Archive for November 26th, 2005
You folks are making me hop, and I LOVE it!
“Some theologians you guys are. You’re morons. I myself am a Christian White Nationalist and I can’t help but laugh at your ignorance of history and Biblical Scripture. You make a mockery of the Bible.”
Zachary, I would not talk about the Old Testament if I didn’t think it was important. I make a mockery of the people who twist it.
You have taken the Old Testament and gotten a healthy attitude from it. You and I both know a LOT of people who have taken both Testaments and made them into something sick.
If I remember correctly, Jesus said those people would come along and do just that.
The earliest and probably the most important debate in Christian history was the one between Peter and Paul about whether converts had to be circumcized. I cannot see how a person who takes the Old Testament as unshakeable and final truth could have concluded that a convert did NOT have to be circumcised.
I am not a theologian, I am a historian. I am sure that many who backed Peter in this said critics were making a mockery of the Old Testament. But Peter did something almost unimaginable for so many who call themselves Christians today, as my correspondence with the Methodist Doctor of Theology below demonstrates.
Peter saw he was wrong and said so. He then went on with his job, which was spreading the Gospel. Can you imagine a modern theologian doing THAT? Have you ever heard a modern theologian admit that he was justplain wrong and go on with his real job?
Ther is another astounding differene between Peter and modern theolgians. He did not try to hog all the action. He gave Paul the job of preaching tot he gentiles, because he felt that he couldn’t do that job.
I repeat, Zachary, can you imagine ANY modern theologian or preacher doing THAT?
The Book has survived a lot worse trials than Bob Whitaker’s insisting that it is not on the same par with Gospel.
As you can see from the comments, some agree with me and some don’t. That is why both of us are here.
We are not on the same par with Peter and Paul, but we should follow their example.
Peter hit a point that needs emphasizing.
I keep saying that my approach WORKS. Peter explained what that MEANS. Read what he says CAREFULLY:
“Yes, Bob I too agree that your quips work. ”
“The trick is to learn the signs of success. For example when we have hit home, the other may switch topics. But if the other replies with something unkind and below the belt, he has lost, is aware that he has lost and will not be worth pursuing, although anyone else listening may benefit from what they hear. Gentle parrying from someone one considers honest can be a sign that he is interested at least intellectually. Keep it low key and conversation normal, and if the person brings up the topic again, we have the right to reply. ”
In a discussion, most people naturally want to come out on TOP. They want to LOOK good.
I am trying to save my race.
So when I say my tactics — and they involve a hell of lot more than “quips” — WORK, I do NOT mean they make the other guy concede your point. What they do is put the other person in an impossible position. So Peter has put in a critical piece of coaching that I left out.
We want the other guy to go away gunshy. We want him to realize for the first time in his life that what his Mommy Professors told him can’t stand up among adults.
Above all, our talk is aimed at the OTHER people there. We want them thinking, “Lord, I don’t want to be in the position of that poor bastard. If I had come up with all the so-called wisdom on race my professors filled me with, I would be squirming in my chair the way he is.”
Peter, this is the kind of comment I really need and I really treasure.