[Vision2020] Say What?

[Joe Campbell]

You are a sick man.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:16 PM, Nous Tweaker <noustweaker at hotmail.com>  
wrote:

>
> Joe Campbell wrote:
> [[ You can't tell me, on the one hand, that your monkey jokes aren't  
> offensive ]]
>
> That, right there, can be Exhibit A if any of the 250 suckers who  
> signed up for Mr. Campbell's logic course should decide they want to  
> sue him for false advertising. Based on his interactions with me  
> here, I have to conclude Mr. Campbell can't even read a sentence.  
> After committing multiple genetic fallacies and abusive and  
> circumstantial ad hominem errors, as well as association fallacies,  
> Mr. Campbell then turns around and boasts about the number of  
> students in his logic class. Somebody owes 250 ripped-off consumers  
> a full refund.
>
> Now please feel free to move your lips if it aids comprehension in  
> reading this. First of all, I don't have monkey jokes. I don't even  
> have one monkey joke. The monkey joke belongs to Roy Blunt. I am not  
> Roy Blunt. Apparently the joke was a favorite of Mr. Blunt even  
> before Obama became president, which I suppose proves that Blunt's  
> racism is not a recent phenomenon. He must have danced a little jig  
> when Obama got elected because finally, after all these years, he  
> had a real living target in his sights upon which he could discharge  
> his vile racist joke. The moral of the story is, never mention  
> monkeys in a joke, because monkey=Negro and Negro=monkey. That IS  
> your point, is it not, Mr. Campbell? (Proverbs 26:4-5)
>
> [[ If hiding behind privilege in an effort to insult and harrass  
> {sic} minorities doesn't constitute racism, what does? ]]
>
> I know it's not polite to answer a question with a question, but if  
> shearing billy goats in an effort to intimidate and frighten  
> Holstein cows doesn't constitute speciousness, what does? I stand  
> guilty as charged, your honor. Off with me head!
>
> Tom Hansen wrote:
> [[ we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity ]]
>
> That statement is simultaneously true and false. It is true with  
> respect to Obama, but it is also true with respect to every other  
> former president alive today, and if Trent Franks singles out Obama  
> without a track record of similarly blasting previous presidents,  
> the guy would have to be seen as a hypocrite and a liar.
>
> Keely Emerine-Mix wrote:
> [[ laughing at . . . "Ise Yo' President" while adding another  
> joke . . . about the President's assassination a mere 20 min. after  
> Inauguration -- does tend to convict you. ]]
>
> That is one of the most intelligent observations I have read in this  
> V2020 thread. Mrs. Mix is like a breath of fresh air in this  
> discussion. In retrospect I can see why somebody would be offended  
> by both of those jokes and I acknowledge that I was lacking in  
> sensitivity. Please allow me to make amends with the following new  
> joke --
>
> President Obama was visiting an elementary school. One class was in  
> the midst of a discussion about the meanings of words. The president  
> readily agreed when asked if he would like to take a turn leading  
> the discussion, and our great leader requested that the class give  
> him an example of "tragedy."
>
> One boy stood up and volunteered, "If my three-year-old cousin,  
> whose family owns a farm, is playing in the wheat when he is struck  
> and killed by a combine harvester, I think that would qualify as a  
> tragedy."
>
> "No," said Obama, "that would be called an accident."
>
> Next was a little girl's turn: "If a bus full of children careened  
> off a precipice, killing everyone, certainly that would be a tragedy."
>
> The president shook his head. "I can't agree -- that would be called  
> a great loss."
>
> The room fell silent, and nobody else offered an answer.
>
> Obama scanned the room. "Come on, kids, can't any of you give me an  
> example of a tragedy?"
>
> At long last, from the rear of the room a teeny tyke gingerly raised  
> his hand. In a small, hesitant voice he said: "If Air Force One  
> flying with president Obama on board was hit by a 'friendly fire'  
> missile and blasted to bits, that would be a tragedy."
>
> "Excellent example!" effused Obama. "You are correct. And can you  
> explain why that would constitute a tragedy?"
>
> "Well," the boy replied, "it could only be a tragedy, because it  
> sure wouldn't be a great loss and it almost certainly wouldn't be an  
> accident either."
>
> ======================
>
> Mrs. Mix continues:
> [[ Why don't you . . . condemn Kinism? . . . In fact, why not join  
> millions of other Christians in lamenting the existence of any  
> racism at all, anywhere, at any time? . . . I'd love to know you  
> join me in hating racial prejudice and acknowledging its cancerous  
> effect on this nation. ]]
>
> Mrs. Mix, my overriding concern is first of all to be found pleasing  
> to God. I wish to conform my thinking to God's will as revealed in  
> Scripture. I do have a genuine secondary concern to avoid giving  
> unnecessary offense to other people, whether they be inside or  
> outside God's covenant. There is a definite order of priorities  
> there, and I think you and I are in agreement that those priorities  
> are correct. Our job is not to be conformed to the thinking and ways  
> of this world, but rather to be conformed to Christ. Christ was not  
> concerned with winning any popularity contests among the ungodly,  
> but rather was concerned with the truth and with doing His Father's  
> will. Our focus should be the same.
>
> A Christian sect can have some "nutty" features while remaining  
> within the framework of orthodoxy. Kinism, and perhaps some (though  
> definitely not all) of the groups subsumed under the rubric of  
> "Christian Identity," have two important distinctive features that  
> require fellow Christians to deal with them very carefully. First,  
> they seem to manage to stay within the bounds of historical  
> Christianity as regards the great theological and Christological  
> controversies of the past. Now I put the qualifier "seem" in there  
> because there is always an intimate connection between theology and  
> anthropology, so if our doctrine of man is screwed up it will almost  
> certainly tend to be accompanied by a corresponding theological  
> problem, at least implicitly, and it may be that on closer  
> inspection I will be able to discern problems that were not visible  
> at first. Second, they seem to be trying hard to peg all their  
> positions to Scripture, and they try to deal with the entire Bible.  
> Any Christian who wants to criticize them needs to get deep into  
> exegetical and hermeneutical issues.
>
> There was a long time when I would have considered the  
> eschatological position known as Full Preterism (or Hyper-Preterism)  
> to be within the pale of Christian orthodoxy. I am less inclined to  
> do so now, since over time some of the more pernicious implications  
> of their hermeneutic have been coming out. Sometimes problems that  
> are present implicitly come out over time, and sometimes they do  
> not. One could say that by implication both Roman Catholicism (with  
> its praying to Mary and the other saints) is polytheistic. One could  
> say that about Dispensationalism too. However, there are no signs  
> that either Roman Catholics or Dispensationalists are actually  
> drifting into polytheism. Accordingly, it would be unwise to attack  
> either of those groups as polytheists. So I think we need to be a  
> bit patient when dealing with theological controversies. God will  
> make everything clear in due time, and I am working, within my  
> limited capacity, to make things as clear as possible with regard to  
> Kinist doctrines.
>
> In a certain sense, it would be easy to just go along with the  
> world's sense of outrage at such people and condemn them as  
> "haters." But I can't in good conscience do that. I think they are  
> wrong, but I feel it is incumbent upon me to attempt a thorough and  
> decisive refutation that deals with all the pertinent aspects of  
> Scripture. It's a big project. If someone with the wherewithal to do  
> so were to undertake such a project, in the end, I think that  
> neither the Kinists nor the world's popular wisdom concerning racism  
> will be vindicated. However, God would be vindicated. And that is  
> what all parties concerned should be desiring -- that God would be  
> vindicated, always.
>
> Mrs. Mix, you could help me (and many others too, I'm sure) a lot by  
> providing a biblical definition of racism. Not necessarily by  
> pointing to a definitive proof text but at least by drawing on a  
> network of texts to show how God defines racism. Even looking at the  
> Wikipedia article makes it clear that people can't agree on what  
> constitutes racism. Of course, one person (or even no person) plus  
> God is an absolute majority, so if we can get our definition from  
> the Bible, we're good to go. Surely if millions of Christians are  
> lamenting racism, we can biblically define what it is we are  
> lamenting. You know, like the way millions of Christians can define  
> the evil of, say, abortion.
>
> Nous Tweaker
> ===========
> Can you handle the truth?
> http://noustweaker.blogspot.com/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================