Wright's Awards

This problem is bigger than I thought. My impression was that this preaching was unique or contained. It may be pretty widespread in the Black church. (I used to say "black church" thinking it meant the color of the skin of the congregation. Does it mean the preaching they receive also?)
Retired pastor Wright is set to receive an award at Brite Divinity School, in Dallas, on the 29th. He was named the recipient of the award a year ago.
This article makes it plain that Wright is indeed a hero of sorts to folks in the black community of Christians.

Stacey Floyd-Thomas, director of black church studies at Brite, said Wright, like Martin Luther King Jr., represents the black church tradition in his harsh denunciation of social problems affecting the country, and said Wright's harsh criticism does not make him unpatriotic.
"Standing in the rich tradition of the African-American church, if he [Wright] is guilty of anything - this loving father, this prophetic pastor, this former U.S. Marine - is guilty of loving the United States enough to tell the truth," said Floyd-Thomas, who teaches ethics at Brite.

And later in the same article...

More than 15 black church scholars joined Floyd-Thomas and Haynes in their defense of Wright.
The Rev. Raphael Warnock, pastor at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, said the public has confused moral outrage with hatred in response to claims that black preachers promote hate from the pulpit.
"In fact, it's inappropriate not to feel outrage in the face of injustice," he said.

At the bottom of the page is the nearly 45 minute video (I have only seen snippets) of the news conference at which the black bible scholars defended pastor Wright.
Personally, I'm all for outrage over moral injustice and I'll be the last to argue that the media always portrays their stories accurately. I find it odd though, that the defenders are heavy on counter-attack and weak on content. But this has a while to play out now. I think this is either Obama's inexperience showing up (that this whole scenario was allowed to go on this long) or a confirmation that he really didn't expect to get this far in his quest for the office he seeks.

Obama Shows Christrian Deference and Respect (Not)

Once again my impeccable
timing is on display.
This article appeared June 24th,
but I've got a cache of blogs on the
burner waiting to be dispatched.

It's been said that when people realize how far left Mr Obama truly is, he'll quickly lose his appeal for possessing a Bobby Kennedy-type eloquence. I've wondered if that would pan out but Mr Obama just proved it with his junk references to the Christian Right. All (em) is mine...

The speech by Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate and member of the 1.2-million member denomination, dealt with the link between faith and politics

(as opposed to what right leaning Christians do - which is to demolish the much vaunted "wall of separation" between church and state!)

The phrase, "link between faith and politics" is repeated three times in the article.

"Our conscience can't rest so long as 37 million Americans are poor and forgotten by their leaders in Washington," Obama said. "We need to heed the biblical call to care for `the least of these' and lift the poor out of despair. That's why it's not just a policy issue when we fight to expand the Earned-Income Tax Credit and the minimum wage. If you're working 40 hours a week, you shouldn't be living in poverty."

In the United States it is possible to have the grandest income and still not be able to buy a decent meal. It comes down to how well you budget. I know a few hispanic immigrants who work 80 hrs a week, make less than the national median, and are still grateful for the oppurtunity to send money home.
It's can be very uncomfortable to watch those with higher incomes seemingly enjoy the rich life. Which is why class envy works so well for Democratic politicians in the first place. But the world knows poverty. The U.S. and most of the west does not.
In the west, Robin Hood IS the Sheriff of Nottingham. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is not only a safe and legal practice, it's considered a societal step UP from getting a decent education and providing for your own family.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Hijacked?"

I think it's helpful that Obama brings this up. His speech to the United Church of Christ convention in Hartford, Conn, is probably the strongest evidence that the Christian Church in America is at a frightfully weak point in its history. Democrats have proven time and again that the American people are dangerously ignorant of their own Constitution. It looks now that they will do the same for America's ignorance of the Bible.
Which is good. Perhaps Christians will then get serious about what their faith is supposed to be about - the offer of eternal life to a dead generation. I firmly believe that Christians belong in the public arena. But when a denomination that ordained its first openly gay minister 30 years ago and has been pro-abortion as long as the word's existed complains of "moral outrage" and "division" caused by the right, can we help but wonder if the word "Christian" has outlived its usefulness?

"Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said.
"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," according to an advance copy of his speech.
"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich," Obama said. "I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version."

My my, where to start? The wealthy are paying higher taxes than ever, and the cuts were across the board, which our democrat candidate fails to mention. And by the way, if we complain about the rich getting more access to the gov't, then perhaps we shouldn't expect them to pay for so much of it.

No!! Not The CHRISTIANIZERS!!!!

The originator of this YouTube video calls him/herself " Always Kafir," defined by Muslims as "a person who refuses to submit himself to Allah (God), a disbeliever in God." The link is to his YouTube page, and the videographer has a few vid's available. This short intro is from the YT page.

According to Al-Jazeerah's interview with Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, the president of The Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.

Always Kafir presents this five minute clip of a lengthier interview with Sheikh Katani, mentioned earlier. The clip is encouraging to a Christian, reading the whole interview transcript is infuriating! Christians are slaughtering the innocent Muslims, and the Belgian gov't has funded the purchase of 30,000 Somalian children from desperately poor families, and exercised similar atrocities all over Africa in order to accomplish this exodus from the Muslim faith! He gives an odd "clarification" to the words "evangelism" and "christianization."

The concept of evangelism: is inviting the non-Christians to the Christian or Nazarene religion, and this is the right of every Christian and the right of every believer to call others to his faith. However, we are talking about a different matter; which is Christianization. Christianization means the following: preparing plans, and executing these plans and evolving these plans to change Muslims into Christians by taking advantage of the ignorance and poverty (of the people) and whatever necessitates from similar circumstances.

From what follows in the interview, it seems to me that the word "plan" as used in the above paragraph should probably have been translated as "scheme" or "conspiracy."

What happened is that in the days of Emperor Hela Silasi who used to force Muslims to bow to the Christian, and if he refused then he was whipped 45 lashes and jailed between 2 and 5 years. In the year 1948, a massacre occurred at the hands of the Amharic tribes; the Amharic being Christians and collaborators, who continued to slaughter Muslims for 7 months and perform the most horrific acts imaginable. For example they deprived them from the most basic human rights, to the point that they mutilated the male Muslim’s reproductive organs so that no more Muslim children would be born. Ethiopia was rewarded after all these horrific acts; rewarded by being made the head quarters of the African Unity League.

Now, nobody will say that Emperor Haile Selassie (as spelled usually) was a great guy. All agree he was a brutal dictator, even those who respect Ethiopia's modernization during his reign. His real name was Tafari Makonnen. He became a young prince, or "Ras." His title, along with his first name gave the Bahamian religion "Rastafarians" their name. (They somehow came to the conclusion that he was, and remains God.) The Emperor claimed Christianity, but the Sheikh's reference is the only one that I can find that accuses him of treating different groups unequally. It may well be that Arabs or Muslims resisted his efforts to bring Ethiopia into the 20th century more than other groups. He may have responded unkindly, as dictators tend to respond to the resistance, but that would have had a simple remedy, no?
In any case, the thought that his reign or brutality had anything to do with "christianization" is insane. Ethiopia was and remains a majority Christian nation. So much for Ethiopia, on to Nigeria where a missionary "forced" a Muslim ruler to "move" the Brit.

Nigeria’s population is 120 million people, 70% of whom are Muslim. In the 1960’s a British missionary came and declared that he will Christianize North Nigeria, the majority of whom are Muslim. As a result, Ahmad Banulo (from the leaders of the Muslims) was forced at the time to move him to Lagos the capital. As a result the butcher Arorese, that was present at the time, eliminated all the Muslim rulers and killed Ahmad Banulo, why? Because he merely dared to move this missionary who declared that he wishes to Christianize North Nigeria.

A couple of things: a) whether "the butcher Arorese" was such a jerk or was just successful, you'd expect a few other references on the web. Nothing. The Muslims have a thing with English spelling, I know, but there ought to be something. Nothing! Just this interview.And it's the same for Ahmad Banulo! Notice he doesn't even identify the notorious "Christianizer?" The entire interview is like this!

In another country, Zanzibar, is an Arabic African nation and I am not saying Muslim. Zanzibar was always connected to the Sultanate of Oman (in the Persian Gulf). Concerning Zanzibar, there was a priest by the name Julius Niriry, president of Tanzania, who annihilated 20,000 Muslims (male and female) with a military force lead by a chicken thief. This thief was imprisoned for being accused of stealing chickens; he was released and asked to command the military brigade that annihilated 20,000 Muslims.

A CHICKEN THIEF creamed mighty Allah's believers? Come ON!!

espresso beans to lady esspresso!

"The Perfect Moral Storm of Our Times"

The two opening paragraphs from the bio provided at his website will suffice...

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.
Dr. Mohler has been recognized by such influential publications as Time and Christianity Today as a leader among American evangelicals. In fact, Time.com called him the "reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S".

Dr. Mohler didn't invent the idea of being able to predict homosexuality in an unborn child, or even instigate the conversation about the possibility of being able to re-direct genetic tendencies toward a heterosexual life. In the past, I've been fairly familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention. However, I've never heard of Dr. Mohler, and can't affirm the credentials that Time, Inc would bestow.
But a recent (Mar 14) Mohler-authored article, titled, Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It? has received some attention for bringing to light some recent research into the possibility of biological causations of homosexuality and the reactions of others writers. And it's not just the "causations" that has folks buzzing about...the researchers think they may soon be able to reverse the unborn's tendencies.

For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.
The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through "sexual partner preference testing."

The article continues with descriptions of the research on rams that show that only a bare majority of male sheep are entirely hetero, and the cause is not environmental.
The question of course, is - "does this make homosexuality natural, and if natural, then "normal?" - and if natural and normal, then morally acceptable?" The answer may be for each parent to answer. If you KNEW that, if you do nothing, your still unborn son would mature with a sexual preference for other men, would you interfere if you could? It is already perfectly legal, with the help of many past gay activists (bedroom privacy), for the mother to abort that child for that reason. Mohler's article quotes another magazine article that puts it this way...

"A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes." The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use it?"

A question I can't find addressed anywhere is, "Would future parents face legal challenges from their children if they could have changed their child's homosexual tendency, but didn't?"
A search for some other opinions on all of this shed light on why the experiments center on sheep. I found this at Exodus International, first quoting an earthtimes.org. item... (my emphasis)

NEW YORK: Experiments conducted by scientists to change the sexuality of homosexual sheep have drawn ire from gay and lesbian activists. They are afraid the efforts could lead to extinction of homosexuality in humans.
The experiments have been approved by the government as farmers complained they are financially affected when one in 10 rams, on average, is gay. After extensive studies of the brains of the homosexual rams, scientists at the Oregon State University have been able to identify the processes that influence their sexual orientation.

This article actually makes the point that it's the homosexual rights activists that don't like the direction to which this research is heading, but they are also the ones who've been demanding that homosexuality be shown to be biologically based.

The scientists said their research is confined to reducing or eliminating gay sheep. Charles Roselli, a biologist leading the research team, said sexuality has been an under-studied subject because of political concerns.
"It's a touchy issue. In fact, several studies have shown that people who believe homosexuality is biologically based are less homophobic than people who think that this orientation is acquired," he said.

The article by Dr. Mohler is well done and highly recommended. He lists important reminders for all Christians, including that all of us are created in God's image, and a biological explanation for the temptation toward homosexual relationships does nothing to change that. Nor does it change the sinful nature of homosexuality. As a favorite pastor once told me, "No one ever went to hell because he was a homosexual. If ever there was a homosexual that was sent to hell, it was because he did not know Jesus Christ as his personal saviour. The same reason anyone else was ever sent there."


Almost, but not quite off topic, Dr. Mohler also brings up another related ethical dilemma, that of "Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis." So far it is of concern only to those utilizing in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Another search led me to a 28 page pdf that discusses the genetic detection procedure in some detail.
All is great stuff, sure to keep you thinking well into the next decade, and beyond.

in the locker room - after the win

Colts testify . . . prayer works

I remember when Jim Kelly of the Buffalo Bills was injured, the backup's name was Frank Reich. He did a magnificent job, and when the game was over, he gave glory to Jesus, his savior.
Today it gets a shrug, it wouldn't surprise anyone if Janet Jackson said the same thing on another album promo tour. It was a very different environment then. Christianity was under attack (yes, it was worse then!) The political correctness movement was in full bloom, and the common perception was that it was pretty risky to stick your neck out in ways that went counter to "multi-cultural," "diversity" or "tolerance" dogma.
That's why I was so amazed at Reich's testimony, it couldn't be cut out of post-game interviews. It was inspiring, and very courageous for the times, but I think a lot of people reacted with a similar happy surprise. And I think that is one of the reasons we still hear today rappers and out-of-control stars trying to give "glory" to God. Because it sells - or it at least calms mom and dad down.
Nonetheless, it's always pleasant to hear Jesus given credit for successes. Humility is a prized and respected virtue in any serious home. My wife discovered a pair of online pdf pamphlets highlighting the testimonies of Colts and Bears players(including coaches Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith). These are small excerpt of some very readable stories from the Colts version.
Center Jeff Saturday, #63;

As I have allowed Christ to define my identity over the past seven years, I have experienced a tremendous sense of peace. No matter what I face, I know God has a purpose and destiny for my life, that He has placed me here for a reason. God has a purpose and destiny for your life as well. If you’re struggling to determine what that is, I encourage you to bring God into the picture; and He will reveal your true identity as well.

Tarik Glenn, Offensive Tackle, #78
...

If you’re struggling with condemnation or a performance mentality, you can bring an end to it right now. Believe it or not, you already have God’s approval.

Hunter Smith, Punter, #17

Playing on this team is a tremendous privilege. It’s great when people recognize our achievements. But I never let myself forget that God is the one who got me here, and He did it for His glory, not mine.

espresso beans tolady espresso