Diatribune - religion - Comments

your problem may be solve

jknadpost08 — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:55:54 -0600

your problem may be solve you shall be visit our website:http://www.addictionrecovery.net

comment:Comprehensive resources for those looking for recovery from addiction.

your problem may be solve

jknadpost08 — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:54:42 -0600

your problem may be solve you shall be visit our website:http://www.addictionrecovery.net

comment:Comprehensive resources for those looking for recovery from addiction.

I agree.. and because of the

wilbert — Thu, 29 May 2008 11:45:57 -0600

I agree.. and because of the advent of the Internet, people tend to absorb the messages that bombard them in popular media.

___________________
wilbert
Addiction treatment and recovery resources for the addict and their families. http://www.addictiontreatment.net

I don't think crystal meth

emtjason — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:59:44 -0600

I don't think crystal meth is the single source to porn addiction, it's just another drug that people are addicted to it makes them feel good and they want more. Addiction treatment comes in all forms from people who eat to much, smoke cigarettes, do drugs, and even watch adult videos.

Thank you for another round

T Ann — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:47:43 -0600

Thank you for another round of hyperbole.

Thank you for another round

T Ann — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:47:01 -0600

Thank you for another round of hyperbole not worthy of comment.

It’s easy for pseudonymous

Jacob Freeze — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 05:16:12 -0600

It’s easy for pseudonymous posters to insult the memory of hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers who died to give black Americans the freedom they enjoy today.

They are America, and when I hear Jeremiah Wright scream "God damn America!"...

Let's just say I wouldn't sit quietly in my pew like Barack Obama.

Here’s a news flash for all of you ignorant pseudonyms: It wasn’t Malcolm X who freed the slaves.

It was hundreds of thousands of European immigrants who died most of them miserably from infections in primitive hospitals.

Remember them the next time you hear some hate-freak scream “God damn America!”

T Ann: As a gesture of good

Jacob Freeze — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:08:01 -0600

T Ann: As a gesture of good will, I hereby induct you into the Barack Obama Order of True Believers, and include you in my vision of Obama's inauguration, where you cheer while Jeremiah Wright screams "God damn America!" and Barack Obama pretends he isn't there.

And you STILL won't answer

T Ann — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:14:13 -0600

And you STILL won't answer my questions but come back with Soundbyte Nationalism.

BTW, where's that example black church attacking a white church and killing them? Where's that example of what Obama said that conforms to every whacked out idea of Wright's and Cones? And why does UTS still have a crazed killer like Cone teaching?

When do you start telling me what your candidate is for instead of what my candidate is against?

==He attacks Hillary about NAFTA and votes for NAFTA-Peru himself.
Yes, he did vote for it. And yes, would you believe that Obama is a centrist candidate, almost as Centrist as clinton. She supported NAFTA and yet backtracks when it's politically convenient to say that she didn't support it. Excellent! And yes, because I'm an objective human being, I know that there is a disconnect between his support for Peru, which he says is because of its safeguards for American workers. He never said he wasn't for free trade. And he never said he was opposed to NAFTA, but that he wanted tougher standards.

==He attacks Hillary about voting for the War Powers act, and votes to fund the war himself with no timeline for withdrawal.
Right. This argument I've heard a thousand times. But really, I WASN'T against funding the war since we were already there and had to support the troops. I know a lot of liberals thought that funding should stop but I wasn't one of them. Oh, and by the way, he introduced a bill called the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007 in January of last year. "This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, more importantly, it would begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31st, 2008 - consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq study group that the President has so assiduously ignored." Go figure!!

==He supports an individual right to bear arms in Heller v. District of Columbia that will cost the lives of thousands of black teenagers like Jamiel Shaw Jr.

I'm originally from inner-city Detroit and yes I do have a problem with gun control measures that can potentially flood the streets with more guns. But his stance is that you have to balance out the 2nd amendment with real and tough screening laws. This is an issue that needs to both tread the Constitution, satisfy gun owners (eek) and protect the country, particularly the inner-city. I know it's a fine line to satisfy everyone. And there is an inherent dichotomy between the Constitution with its rights to bear arms and protect the citizenry. However, from what I understand, Obama and Clinton both have not signed the amicus brief in favor of overturning the ban. Funny that!

==He promotes a sham no-mandate healthcare plan and attacks Hillary for proposing the mandates that are absolutely necessary.
Personally, I don't think whatever bill either candidate proposes initially will pass the Congress without serious amendments dealing with issues from both sides of the aisle. Having healthcare for all Americans is an issue that needs transperancy and frankly, I don't think Sen. Clinton is capable of it. I don't think Universal Healthcare as a jumping off point will ever pass initially. You have to ease your way up to such a drastic change in the thinking of the American people, who will cry "socialized medicine" and squelch it immediately.

==And he couldn't be a hypocrite just because pretends to be post-racial and then spends 20 years in a congregation that cheers when their hate-freak preacher screams "God damn America!"
Let's see, I'm also bi-racial and growing up in an African-American home, I can pretty much tell you whatever Obama has or has not heard, he's had to take it all with a grain of salt from both whites and blacks. And, as I said before, God Damn America if she can't own up to her mistakes and attempt to rectify them. I won't be blinded with Soundbyte Nationalism. Sorry, not going to do it. OH, but wait! It's Obama's pastor that said these things and not Obama himself. I should hold Obama accountable for EVERYTHING that ANYONE has said NEAR him for the past 20 years! Do'h, why didn't I think of that?

You know what, this entire argument Rovian argument fomented by Lapel Pin Patriotism is one bogus crock of bullpuckey. Are you saying everyone in Trinity is unAmerican? Should we haul all 8,000 members off to a gulag somewhere in Cuba? Maybe detention camps somewhere in Arizona, would that satisfy you?

--Instead of the usual invocation, Jeremiah Wright screams "God damn America!" and Barack Obama pretends he isn't there!
This is hyperbole and not worthy of comment.

By the way, Clinton is my Senator. I voted for her twice. I think she is a good Senator but I don't want her as a President. I'm tired of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty that we've gone through for the last 20 years. Enough already.

So, if you want an irrational and argumentative construct because you can't handle someone speaking to you like an adult, you're not going to get it from me. If you want to have a discussion, that's something completely different. Other that that, like I've said before, I hope you have a great day!

Obama couldn't possibly be a

Jacob Freeze — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:27:15 -0600

Obama couldn't possibly be a hypocrite, even if...

He attacks Hillary about NAFTA and votes for NAFTA-Peru himself.

He attacks Hillary about voting for the War Powers act, and votes to fund the war himself with no timeline for withdrawal.

He supports an individual right to bear arms in Heller v. District of Columbia that will cost the lives of thousands of black teenagers like Jamiel Shaw Jr.

He promotes a sham no-mandate healthcare plan and attacks Hillary for proposing the mandates that are absolutely necessary.

And he couldn't be a hypocrite just because pretends to be post-racial and then spends 20 years in a congregation that cheers when their hate-freak preacher screams "God damn America!"

Maybe that's your vision of the inauguration of Barack Obama:

Instead of the usual invocation, Jeremiah Wright screams "God damn America!" and Barack Obama pretends he isn't there!

Gimme me a friggin break. I

T Ann — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:54:41 -0600

Gimme me a friggin break. I write to you a historical basis of this theory and you come back at me with it being a "new low"? A new low written over 40 years ago? It's like talking to yourself, but without the entertainment. By the way, Cone wrote a book from 1996 called "Martin and Malcolm and America: A Dream or a Nightmare." So right, supporters of Obama are only NOW talking about Martin Luther King and black liberation theology. Geez, the head explodes.

From that same article you pick and choose from:

Wright's critics completely ignore America's history of racism as well as the impact of the civil rights movement and the struggles of the black church to communicate the gospel's relevance in the black community. Perhaps, as one blogger suggests, the attacks on Wright and Trinity are not even "meant to stand up to scrutiny." They are merely designed to tie Obama to images of "the black bogeyman." As with the Swiftboating of John Kerry, it does not matter that the claims are false as long as they are out there.

Your arguments are specious and willfully ignorant. You take a balanced review of Wright's church from that article and pick and chose, just like Fox News.

Furthermore, you fail to answer simple questions: where is the black church that has killed a white church according to your version of black liberation theology gleamed from what you've read online or what soundbyte Nationalism you seem to like?

What has Barack Obama written that says "kill the white folks" if that is your interpretation of black liberation theology?

Why is Cone a professor at the well-regarded UTS if that's all he's about?

Anyway, it's like talking to a brick wall and is again one of the primary reasons we as a country get into messy and tainted wars and foreign policy: willful ignorance of facts and logical reasoning, even when presented with a basic historical understanding. Tis a pity our country suffers from such a fatal disease.

Claiming Martin Luther King

Jacob Freeze — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:39:30 -0600

Claiming Martin Luther King as a predecessor of hate freaks like James Cone and Jeremiah Wright is a new low even for Obama's shameless supporters.

The fact that Cone's book was written in 1969 would mean something if his "theology" were significantly different today, but nothing much has changed for Cone and Wright in the last 40 years, although the rest of America has moved far beyond the legacy of Jim Crow.

Cone's groundbreaking 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power announced: "The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people. . . . All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . . Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'. . . Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement." Contending that the structures of a still-racist society need to be dismantled, Cone is impatient with claims that the race situation in America has improved. In a 2004 essay he wrote, "Black suffering is getting worse, not better. . . . White supremacy is so clever and evasive that we can hardly name it. It claims not to exist, even though black people are dying daily from its poison" (in Living Stones in the Household of God).

Wright agrees. When I asked him whether white Americans are right to maintain that the racial situation has improved since the days when Africentric Christianity was born, Wright pointed to the racist remarks by radio host Don Imus: "And you say things have improved?"

Cone's book has been around

T Ann — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:14:22 -0600

Cone's book has been around since 1969. It hasn't been hidden under a rock, traded secretly in underground communities. You have just found out about him and now you know everything from one paragraph? Hmm. Again, I ask you: if Cone was such a giant purveyor of killing, why does he teach at Union Theological Seminary? Last time I heard, UTS was one of the most respected Seminaries in the country. I'm sure they let crazed killers on their staff. Not.

Black liberation theology partly comes out of 1969, after James Forman delivered his "Black Manifesto" to the Riverside Church. The Black Manifesto expressly targeted Protestant churches demanding reparations for blacks. Here's what Forman said about the Church later in life in order to elucidate the Manifesto and the feelings at the time of the church as an oppresor of blacks at the time:

Four: The dogma and practice of the white Christian churches. As far as I’m concerned, this has been one of the most consistent and effective control mechanisms operating upon us. I happen to be old enough to remember my mother telling me: “Well, don’t worry about the white man, son; he’ll get his in hell. We will have everlasting life, so don’t worry about him; these 60 or 70 years of hard times which we face will be nothing compared to our eternity of peace and his eternity of damnation.” As long as this kind of psychology and ideology is spread by the Christian churches, people will not go on to struggle for their liberation.

During the period of slavery and even today, in most instances the practices and dogma of the Christian churches are in fact made to order for an enslaved group of people. Let us examine it: Here we are slaves inside the United States, and so the man comes with the Bible and says “Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the earth, or they shall see God. Blessed are the meek for they shall see the kingdom of God.” Here we are the poor—toiling in the fields, chopping the cotton and the man says to us, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to go to heaven.”

So all of these things were comforting in many ways to our ancestors and even to some of us. Now I don’t take the position—and this is something that we have to argue about—that the Christian church was in fact a survival element for black people. That’s just a hypothetical argument. We have no way of proving it; but I do know that the ideology, practices, and involvement with the Christian church helped to control us and make us submit more and more to the tyranny of this country.

Now the same thing is true today because many people believe the racist Christian ideology, believe that there is an eternity, believe there is life after death, that God is all powerful and that even the sufferings on this particular earth will be rewarded by eternity.

1969 was the height of black anger and demands for true equal rights, particularly at the height of the Vietnam War. Black power was translated into black liberation and based on the black soul being freed from mental and spiritual oppression. In that, it's similar to liberating the Christian soul from sin.

At the time, it and is for those who follow it, an attempt to turn their backs on the larger society that would reject them in the first place while lifting up their blackness as a thing of pride, which is not necessarily found in the larger society. Morally, they believe that God, as a just savior, is on their side because he is the true liberator of those who are oppressed. It's a theory and I challenge you to find a black church that has actually killed a white church based on your limited knowledge of black liberation theology.

From Wikipedia: Cone has responded to the controversy by noting that he was generally writing about white churches that did nothing to oppose slavery and segregation and not about white people as individuals.[1]

In addition, you post a paragraph from a book. Great. But you keep claiming that Obama is guilty by association. This is a stretch to say the least.

I ask you again, if the only message from Cone's idea are you posted in a single paragraph, please, tell me where the black church in America is that has killed a white church lately?

Black liberation theology is theoretical; it posits that if blacks cannot get justice from the larger community that they are in, that they create their own community and their own God by metaphorically "killing the oppressor" thereby liberating themselves to be able to live in the larger society. Again, I ask you, where is the black church that you have found that actually has killed a white church in America?

And again, I ask you, what does this have to do with Obama? I'm not saying Cone's theories are not over the top. I agree with you on that, but it comes at the height of a history that you have idea about. And the guilt by association thing is laughable. Where have you seen or read Obama saying anything that comes even close to what Cone posits? You haven't and you can't.

Forbes did an interview with Cone on liberation theology's origins.

Cone: I don't think people have done much reading about black liberation theology, and I think what they think--what they've heard--of what's been in the media is often only a sort of--how can I say it?--kind of a distortion of it.

Black liberation theory emerged out of the ministers: out of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X in the late 1960s.

What we were trying to do is to show that one can be black and Christian at the same time. That one can love oneself as a black person. And also, in fact, that that's the only way you can learn how to love other people.

And one of the problems in a racist society is that blacks who are the victims of that white supremacy often develop self-hatred. To see that self-hatred is to see what violence we do against each other. …

The violence that blacks do to each other is a violence that is the result of not liking who you are.

Now, Martin King was certainly aware of that, but he was addressing the social and political things in the society that made blacks feel less human. … He changed the laws of the society so that blacks could be more effectively functional in that society.

Now, Malcolm X. He was a cultural revolutionary. He changed the way black people thought about themselves. He helped black people to love themselves.

So black liberation theology is an attempt to bring Martin and Malcolm together. The "black" in black theology stands for Malcolm X. The "theology" in that phrase stands for Martin Luther King. …

King taught us how to be a Christian, to love everybody. And it's important. But Malcolm taught us that you can't love everybody else until you love yourself first.

And so black theology wanted to interpret the Christian gospel in such a way that black people will know that their political and social liberation is identical to the gospel and also identical to them loving themselves. That is, we are a part of God's creation.

God created us black. And because of that, that blackness is good. So in a world in which values are defined by white domination and white supremacy--in that kind of world--then God sides with those who are the victims in it.

And so black liberation theology was an attempt to make the gospel accountable to the black community, who were struggling for a more just society in America.

What you have in Jeremiah Wright is someone trying to bring together Martin and Malcolm. He's a Christian preacher in a white church, by the way. He is speaking to the hurt in the African-American community. The suffering.

You know, when King spoke to the black community, he spoke with language very similar to Jeremiah Wright. …

When King spoke out against the war in Vietnam, he said, and this is a quote, he said America[n government] is "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." This was in 1967 at Riverside Church. And the media came down hard on him.

King said [he] gets [his] credentials from the gospel, and not from the government. He was speaking out against the war in Vietnam. Wright was speaking of the war in Iraq and all that. He was speaking to the same kind of reality. The language gets extreme.

James Cone's hate speech has

Jacob Freeze — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:56:36 -0600

James Cone's hate speech has no connection whatsoever to Jesus as he is portrayed in the Gospels.

There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love." [A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70]

My friend, I grew up in the

T Ann — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:30:47 -0600

My friend, I grew up in the Black Church and I have studied history and know about Cone. Thank you very much that you are able to teach me because without you, I would know nothing. And so what if has influenced the church? Has there been physical violence against white people coming from this church that I should know about and that's why you are screeching about Cone? Is there some reason why Union Theological Seminary lets him teach there? For a community that finds it difficult to fit into the wider White world, what is so challenging to you that he espouses liberation through the greatest symbol of liberation that there is? Jesus has been turned from a Jewish man to a White icon, why can't he become a Black liberator, too. Jesus says, "I am all things to all people."

And tell me, do YOU think America is always right? And if so, why? Always? You are obviously and intelligent individual, so tell me: has America ALWAYS been correct in her dealings with the world?

As to the NRA law, I will look into it, thank you.

Your screaming posts do nothing to make anyone want to pay attention to you. They come off as a bit unhinged. Maybe you need to take a step back and and rethink how your screaming only weakens your arguments and not strengthen them.

Once again, have a great day.