He’s Got Spine
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, History, Race, Republicans
I’ve been trying to put my finger on why I feel Obama’s speech today was important, not only to me personally, but the country as a whole. And as I’ve been surfing the blogosphere and reading the various opinions, I found a word that pretty much sums it up. And all thanks to a title of one of Andrew Sullivan’s post that’s really only tangentially related to what I’m about to say. Because while one of Sully’s readers argues that Obama’s remarks prove that he will be able to effectively respond to attacks in the general election, I think he showed us is so much more than that.
What Obama demonstrated today is that he’s not afraid to stand up straight and talk about an incredibly difficult issue with the type of candor we almost never see in our collective political conversation. He could’ve gotten up there and simply distanced himself more strenuously from Reverend Jeremiah Wright and moved on. That probably would have quelled many of the chattering class’ concerns about this angry black preacher and his influence on the most viable black presidential candidate in American history. But that’s not what happened.
Obama understood that he had a singular opportunity to talk about race in America, the reasons Wright might be motivated to make such indefensible remarks and how there’s a way to move past this…if we so choose. Folks, say what you want about Obama, but this was no easy task. Not in the least. Again, he could have just thrown Wright under the bus, but he did exactly what we always say we’re looking for from politicians, but very rarely witness first hand.
Few people get opportunities like this, and fewer still decide to answer these calls with the type of openness we’ve seen today. But those who do are remembered for it because they had the bravery to put everything on the line and talk about something exceedingly complex and unendingly painful.
So you see, sometimes speeches do matter, because without strong voices talking honestly about the issues that divide and the subsequent opportunities to unite, the name of this very country rings hollow.
That’s why in Obama I see a person who doesn’t just give pretty speeches. If that’s all there were to this man, today would have exposed him as the fraud many accuse him of being. Instead, the exact opposite occurred, and a new standard for political spine was set.
I hope a get a chance to vote for this man. After today, something tells me that hope may not be a false one.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Democrats, History, Race, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I agree! Good analysis of an incredible speech.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
How was this different from his other stump speeches? It addressed a new topic in the same way he’s draped everything he discusses, in generalities and hyperbole. Nowhere did I hear a suggestion of taking responsibility for supporting and even exposing his children to the divisive beliefs of Rev. Wright for 20 years. In a campaign he himself has framed around judgement he refuses to acknowledge how bad a decision it has been for him to stand by those who propagate radical racial views.
Sen Obama can preach about ending divisiveness all he likes now but his failure to address it in his life and with the congregation he spent most of his adult life in speaks volumes about how deep his convictions are. If he refused to tackle the very issue he claims to hold paramount to all others in his community why would anyone believe his speech today?
Sen Obama simply uses race and high ideals as tools to serve his political interests. This speech was just another creative use of playing the race card to meet the ends that benefit him.
Healing should have started at home and two decades ago Mr. Obama.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Sure he’s got spine. After all, he’s defending, sorry “standing by” a an anti-American, anti-Semitic vile racist. Oh right, “kooky uncle”. How brave…20 years worth of bravery in fact.
In the future, if a white candidate (oh let’s say conservative for fun) for POTUS is found to be closely associated with a raving anti-Semitic racist (who feels towards blacks and hispanics the way Wright does about “whitey”) lunatic, well, all he has to do is give a fantastic speech “repudiating” his otherwise friend and mentor, talking “honestly” about race and racism, preaching for understanding and “perspective” for his mentor’s vileness and all will be fine with the world and liberals from all over will be extolling his bravery and courage.
*crickets chirping*
Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations, aka liberal identity politics. Gotta love ‘em. The Messiah can use race in any way, shape or form which suits his needs, but God forbid anybody else, especially whitey call him on it. Yes, what a healer and uniter America will have.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did you watch the speech? He talked about extremely specific pain points for both whites and blacks. He even talked about how those pain points hit members of his own family.
Listen, if you think he should have left Wright’s church 20 years go, that’s fine. If you’re going to be swayed by a few clips of a few minutes of a person’s 30 year career, that’s certainly your right to do so. But Barack didn’t throw that man under the bus today. Instead he told people why he didn’t agree with Wright, while explaining why Wright probably made those types of comments. Simply put, that took a tremendous amount of courage, and a moment like today is far removed from a standard stump speech.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I hate to say it, but if he could be believed at his word, but being a politician, and bernakey’s proxy obviously you cannot, i would dislike him much less after that speech… it looks like it will buy him some distance with the sheeple… i guess if we cant have Ron Paul , Dennis Kusinisch, Mike Gravel, Dough Stanhope, Cynthia McKinny, or any of the other 20 GOOD candidate, the O-bomb is the least of 3 evils
March 19th, 2008 at 1:40 am
I love how conservatives have taken to mocking Obama by calling him “the messiah”. They are so jaded, cynical and biased that when they see people actually getting excited about a politician who is actually inspiring, they mock them as “cultist” for actually believing the man can make change.
They’re just jealous that the Republicans have never had a politician that inspires people like Obama does since, well, Lincoln.
“Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations, aka liberal identity politics. Gotta love ‘em. The Messiah can use race in any way, shape or form which suits his needs, but God forbid anybody else, especially whitey call him on it. Yes, what a healer and uniter America will have.”
Ah, the ignorance of Phin. Conservatives like him throw out terms like “liberal identity politics” and “moral equivalence” whenever somebody tries to get them to think about somebody’s point of view outside of their own myopic worldviews. Obama gives an intelligent and nuanced speech on the incredibly complex and difficult topic of race, and conservatives who can’t wrap their heads around it start sputtering, “Hmm, yeah, but, errr…. I mean did you hear what his pastor said? I sure did what I saw it played 30 times an hour on Fox news last weekend, but the MSM will never call him on it!”
Read his speech again. Slowly. Carefully. Don’t just shut your brain off after 10 seconds like most conservatives are trained to do. It’s a speech, not a sound bite. He’s not “using race in any way shape or form which suits his need” (whatever that means), he’s trying (amongst many other things) to get people like you to understand why somebody like Wright would say such things, while at the same time criticizing that way of thinking. I know, it’s not a straightforward “with us or against us” kind of point your used to, but just try to … Oops, sorry, you probably have a headache now from trying to think too much. Sorry about that.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:59 am
I’d thought we lost him, honestly. I was a huge Obama fan way back in 06, before he announced his candidacy. He had made speeches about the role of religion in politics and about Iraq and all sorts of issues and you could tell he really spoke from the heart. I personally wrote him a letter asking him to run for president.
Then he announced his candidacy and got all of his “political experts” and advisers whispering in his ear and something changed. He lightened the tone on Iraq and all of a sudden Health Care was the main issue. All his speeches were the same old speeches I’d heard from other candidates, with a little Obama flair – but they weren’t from the heart because that’d have been too politically risky. (or so I’ve been guessing, anyway)
I’d say that he’s got his spine >back<. Lets hope he holds onto it this time.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Phin, from reading your response, I don’t think you really listened to the speech with an open mind. Your message is so cynical that it seems you are just looking for a reason to dismiss the it. To me the speech was about much more than just Obama’s relationship to his former pastor. Like the author said above, Obama could have done the safe thing that all politicians do nowadays and just throw Wright under the bus. He didn’t and your jaded reaction shows exactly why his was a courageous choice.
People are complex and much more so than the caricatures created by our soundbite society make them seem. I’m sure if you are truly honest with yourself you’ll think immediately of people in your own life or family who do or say things you can’t abide, but who also shock you with their compassion or goodness in other ways. Obama’s reference to his white grandmother reminded me of my grandparents and even my parents to some extent.
And, really, if you think about it, to have summarily dismissed the whole man, especially for mere political expedience, would go directly against the powerful belief that our Nation itself has the ability to overcome its imperfections. That we can come together and do great things despite our failings. It was that larger message that I heard.
And Bateman, how exactly do you know how Obama handled things with his children (and is that really what you’re concerned about)? Anyway, It is impossible and I think unadvisable to quarantine and shelter our kids completely. I think it is far better to use the moments you allude to as opportunities to teach them how to think through, understand and reject the hateful and misguided statements of others. After all, they’ll run into them soon enough. Better to be prepared.
I am thankful that I have not yet become so jaded as to fail to know a significant moment when I see one.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Not just spine. But, Obama has faith in the American people. Faith that they can understand something a little more complicated than a 10 second sound bite. Faith that they can handle the truth. And faith that they are ready for a different kind of politician. I just hope that the American people appreciate the faith this man has in them. He put himself on the line today.
Peace,
Brian
March 19th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Phin,
You’re kidding right? John McCain was courting and endorsed by Parsley, Hagee, and several of other radical right wing Ministers. These are men who preach hate and bigotry, and call for violence against Islam and homosexuals. They refer to the Catholic church as the whore of Babylon and being in league with the Nazis. They claimed that 9/11 was an act of God for America’s acceptance of gays and non-Christians. And McCain says glowing things about these guys while happily accepting their endorsements.
The truth is that Obama is being attacked for a few minutes ripped from his pastor’s lifetime of sermons, while the right is allowed to stew in it’s own religion of hatred. He’s being attacked by people like you, who so obviously didn’t read or listen to that speech. Although, truth be told, perhaps I should be glad you didn’t read it. Your small mind would miss the point in it’s rush for quotes to twist and manipulate out of context.
Obama took big gamble with this speech. I appreciate being spoken to like an adult, frankly and honestly. But it’s something that appears wasted on a hateful child like you.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:16 am
It probably doesn’t help your argument against this that Obama’s pastor sermonized about the comparisons between Barack and Jesus (both were black men who didn’t ‘fit the mold’.)
Justin, the problem with your assertion that these comments were just cherry picked is that at the same time people are saying that, they’re also telling us that black liberation theology (which Wright preaches, not just in these ’snippets’) is very well respected in liberal academia and common in most African American churches. So you can try to pretend that the excerpts that sparked the recent controversy are being taken out of context, but that’s simply not true.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:17 am
I can understand if you don’t like Obama or want to vote for him because politically he does not meet your expectations, but the kind of smear that is going on is truly saddening.
But the hypocrisy is frightening.
White conservative candidates/politicians associated with raving (fill in your poison) lunatic religious figure….let’s see:
Ted Haggard: adviser to Bush and screaming moralist, anti-gay, who was brought down for having sex with a male prostitute and drug abuse
Pat Robertson: advisor to Bush (at least he claims he is) who has made enough controversial statements to write an entire book on
John Hagee: associated with Bush and endorser of McCain: anti-catholic, anti-semetic (yes, despite the notion he supports Israel, which is more based on his end of days prophecies than any real support of the people, he claims the history of the Jews is punishment for their disobedience of God). Oh, and let’s not forget that Katrina is punishment for New Orleans evil ways.
And those three are without even thinking about this topic. I shudder at what I could come up with if I gave it some time.
But with the exception of a minor tiff over Hagee’s endorsement of McCain, no one on the left went absolutely ape over these associations like the right is.
The hypocrisy being exhibited by the far right should embarrass them, but they cannot even see it.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Nor does it help your argument, C. Stanley, when you choose to add the term “black” to the front of “Liberation theology.”
Liberation theology focuses on Jesus Christ as both a redeemer and a liberator of the oppressed. It emphasizes the Christian mission to bring justice to the poor and oppressed, particularly through political activism.
Why add black? Hopefully because that is the way you have heard it in the right-based jabberfest and not because you harbor any racist tendencies yourself. But why is it being labeled “black Liberation theology?”
To scare the bejeebus out white voters and get them in line for the upcoming election. The far right has been looking at a way to scare its base into line for months now because they fear Obama’s candidacy, but they couldn’t come right out and say it because it would be too easy to toss the racism tag at them.
This whole smear by association tactic has, sorrowfully, actually taken hold. I cannot believe it.
Obama stands up and talks to people like adults and the right wags their finger at its base and tries to scare them like children.
Don’t be fooled, don’t be scared and don’t support these people–they are appealing to the worst in you.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Gerry F–
Actually, “black liberation theology” is a subset of liberation theology. It’s a recognized style of Christianity that sees Biblical stories as metaphors for black struggles. Wright is referred to as a black liberation theology preacher in most accounts I’ve read of him. It’s not a scare tactic. It’s an accurate label.
As for the speech, it was good. I got the sense that Obama sincerely wants to be a bridge between whites and blacks. That’s always been a subtext of his campaign but this is the first time I’ve seen him address it head on. Maybe it’s hubris (and maybe it’s an odd form of political calculation) but I like what he said.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:23 am
This was just another Obama speech. Grandiose ideas, very poetic, not much else. Slick Barry at his best. Yes, I know my mentor is crazy, no it’s not my fault, yes I hired him, no I won’t take blame for him. Well spoken like usual, but how does one speech make up for 20 years of sitting through this ideology?
How can we really ever know that he doesn’t believe these things? Take a politician at his word? When you sit and nod your head for 20 years in a divisive, angry congregation, you can’t convince us in one election cycle that you didn’t really believe what you were hearing. The elephant in the room has taken center stage, and it’s not going away.
http://SlickBarry.com
March 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Obama only “distanced himself” when the media finally caught him. On his website throughout the whole campaign were links and articles praising his “close friend and mentor.” He brought his children to hear his sermons on a regular basis for nearly a decade. When Wright helped Obamas chances, he praised him. Now that the cat is out of the bag, he says he “strongly disagrees with his positions.” Pfft.
Stop praising this jingoist for this recent display of false bravado, which he was required to do by his campaign advisors anyway. Obama doesn’t have a sincere bone in his body. Change my ass. He is a typical pandering politician if there ever was one.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:16 am
phin,
You said “In the future, if a white candidate (oh let’s say conservative for fun) for POTUS is found to be closely associated with a raving anti-Semitic racist…”
In the future? How about every republican candidate since, well, Lincoln. Ever heard of Bob Jones University? Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?
Wake up.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Aw, ASC, why spoil things with facts?
Gerry F: I guess that the theologian that Wright often quotes, James Cone, was similarly misled by the right wing fearmongers when he wrote the following books:
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Theology-Liberation-Ethics-Society/dp/0883446855
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Theology-Power-James-Cone/dp/1570751579/ref=sid_dp_dp
and Dwight Hopkins with this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Theology-Power-James-Cone/dp/1570751579/ref=sid_dp_dp
I guess they didn’t get the memo that ‘black liberation theology’ was just a phrase coined by the white fearmongering conservatives.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Messed up the last link, it should be:
http://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Theology-Liberation-Dwight-Hopkins/dp/1570752869/ref=sid_dp_dp
March 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
I didn’t mean to imply tha black liberation theology is not a subset of liberation theology. I didn’t spend enough time setting up my argument
You are both correct in that, but my point is the EMPHASIS I am seeing on the “black” that in my opinion is being used to stir up white fear and resentment of black issues that up until now the right has been reluctant to play on.
Racism is real in America even the most enlightened. I know a lot of people who even on a good day will hesitate about pulling the voting lever for a black candidate. But, frankly, Obama is just not a scary black guy. He has managed to bridge the gap and those very same people who could not vote for a black man, now can see themselves doing it.
But now, Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly et all have been hammering “black” liberation theology repeatedly for the past week, while giving short shrift to what spawned the idea in the first place–seeking justice for the oppressed and poor. Is it really a surprise that there is anger here?
More importantly, Wright gives the far right (and I am not saying either of you are that–ASC from what I can tell is a right-leaning centrist and C. Stanley I have no idea) an opportunity to attack Obama along racial lines that they have not been able to do in the past.
And if Obama does not aspouse the kind of scary talk that sends up warning flags in the minds of white voters, they are doing it by association. It is a very deliberate use of race to scare people.
The argument that he attends a church or listens to sermons by Wright and therefore thinks the same way or tolerates that thinking would be more acceptable, if the same people making the charge on the right were to condemn the Robertsons, Hagees and Haggards of the world. They don’t. They don’t even acknowledge it.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
gerryf: the flip side of your last paragraph is equally true. All of the over-the-top hysteria from the left about the power of the religious right would seem a bit more to be based on principle, if the same people didn’t completely ignore the intertwining of religion and politics that exists in black churches with liberal ideology.
And to recap my previous argument: it really doesn’t matter if right wing pundits are using ‘black liberation theology’ to scare white voters, when the term itself originates from (and is loudly proclaimed by) the black theologians and their supporters. I suppose it matters to a degree what the motives of Sean Hannity & Co. are, but if they’re simply repeating something rather than distorting it then it’s fair game, IMO. Your initial comment seemed to imply that they were the ones who were inserting the word ‘black’ in front of liberation theology, and we’ve already debunked that.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:37 am
The point lost on those that compare Obama’s long-time close friend, mentor and pastor Wright to some republicans having a friendly, but not deep relationship with some controversial white pastors or received an endorsement by those figures, is that those relationships are NOT on par with a guy (Obama) who week after week, month after month, fore two decades sat/sits in church to be “inspired” by hate-filled messages by a messenger who – according to his own words – shaped his life. Not to forget, he continues.
Also, if endorsements by a white controversial pastor of a republican candidate are viewed with disdain and suspicion, what about the endorsement of Obama by Farrakan!? No major network has made that an issue.
Incidentally, for those that understand the true essence of Christianity words and actions go hand in hand. I have a very difficult time accepting that a man like J. Wright, oozing hatred, preaching hatred can lead anyone to Christ.
Please don’t fall back on “Obama said so.” Obama has said a lot of things that weren’t so.
Contrary to the cheerleaders, he has not character and fails miserably in the “sound judgement” category.
When is he believable?
March 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Elisabetta, what do you really know about Wright? Two or Three statements in the course of his entire life? Is that sufficient to judge and condemn his entire life? How can you judge Obama for attending Wright’s church? Just take a deep breath, think and consider how many people in your personal life said or behaved in equality wrong ways. How would you judge yourself for being in one way or another related to that person?
I am also wondering to what extent the real reason (aside from usual campaign politics) for all this rage about these statements by some is really to the fact that they are unpatriotic statements in addition to being utterly false. How different would these statements be perceived if he had said that 9/11 were God’s punishment on a sinful part of America?
March 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
[i]People are complex and much more so than the caricatures created by our soundbite society make them seem. I’m sure if you are truly honest with yourself you’ll think immediately of people in your own life or family who do or say things you can’t abide, but who also shock you with their compassion or goodness in other ways. Obama’s reference to his white grandmother reminded me of my grandparents and even my parents to some extent.[/i]
I’ll keep that in mind the next time a say white conservative gets accused himself of racism or any of the other vile things Wright has said or is found to have a deep, long, respectful relationship with that kind of individual. I’m sure the liberals will show him the kind of nuance and compassion they’re showering on Obama and his vile racist pastor…Can you say hypocrite? Anyway, Obama has given every racist an eloquent type of defense now. Yay for race relations. Or at the very least, black racism is fine, sorta, but whitey, hell no. Like I said, the soft bigotry of low expectations…
For the record, I do not associate myself with vile, anti-Semitic, racists. Nor would I ever think to attend a church whose pastor/priest said such things. I would simply walk the hell out cause that’s certainly not the message of Christ. That Obama stayed for 20 friggin’ years speaks far more loudly than a few soothing words today *after* he has been caught.
Justin,
If McCain is found to have a deep, close, 20+ years of association with a vile, anti-Semitic, anti-American racist, then in my book, he’s finished and will deserve all the damning that comes his way. Period. The people that you mention don’t even come close to the type of relationship Obama has had with Wright, unfortunately for you. That you cannot see that, or won’t see that speaks to your own self-delusion and hypocrisy.
As for the rest of your screed. Wow. I actually read the speech, but thanks for your generous assumptions though. How civil of you, just like your Messiah preaches no doubt. It was a good speech, but it’s too little too late. Sorry. I actually considered Obama to be the most likeable candidate at first even though I disagree with many of his policies. No more. Whatever respect I had for the man is gone. The more I learn about him, the less I like him.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Well, C. Stanley, I actually agree with that, but in my assessment the hysteria over Obama and Wright exceeds the hysteria over the left’s concern about the religious influence on the right. I’m sure we can disagree on that.
As for Elisabetta, I think you make a very good point, and if that is all Wright preaches, then I think you not only made a good point, but I would not be able to vote for Obama if he is the eventual candidate.
But, you said this occurs “week after week, month after month, fore two decades….”
That is where the problem is….there is no evidence to support this occurs day after day, week after week.
Is this hate-filled speech, or is this inflammatory speech? Is this for effect, or is it intended to incite hate?
Unless you have sat in the same pew as Obama and family, you really have no way to judge the intent and frequency of such speech.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Too bad Obama hadn’t yet created this defense when he called for the firing of Imus last year for ONE remark that crossed the line:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3031317
How can anyone possibly reconcile that with Obama’s attitude toward Wright’s racism? Wouldn’t hire someone like that for his staff, yet he chose Wright as his pastor and mentor and remained in that same relationship for two decades. Worried about how Imus’ slur would affect his daughters, yet no concern for exposing them to anti-white racism. Not interested in supporting Imus’ supposed racist notions, yet he supported Wright for many years…
March 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Yes we can. ;-)
March 19th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
C. Stanley,
you just posted more proof of the hypocrisy and double standard of Obama and the left as a whole.
Trent Lott comes to mind, too. An innocent remark cost him his job as a speaker. I can still hear the democrats and people like Sharpton and Jackson going at it.
I’d like to know why people are giving Obama a pass, when others who happened to be white, have been fingered as racists for more innocuous remarks and lost their job over them.
GerryF, even in the event that Rev. Wright offered calmer, sensible sermons (hard to conceive) how do you reconcile the two?
I guarantee you wouldn’t justify a Jekyll and Hyde white preacher. You wouldn’t tolerate less than that from a white person. Then, why for pete’s sake are we arguing over how much is too much?
As for the left hysteria, there is no equal. Words are blown out of proportions, motives are conjured with the worst intents. Mind you, without cause.
Here we have a great deal to be concerned and you ask if Wright’s words are inflammatoy or hateful. Would you ask that question if a white person said the same thing in reverse?
I don’t need to listen to Wright’s speeches for 20 years to conclude that his sermons are far from edifying and lead to destructive sentiments.
Yuri, normal, well- adjusted people do not choose to be mentored by destructive and hateful individuals, be them relatives, co-workers, friends or acquaintances. There is the option to restrict the time we spend with them, if any.
I certainly wouldn’t point to a destructive individual as my inspiration. Would you? Obama did. The raising of eyebrows, the puzzlement, the skepticism toward Obama’s double-speak are all sound reactions.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Yes, I would ask if it were a white person saying the same thing.
But the question isn’t would I condemn Wright, the question is will I condemn Obama by association.
You are willing to, I am not. The difference is you will look for any reason to condemn him, and I am wrestling as to whether I will support him.
I think it is fair that you question his judgment in attending a church where a pastor speaks even occasionally like Wright did. But I wonder if you can do so fairly without ever having heard the entire sermon or a larger body of his work. Yes, the clips I’ve heard seem quite heated, but I have only heard 10 seconds of three different sermons. What did the other 30 minutes of each sermon say?
How do the words of the sermon reflect the deeds of the man? The firery oratory of the Rev. Wright certainly made my ears burn, but I’ve heard some things come out of other preacher’s mouths that seem offensive outside the context of the entire message.
When my pastor condemn’s this nation with less volume but equal passion because it permits abortion, do you condemn him, or is it OK because you support his position?
When Jesus said:
Damn you rich! You already have your compensation.
Damn you who are well-fed! You will know hunger.
Damn you who laugh now! You will weep and grieve.
Damn you when everybody speaks well of you!
–Scholars Translation of Luke 6:24-26
Do you condemn him because you don’t like the message?
March 20th, 2008 at 6:08 am
gerryf: I condemn that “Scholars Translation”, that’s for sure.
Jesus never said anything like that- this ‘translation’ completely twists the meaning of his words. He was all about forgiveness, not damnation. True that he didn’t mince words about what would happen to those who didn’t repent of their sins, but he laid down his own life so that everyone could repent instead of being damned.
And that’s actually the crux of how liberation theology twists Christianity too.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Gerryf,
for starters, all of the verses you quoted start with “Woe unto you…” expressing grief and distress, not a desire to damn people. As for you, do you take Jesus seriously or do you use Him to twist a point?
Concerning Rev. Wright’s inflammatory messages they are part and parcel of his long-standing opinions and are in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches, especially in light of his claim to Christianity.
James 3:11-17
Does a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
For where envying there is confusion and every evil work.
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Correction -
For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.