb can be taken as evidence of his resurrection do you? First, it assumes that we can definitively locate his tomb – which I would claim we cannot. It also assumes that the tomb is not empty for some other reason – such as grave robbing? Or intentional removal of the body by those who might want to claim a resurrection?
Christ’s resurrection is again a matter of faith – it is not something that you can prove by pointing to an empty tomb.
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Hippie,
I don’t ask this to be flippant or patronizing. I don’t know what you know, so that is why I ask.
Are you really going to try and convince me that the Pharisees, the Jewish leaders/rulers of the day, convinced the Roman governor of the province Pilate to crucify a “man” for blasphemy using a technique so horrific it was outlawed for the citizens of Rome, led by hundreds of more Jews demanding Christ’s death in the public square which was reserved only then for the worst of crimes, wouldn’t know where Christ was buried, even when the broken body accompanied after death by Pilate’s own guards and those in attendance? Are you kidding? The Pharisees demanded the tomb be sealed because they were scared to death that somebody would indeed steal the body and make claim that Christ had indeed risen.
Hippie, Christ’s tomb was sealed with two huge rocks, guarded by Roman guards whose very oath was protection of that tomb and who would have been killed themselves on account of a missing body. It was two women that first met Christ upon his resurrection, remember? The fact there is no body, and that a living Jesus later appeared to hundreds of witnesses, including Thomas who you referenced above, is one of the best reasons for validation of the resurrection.
But even if you don’t believe any of that, then you are going to have to prove to me how the Pharisees and all of the attendees who witnessed the execution, all in attendance at the same period of time in the same city, and not one could prove a shred of evidence discounting or damning the testimony of those eyewitnesses who made claim to the resurrection of Christ, or produce one ounce of proof the body had been stolen? What were the apostles using as prop? A corpse?
Can you explain to me, how cowards like Peter, who denied he knew Christ three times, suddenly changed his entire demeanor and willingly gave his own life for spreading the news, crucified upside down mind you, all testifying to a hoax? Ten apostles where condemned to death, with only John left to write The Book of the Revelation. All of them and hundreds more went to their death for making mention of a risen savior.
Thousands more were killed in the most heinous of ways by the Romans for a lie, and the temple was indeed destroyed as Christ said it would be within that generation with no stone unturned as prophesied. That is a historical fact of 70 AD. Nobody denies that because the proof is still there to this day. All stones have been overturned, as Rome looked for hidden riches under the pavement.
Come on….you know better.
February 23, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Tex–
This gets back to HippieP’s original point;
there is a shortage of contemporary accounts of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth (and there are contemporary written accounts of the history of that time, starting with Josephus).
And crucifixion was in fact a common form of Roman execution, even if technically forbidden against Roman citizens (which Jesus wasn’t).
And, there’s some question whether the John who wrote Revelations was John the Apostle (the equation is based on a second century account).
So again, to someone who does not accept your a priori assumptions, much of this does not count as history.
Until you provide some independent verification, there’s noting there to explain (other than your belief, which is a different fact).
February 23, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Paul,
If you want “contemporary” accounts of written history, which by the way I find laughable by your definition, then let me ask you a fair question? If you need contemporary “corroboration” of anything written from antiquity, exactly what is it you are going to believe of history? What is better documentation than the 6000 manuscripts or parts of manuscripts dated to 125 AD, or the manuscripts of church elders from 1st century? Are you a better source for authenticity of the Old Testament than say the Dead Sea Scrolls? Either I am misunderstanding what you require for additional proof, or you sadly mistaken not only about the “contemporary” proof of Josephus but what scholars consider valid documentation.
Do you question the history of Gallic Wars from Julius Caesar’s writings? Of course not. Yet the oldest copy we have is 1,400 years removed from the actual events. How about Homer’s Odyssey? The oldest copy? 2,000 years removed. Why do you set this high standard only for the Bible – which by the way has far more ‘corroboration’ than any history book you will find before the printing press. And what was the first book duplicated in print? Hmmm?
Because the Bible is far and away the most documented, most proven, most reliable historical account in all of human history, from three different languages, all saying the same thing, dated as close as 15 years to actual accounts that were written, even removing all supernatural references. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. But if we are going to go through that effort, why don’t we raise the stakes a little and provide a little wager on this board, with Hippie playing mediator about historical accuracy?
Your comment in the frequency about crucifixions is irrelevant. My point was not Christ as singled out for crucifixion, but fact that crucifixion was reserved for what Rome identified as the most egregious of crimes. You didn’t crawl off a cross alive Paul.
Finally, about the author of the Book of The Revelation. Okay, I’ll admit that it is possible I’m in error but you won’t be able to prove me wrong either. However, it was the conviction of the 2nd century church that the Apostle John was the author. In addition, there are innumerable similarities between vocabularies of John’s gospel and the Apocalypse, including the application of the term Logos to Jesus Christ, which is not elsewhere employed in scripture. If I am then forced to choose between the opinion of the 2nd century church versus say a doubter like you 2,000 years removed from the writing, I feel pretty confident in my admission of what I believe to be fact.
Like I said, I’ve got a book in my hand right now where at 23,000 historical digs have been conducted by using the book, and not a one word has had to be changed. A good book for you to read might be “Walking the Bible” written by Jews. See how they grade the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Believe as you must Paul. I’m not here to convert you. But if you are looking for corroboration, I believe you would find the Bible next to the definition of the word.
February 23, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Tex–
I’m not convinced about all of your numbers, but I don’t have time for a lot of fact checking.
But your 6000 manuscripts (or ‘parts of manuscripts’) are all of the same book.
On the other hand, JC (Julius Caesar) wasn’t the only one to write about the Gallic wars.
And I’m not acquainted with an author named ‘Jews’.
I do not doubt your belief; I just don’t find it a compelling reason for ME to believe.
February 23, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Oh Paul,
Now I wouldn’t want to give the priggish, pedantic, retired Professor any further ammunition. So the title is “Walking the Bible” authored by Bruce Feiler – and I made sure I looked up the author’s name correctly to fulfill your profound requirements of accuracy and specificity. I bet you made the perfect sociologist and psy instructor, whose classes I took for electives as the easy “A” years ago.
Read it. It’s certainly better than that horseshit you pass off as deep thinking at the higher education facade. I thought I read somewhere about 90% of those deep thinkers you refer to in class were pole smokers, pedophiles, or some other variant of sexual deviant. Perfect.
P.S. – I think you need to hire a more creative artist for you website.
February 24, 2010 at 12:15 am
Tex–
Feiler looks like he might be interesting — a name does give me something to look up. Academics do try to make things like that easy for each other.
However, since you can’t seem to formulate an argument without invective, I see no point in further discussion.
And if you actually looked at my Web site (I do my own work) you’d know that Sociology is not my field.
February 24, 2010 at 2:57 am
Good. Because frankly, your smugness was evident from the start – a form of elitism that smacks of insecurity I find all too often in the halls of the educated “enlightened”. I have absolutely no patience for the shallowness of it, as I know better.
I call a truce. You leave my comments stand – and I’ll agree to do the same.
February 24, 2010 at 8:25 am
Tex said…… Good. Because frankly, your smugness was evident from the start – a form of elitism that smacks of insecurity I find all too often in the halls of the educated “enlightened”. I have absolutely no patience for the shallowness of it, as I know better.
Tex – seriously – what is with the anger? I swear somebody in academics must have done something really nasty to you at some point in your life. I have known Paul RL for years – we have the same sub-specialty and we both participate in a Psychology-related discussion board. I don’t think anyone would ever describe him as smug or elitist. Sure – some academics are elitist – but I don’t really think most of us are.
I am constantly amazed at the anger I seem to stir up amongst conservatives. All I am trying to do is have a rational (and preferably cool-headed) discussion of the issues – but if I poke my nose into a conservative blog – BAM – I am hit with this amazing wave of hateful invective before people have any chance to know who I am or what my ideas might be. You saw it yesterday on BiW’s blog – people just went off on me.
So – seriously – can you explain this to me – preferably calmly and without going off on me?
– hp
February 24, 2010 at 10:47 am
Hippie, though you seem the gentleman, it is my opinion that you do have a couple of built in weaknesses common amongst your ilk: (1) Selective memory, (2) double standards, (3) blind eye to the Left’s political shortcomings.
To address your question, here is Paul’s first statement.
By the “brilliance” of his intellect, Paul simply “casts off” the minions. ** PUKE **. I can picture the pointer in hand, standing in front of the classroom, castigating the audience of young plebes. That may work in the classroom with the kids where the instructor sole authority, and where position might demand respect – it doesn’t fly here. The entire answer is smug and patronizing with a tacit arrogance and flippancy thrown in for good measure.
It does sound like the prototypical answer a “student” would receive from the “enlightened instructor” when the instructor either doesn’t like the response, or is not capable of response.
———————–
As far as explaining the anger? I have my reasons about having a hard on for many in higher education – namely a lack of accountability, an incredibly low rate of return on investment, and a general attitude of elitism that IMHO unearned. I’ve kind of made it my mission to go after those in the ivory towers and expose a few hidden truths about their shortcomings. But understand, that is a general opinion and doesn’t carry to every professor at every university. There are some that are very good and still remember their purpose.
I would like to ask where were you when anyone affiliated with Bush was being slandered for eight years with charges and deceit? Everything from starting unjust wars, to “no blood for oil”, to outright murder, to dissing the military? I didn’t see you guys trying to unruffle feathers back then. In fact, more often then not, it was university types and our insufferable MSM leading the charges.
It appears the Left, after begging for a war of words, doesn’t like the dissenting opinion, kind of the verbal punch back to the nose, when the opponent finally says, “Okay, let’s rumble.” I think its a little late to try and be making nice.
February 23, 2010 at 7:56 pm
HP,
The point is not whether the others claimed divinity and were not resurrected but that Christ did and was. His claims were corroborated by many witnesses and His resurrection were also attested to. The fact that His followers were killed and tortured for their witness of Him is evidence. Why would someone die for a lie? Why would someone be tortured for a lie that they could very easily just deny and be spared? Because they saw with their eyes the Lord Jesus and His miracles.
As Tex noted, mere man cannot defend the Bible. We let it stand on its own merits. As a poem wrote:
“Last eve I paused beside a blacksmith’s door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime,
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.
‘How many anvils have you had,’ said I,
‘To wear and batter all those hammers so?’
‘Just one,’ said he, and then with twinkling eye,
‘The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.’
‘And so,’ I thought, ‘The Anvil of God’s Word,
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon,
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The Anvil is unchanged, the hammers gone.”
John Clifford
As I said, I will let the skeptics of the Bible challenge its merits, but it will always stand the test of time.
An Informed Mind
Purveyor of An Informed Blog
http://aninformedmind.wordpress.com
February 22, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
In both the Old Testament and the New Testament God is described as doing things that would seem to me to indicate flaws. For example, God is prone to anger – even rage. I would consider anger and rage as emotions indicative of a flaw.
Busy at work, which is too bad, because there is a lot to dig into here, so I’ll simply deal an obvious question: Who are you to question God?
I don’t ask the question flippantly. I cannot think of any context in which it would seem proper or appropriate for a creation, possessing a limited awareness and consciousness, to question the Creator, who possesses a boundless awareness and consciousness.
Given time, I’m fairly certain I could come up with some scripture on this too, but I have to wonder what prism you would choose to read it through.
February 22, 2010 at 8:28 pm |
BiW said: I don’t ask the question flippantly. I cannot think of any context in which it would seem proper or appropriate for a creation, possessing a limited awareness and consciousness, to question the Creator, who possesses a boundless awareness and consciousness.
I don’t think it is flippant at all. I am indeed quite arrogant in asking theological questions – in fact, I haven’t really gotten going yet.
How do I reconcile my arrogance? Perhaps by noting that my creator apparently gave me a mind and hence should expect me to use it – even if that means questioning his existence.
Another interesting aside – it was Jesuits who taught me to ask questions like this. No wonder they have often been out of favor in Rome over the years.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
This commenting system is like navigating a labyrinth. Add convoluted to my other complaint.
February 22, 2010 at 8:22 pm |
DR said…. this commenting system is like navigating a labyrinth. Add convoluted to my other complaint.
You and I are agreed on that issue. I am trying to figure our how to make it better – but when there is an explosion of comments as there has been today it is indeed hard to follow.
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 8:48 pm |
Hippie,
Why would I not reference the Bible? Again, you have it backwards. I not qualified, and in essence your asking me to defend the Bible. I’m saying defending the Bible is like defending a lion. You don’t defend a lion. You let him in the room and let the lion defend itself.
I wish you would quit saying you admire my faith. You may admire what some asoect if what it says, like the beatitudes, but you hate the practice as such.
February 22, 2010 at 8:52 pm |
Tex said….. I wish you would quit saying you admire my faith. You may admire what some asoect if what it says, like the beatitudes, but you hate the practice as such.
Tex, my friend, you have it wrong. I don’t hate anything – including the practice of your faith. What compels you to make that claim? I am not trying to belittle anything you say and I am certainly not trying to change your mind.
I enjoy theological discussions. I have been enjoying this discussion. Why can’t you take that at face value?
– hp
– hp
February 22, 2010 at 11:36 pm |
I’m still goofing, but that last post was so full of typos on my behalf, I had to laugh.
I had a computer in my lap, dinner on the table, the TV blaring the Olympics, and a puppy chewing on my shoe. Not a way to respond.
I’ll try back tomorrow.
February 22, 2010 at 10:19 pm |
If everyone lived by Christian principles of love and acceptance I believe the world would truly be a better place.
And what Christian principles of acceptance are you taking about? I’d like to know, as our exchanges lead me to believe that your understanding of this is a little lacking…I suspect that its true of the Christian principle of love as it is defined by HP as well. I’d like to know rather than assume. Please. Enlighten me.
February 22, 2010 at 11:18 pm |
BiW said: And what Christian principles of acceptance are you taking about? I’d like to know, as our exchanges lead me to believe that your understanding of this is a little lacking…I suspect that its true of the Christian principle of love as it is defined by HP as well. I’d like to know rather than assume. Please. Enlighten me.
BiW – are you aware that there is a tone of arrogant sarcasm that is characteristic of your posts on virtually any topic? Yeah… I figured you did….
I should know better than get into a discussion of scripture with you. Catholics are notoriously NOT scripture fundamentalists. I am sure you will be happy to inform me of my misguided interpretations of scripture, just as you are happy to inform me of my misguided interpretations of the Constitution. Please don’t take 2.5 hours to write a rebuttal here – it would be a waste of both of our time (BTW – I will eventually get over to your blog to respond – too much going on here at the moment to get there).
All of the theology I have ever learned tells me that Christianity is a religion of love and that the Christian God is indeed a God of love. I won’t write a book on the topic and won’t try to out-scripture you. I will simply quote one passage:
“But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40)
And acceptance? I suspect that acceptance of thy neighbor indeed flows directly from the love of one’s neighbor.
I will reiterate my original statement: If everyone in the world could truly love his or her neighbor, the world would be a better place.
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 11:16 am |
But do you think that love comes without judgment? And is that acceptance unconditional? These are the points which separate deep faith from the shiny Sunday morning people.
Still, if you are counting on faithless works to be your salvation, it may not matter anyway. James warned against such dual-mindedness to begin with…
February 23, 2010 at 12:37 pm
BiW said: But do you think that love comes without judgment? And is that acceptance unconditional? These are the points which separate deep faith from the shiny Sunday morning people.
Yes – I think that post Vatican II Catholicism teaches that we should love absolutely and unconditionally. Certainly we can disapprove of the behavior of others – and even let them know of our disapproval – but we should still accept them with love as fellow children of God.
Call that “shiny Sunday morning theology” if you like – but I suspect it is far deeper than you are giving credit. For one thing, it is damned hard to do. I suspect in fact that Jesus and perhaps Carl Rogers are the only ones who have ever managed to pull it off.
I am sure you will have a scriptural argument against my interpretation. Remember, Catholics are not scripture fundamentalists so your argument would not be addressing what I have learned.
Still, if you are counting on faithless works to be your salvation, it may not matter anyway. James warned against such dual-mindedness to begin with…
I am not particularly counting on anything to be be my salvation. Indeed, if you are correct, I am probably damned.
Let me give you taste of my arrogance on the issue….
I refuse to give my faith and love and my respect to a God who would serve up eternal damnation to a person who has lived a just and moral life, merely for the sin of not believing. I do NOT consider that to be the position of a just and moral and loving God, and I simply can’t put my faith in such a God.
The injustice in such a position is multiplied when you consider that up until very recently the vast majority of the world had never even heard of the Christian God. I always liked the line from Jesus Christ Superstar:
If you’d come today
You could have reached the whole nation
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
Seriously – how can a just and loving God condemn someone who has never even had the chance to have faith? I refuse to give faith to a God who would do that.
I know exactly what you will say – how DARE I question the almighty!
Well, I am. Like I said, I am arrogant on this issue. I may well go to hell for it. I will continue to try to live a moral life, and if that means I end up in Hell, so be it.
I prefer to think, however, that God is truly loving and truly just and that God would NOT condemn a moral person – and that people who would believe otherwise simply have it wrong.
If I have not succeeded in thoroughly outing myself as a heretic, I am not sure what else I can do.
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 10:20 am |
Dr. Hippie,
Then I won’t answer your baseless charges you asked for because it would be a waste of time.
You ought to ask for you money back from the nuns. I never stepped foot in a Catholic classroom, have never taken communion, rarely attend a mass and then only when parental duty calls and yet, after some of the statements you’ve made about Catholicism, realize I know as much or more about the Catholic tenets as you do. All you know is the ritual which is unfortunately about what is taught in most Catholic schools – church history which is interesting but meaningless to salvation.
Shouldn’t surprise me. Your field of academic discipline lends itself almost exclusively to lefties like you and your buddy Paul up there. I always thought it would be an interesting study to determine why behavioral sciences attracts that crowd, beside the inability to handle math.
Where I went to school, you could have cut them out of cookie cutter when they relayed a thought. Even in grad school when I was getting my MBA. Organizational behavior, Human Resources Management, other names which escape me – same B.S. at a higher level than psychology, sociology, whatever they are called now.
I got two ‘C’ grades in my entire lifetime. One was in Psychology 1101 my fall freshman year.
Literally refused to turn in a paper that this dolt who they later fired “punished” the class for during dead weak for our “unprofessional” behavior. Killed himself later on I heard.
February 23, 2010 at 12:12 pm |
Tex said…. You ought to ask for you money back from the nuns. I never stepped foot in a Catholic classroom, have never taken communion, rarely attend a mass and then only when parental duty calls and yet, after some of the statements you’ve made about Catholicism, realize I know as much or more about the Catholic tenets as you do.
Tex – doesn’t this strike you as a bit odd? That you claim to know more about my branch of Christianity than I do? I would never claim about someone else’s faith. Have you studied Catholicism as it is actually taught by Catholics – or are you relying on commentaries by non-Catholics – who often hold an anti-Catholic bias?
(BTW – when I said “don’t bother” I was referring to your statements about Catholicism. Feel free to answer my other “baseless charges” if you like…)
Shouldn’t surprise me. Your field of academic discipline lends itself almost exclusively to lefties like you and your buddy Paul up there. I always thought it would be an interesting study to determine why behavioral sciences attracts that crowd, beside the inability to handle math.
I handle math just fine, thank you – my research specialty is quantitative analysis and I teach stats. This having been said, there are a fair number in my field who do struggle with math. Sociology probably has even more of those….
I would agree with the general statement that Psychology tends to be liberal – though I am somewhat of an exception because I was quite conservative when I first chose it as a field. I think it may be rooted in our study of individual differences and their root causes. This leads rather naturally to an appreciation of diversity – which is typically a liberal position.
Of course, you could also argue that a lot of people go into Psychology because they are crazy and want to figure themselves out – and since liberals are by definition crazy…… Man – I shouldn’t feed you lines like that….
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 12:51 pm |
Hippie,
Did you miss that I have been married to a Catholic for 23 years? Does it sound like I’m anti-Catholic? My children were taught for 14 years in the finest Catholic schools money can buy. Must have taught them well being my eldest daughter is graduating from Texas A&M, honors program, 4.0, summa, headed to medical school (I have to brag here, as she is the apple of my eye and the only thing I ever did besides her sister worth mention).
No complaints about Catholics from me, other than if I did have one complaint, it would be that Catholics are for the most part deficient in biblical theology, but they know that and are working on addressing the deficiency. Nope, I definitely love Catholics, being my three favorite people in the world are Catholic.
And it was also my experience that they as a rule made for the strangest group of instructors I ever had – except one who I really liked in the last class I took in obtaining an MBA (Organization Behavior). His first handout included the lyrics from The Who’s “We Won’t Get Fooled Again.” Heck of a nice guy.
How can you not like a professor who dares do something like that?
February 23, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Did you miss that I have been married to a Catholic for 23 years? Does it sound like I’m anti-Catholic? My children were taught for 14 years in the finest Catholic schools money can buy.
Tex – my apologies – I was unaware that you were married to a Catholic and that your kids attended Catholic schools. The majority of non-Catholics I meet have some very odd ideas about what Catholicism is – often viewed through some very anti-Catholic biases. I apologize for lumping you with that group.
It is interesting – I suspect my Catholic education may have been quite different from that of your wife and children. I was educated by a liberal order (Jesuits) in what was then probably the most liberal Archdiocese in the country (Seattle). I suspect I have a somewhat different perspective as a result.
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 10:50 am |
An argument requires an acceptance of common assumptions; without that you are talking past each other, not to each other.
When one position takes as its initial assumption the absolute truth of its position, beyond empirical proof or disproof, there can be no argument, only acceptance or rejection of that basic assumption.
Theological note:
The Torah mandates stoning for specified crimes; (most) Jews have rejected that. Do Christians still support it?
February 23, 2010 at 11:23 am |
Hippie
You keep accusing me of circular reasoning, and I am still not sure how you come to that conclusion.
You tell me not to use the Bible to defend the faith, but that is like asking an American to defend her liberties/rights without using the Constitution. And even that is a poor analogy on my behalf because the Word of God is the only book worth measure.
Look, it really is as simple as this.
There are 500+ eye witnesses that attested to Christ’s resurrection. We have first hand account from the people that walked with Christ. On that, everything is based. We have over 6,000 original manuscripts or pieces of manuscripts dating back to 125 AD for almost all of the New Testament. It is the most well documented book of antiquity – nothing even comes remotely close. For 2,000 years “scholars” have tried to disprove it, and still haven’t succeeded in invalidating anything of its historical accuracy.
Even without the manuscripts, from the 1st century church fathers own writings, we could piece together over 95% of the New Testament. There is no error in translation, and anybody that says otherwise is a fool who knows little or nothing of theology or recorded history. I would be more than happy to prove how foolish the questioning, even if you discard the message as pure bunk. We had a movement at hand 2,000 years ago willing to go to their deaths to preserve it, and in fact, became the very foundation of western civilization.
The very persecutors of the church later became the capital which it traces its church origins. At a minimum, over 23,000 archeological digs have been undertaken on account of O.T. and N.T. history. Not one has proven inaccurate – not one word has had to be rewritten or discarded. I could go on all day documenting the historical authenticity and historical accuracy of the testament.
But yes, it finally does come down to a simple question. Do you faith, there’s that nasty word, that the Bible is the word of God and from that you can take with certainty that Christ is God, resurrected, and the law fulfilled as written in the Old Testament?
I am not ashamed to admit that yes, I do have FAITH in what is recorded is accurate, I do have FAITH that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, I do have FAITH that Jesus was God, is God, and will always be God, and from that and only that do I have a chance at redemption.
If that makes me a fool to the scoffers, so be it. Believe as you must. But don’t tell me you “admire” my belief if you are to discount the very Word it is based. You should either admit I am right, or call me the biggest fool this side of Al Gore.
February 25, 2010 at 4:51 pm |
[American to defend her liberties/rights without using the Constitution. ]
Tex: We enumerated our liberties before we had a Constitution. We enshrined them in the Constitution.
It is entirely rational to ask that you defend your belief in the words of the Bible without depending on the words of the Bible.
And again, no one is challenging your faith; only your insistence that you’ve got it right and can prove it because you have faith in a book written – and rewritten – over centuries in a now dead language about events over two millenia ago.
February 23, 2010 at 11:54 am |
Oops…strike that.
The works themselves are not your redemption because your redemption can not be earned, but an indicator of your obedience and testimony to your obedience. In other words, if you really believe, the belief should manifest
yourselfitself in your own works.February 23, 2010 at 3:45 pm |
Hippie,
Before I answer that question, perhaps you can define for me ‘your’ version of ‘the mortal sin’? Because there is only one. If dying in sin is the fast train to hell, the reservations are already made for all of us, because everyone of us is going to be dying in it.
This is not complicated – no PHD required. Profound yes; complicated, no. Grace is provided by Christ. It is not simply mercy but something far more profound because it conveys you are receiving just the opposite of what you deserve.
Paul describe faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
February 23, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
“Paul describe faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
I didn’t — my namesake Saul of Tarsus did.
He was the first step down the slope away from Jesus of Nazarus.
Tell me, Tex, have you read much about the first three centuries of Christianity? It’s weirder than you can imagine!
February 23, 2010 at 4:46 pm |
Sorry Paul – I’ll preference with “St.” next time. I’m sure like Hippie, you’re a well versed guy – but probably not the authority of “Saint” Paul.
Sure, I’ve read a lot, though I probably have forgotten much – some of it pure fiction, some fact.
I keep waiting for somebody to mention as defense the Gnostic Gospels, or First Council of Nicaea so we can debate that. I’ve got all my ammunition handy, but no typical charges yet.
February 23, 2010 at 8:57 pm |
Enduring Jim Crow would have made me a Black Panther and pissed off for life.
That’s becuase I’m a very flawed man.
The problem with hippieprof citing Jim Crow and any other legacy of oppression as a morally valid explanation of racist behavior/rhetoric is that it opens pandaora’s box for any one who ever got screwed over to hate a group.
Of course, hippieprof drops the academic theory of racism as a kind of shield that essentially outlaws the expression of hate by every non-minority.
His racism theory is so stupid it can’t even stand on it’s own when whites are taken out of the equation.
According to hippieprof’s academic theory of racism:
Women can’t be racists. (By hippieprof’s definition chicks are a minority)
Light skins blacks are not racist when they oppress darker skinned blacks.
Dark skin blacks aren’t racist when they hate on light skin blacks
Mexicans aren’t racist when they go out beating the shit out of blacks. (I defy anyone who has hung out with Mexicans to say they aren’t the most blatantly racist people towards blacks in America)
Blacks hating on Dominicans and Haitians isn’t racist.
In fact, his theory is so dumb-dumb, I really find it impossible to even have a discussion with him on the matter.
February 23, 2010 at 9:25 pm |
DR said…. Of course, hippieprof drops the academic theory of racism as a kind of shield that essentially outlaws the expression of hate by every non-minority.
DR – you are misunderstanding my theory (though technically it isn’t my theory – I am just referring to someone else’s theory).
Indeed, anyone may express hate toward and have negative stereotypes about another racial group. Any of the groups you mention in your post may have such attitudes toward any other. I am calling those attitudes prejudice – which quite literally means to pre – judge.
Any group may have prejudice toward another. Some groups have the additional ability to make lives of the groups they pre-judge miserable. To do so requires some power. I am using the term racism for those groups who both make pre-judgements and use their power to diminish the lives of members of the other group.
You are right – it is an academic argument and a semantic argument. So – lets not get stuck on the vocabulary.
I will maintain that prejudice + power is a very different (and worse) thing from prejudice alone.
How does that work for you.
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 9:37 pm |
Uh oh Hippie – change of subject.
It looks like that “proven science” of anthropogenic global warming may be losing steam on capital hill. Babs Boxer is even distancing herself from the IPCC…
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-senator-barbara-boxer-and-epa-administrator-lisa-jackson-throw-ipcc-under-the-bus/
February 23, 2010 at 9:58 pm |
Tex said…. Uh oh Hippie – change of subject.
Tex – what are you trying to do – make this into Rutherford’s blog where the topic of the post bears no relation to the discussion?
– hp
February 23, 2010 at 11:46 pm |
Well hell yes.
You told me to come back, so I changed the subject to fit my interest in entry #1. 
However, I will still always believe your more grounded than Rutherford. That’s a left-handed compliment.
February 23, 2010 at 11:44 pm |
Paul, by the way.
I know this will “blow” your mind, but your analogy of several authors of the Gallic Wars is a poor one, if you are to reason as proof of its accuracy. I could write a book about the Gallic wars.
I believe if you were to “count”, you would find the Bible was not authored by one person, but forty, over a span of 1,500 years, in three different languages. Now even you must admit that for a book that has “hoodwinked” so many as you seemingly attest, that is quite an achievement to construct a book so beautiful in its flow.
Let me know when you’re ready to pull out your wallet for the “virtual” bet.
February 24, 2010 at 10:49 am |
it’s (for the pedantic types)
I do wish WordPress would provide an edit feature.
February 25, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
Just have to say – all of you on this thread are quite remarkable and I’m pretty impressed with the sincerity here. In spite of my few comments, I’ve read my way through and been fascinated. And given that I am secular and a complete agnostic, I think that’s a testament to the quality of the discussion. Way to go.