[Vision2020] Say What?

Nous Tweaker noustweaker at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 30 17:16:37 PDT 2009

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?
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list