For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I’m sure we can disagree on that.

Yes we can. ;-)

I’ll keep that in mind the next time a say white conservative gets accused himself of racism

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

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”

Obama said he appeared once on Imus’ show two years ago, and “I have no intention of returning.”

Racial Slur Stirs Trouble for Shock Jock

Last week, Imus referred to the Rutgers University women’s basketball team, most of whom are African-American, as “nappy-headed hos.” He has since apologized for his remarks, and CBS and MSNBC suspended his show for two weeks.

“He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”

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…

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the future? How about every republican candidate since, well, Lincoln. Ever heard of Bob Jones University? Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

Wake up.

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.

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

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.

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.