Comments on Pro Libertate: The Rights and Wrongs of Reverend Wright

I don't dispute that he's a racist. That doesn't m...

2009-04-14T22:43:00.000-06:00

I don't dispute that he's a racist. That doesn't mean that everything he says is wrong, however.

How's that for a simple answer? :-)

I think you're trying to find a complicated answer...

2009-04-14T22:20:00.000-06:00

I think you're trying to find a complicated answer to a simple question.

Rev. Wright is, simply, a racist.

I am a Roman Catholic White Citizen. I find no fau...

2008-11-27T11:58:00.000-07:00

I am a Roman Catholic White Citizen. I find no fault in this man's speech, on You-Tube. Now, it is still out of context, with the rest of his speech, so I cannot render a judgment on the whole speech. It is not Liberation Theology, if it is stating the Truth of Our American Sinfulness to the Least of Our Brothers and Sisters, in Christ. Our Lord said, "Whatsoever you do to the Least of My Brothers, that you do unto Me." (Someplace in the Gospels). Rev. Wright cannot be faulted for taking his example obviously from Catholic Television Shows like Mother Angelica, and using Catholic Truths of Examination of Conscience to first repent of his own sinfulness. That which Rev. Wright said on this particular day, cannot be untrue. It is righteous, and must be seen as such. To diatribe, with false intellectualism, this man's true statements, is to oppose Christ, Who is Truth. Now, that said, if Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, is unrepentant of racism for white people and has an unforgiving heart, I am sure, if he is a Godly Man, and open to Christ's Admonisions, he will listen. If not, then, his example would be considered flip flopping, and untrue. History, bear this out. I do have a problem, with the diatribes of those who wrote, that they thought the statements of Rev. Dr. Jeremiah were wrong here. I cannot agree with your statements. I do, as a Roman Catholic White Woman, agree, with what Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright said here. God has allowed America to suffer, just like the Isrealites suffered, for turning their back as a whole on God. But, I do not see Rev. Dr. Wright denouncing Abortion, and I have a great concern, that since he left out the greatest Haulocaust in America, the Abortion of 58,000 Million Unborn Babies, since 1973, I sence, then, that he left it out for many speculative reasons. He has to come out against abortion, embroyonic stem cell usury/and disgarding (killing them when their done), euthanasia, capital punishment, and contraceptives, before I admired him 100%. But, Jesus didn't ask me to follow Rev. Dr. Jeremian Wright. Jesus says to all of us, "Follow Me." And, I take that to heart. No other man has ever bled and died for me but, Jesus, and no other human beings deserve my total adulations, but Jesus. Obeying rightful civil authority, in every thing but sin. Obama is for: Abortion, Contraceptives, Homosexual Unions, Embryonic Stem Cell Usuries & Abortions, and I won't follow such a lousey lead. It would be a sin for me to follow President Elect Barack Obama's bad examples already. I will oppose abortion, even with the shedding of my blood, if need be. I won't continue to allow pro-abortion idiots to torture and kill the unborn. I will fight with all my prayers, and all my pro-life effort, doing legally and religiously what I can to stop Abortion, Contraceptives, Porn, Euthanasia, Homosexual Unions, and any other mayham the Devil can cook up in the hearts and minds of people, who abuse power, to trample on the Littlest Ones, and Most Vulnerable Ones of America. We must stand up even to our Family Members, who want to bring home for Thanksgiving their Live in Girlfriends, who have selfishly done this Evil in front of my Granddaughter, Lauren. I will not invite those w/o a Wedding Garment into my house on Thanksgiving and act like it is okay. As for me and my house, WE WILL SERVE THE LORD.

i agree with a lot of what rev. wright said. but i...

2008-05-24T23:10:00.000-06:00

i agree with a lot of what rev. wright said. but i am not running for president.

however, his comment about aids is extreme and not based on anything credible.

During Rev. Wright's message, he makes several ref...

2008-04-26T19:48:00.000-06:00

During Rev. Wright's message, he makes several references to America's "chickens coming home to roost." As his evidence he sites items from the Apaches to Hiroshima and beyond. If we pursue his logic, it follows that each of those he mentions must have had their "chickens come home to roost" also. If we pursue his logic further, is the black suffering he refers to because their "chickens have come home to roost?"....or would that be an exception to his rule?

If, by chance, you change your mind and wish to pu...

2008-04-04T07:54:00.000-06:00

If, by chance, you change your mind and wish to pursue it, you can explain my logical fallacies to me at:
Institute of Biblical Defense
www.biblicaldefense.org

Thanks for the lively exchange and peace be with you.

First off, this will be my last post on the topic ...

2008-04-03T22:08:00.000-06:00

First off, this will be my last post on the topic so if the other anon and 'dr' wish to continue it (which I'm sure they will) so be it.

For both of you let me state this - it is quite obvious that you are both more committed to your ideology than to your humanity. You are the very type of ideologues I initially referred to. You drank the 'koolaid' and now you expect the rest to follow suit. Sorry, that isn't happening.

Also, I'd like to point out that I am well aware of Will's personal leanings and I admire him quite a lot having read him for some time and having been fortunate enough to hear him speak. It is 'my impression' that Will, unlike yourselves, respects his humanity and has chosen a path which augments it rather than defines it. You on the other hand, are more like his 'one note nelly' debate opponent who thumped his ideology repeatedly without offering anything of substance to his position.

A final note to anon, I think I could pretty well 'mop the floor' with you from a philosophical perspective as your posts are riddled with logical fallacies. However, this forum does not lend itself well to such nor do I have the desire or inclination to pursue it. My goal is not to change your myopic way of thinking only to find individuals who share common goals regardless of their personal inclinations.

Peace be with you two - you're going to need it . . .

To the anonymous atheist standard bearers;Oh, it m...

2008-04-02T08:03:00.000-06:00

To the anonymous atheist standard bearers;

Oh, it must be made more explicit;

"There is no standard." (that's my standard and I'm sticking with it, because I am god. I made myself, therefore I own myself, and my standard is better than anyone else's. Where we agree, we agree, where we do not, we do not. That's all there is, now and forever, Amen, because I said so, that's why. So there).

"They utter speech, and speak insolent things..."
Psalm 94:4a (part b is appropriate too).

There is no morality without God (or god). If you make or determine your own morality, then you are god, a legend in your own mind (as has been said). The Almighty God does not impose His standard on you (except He requires you to breathe air). He lets you have your way, as inconsistent, irrational, willful, and arbitrary as it is.

My efforts are not to impose His standard on you either, rather to ask you to reconsider your willfulness against Him. Why are you so angry at Him?

My efforts are for you, not against you, (an attempt at love and concern). They are also for Him, desiring to bring every thought captive to His standard.

Thanks for the lively discussion. Do with it as you wish. After all, it's your standard that counts, right?

If there is no absolute standard of morality, ther...

2008-04-02T03:52:00.000-06:00

If there is no absolute standard of morality, there are no atrocities.

......speaking of shallowness.
Man, are you ever thick-headed. Atheist philosophers would never use your arguments. They would consider it philosophical baby-talk.(Well, except perhaps Dan Barker) This is why they deny absolute morality, because it points to a standard above mankind, i.e. God.

Without God, all men are free to determine their own individual relativistic morality, which means there wouldn't exist an absolute moral standard above men through which anyone could point to as binding upon all people for all time. Even if secularists arbitrarily and collectively agreed upon a binding definition of what is right and wrong, that standard could still change when others succeed them with different views, or if their consensus on the moral standard changes. Only God's unchanging, absolute standard of morality affirms that racism and murdering innocent people are always wrong, in every society, and in every age.
If you wish to arbitrarily resurrect Judeo-Christian absolute morality, be my guest, but don't tell me you're being a logically consistent atheist when doing so.
BTW, there are sound arguments for God's existence, but this isn't the forum for that discussion. But here are a few:
1)Sufficient Reason Cosmological
argument
2)Existential Causality
Cosmological argument
3)Kalaam Cosmological argument
4)Teleological argument
5)Axiological argument
6)Ontological argument

P.S.
BTW, Will Grigg is an Evangelical Christian, so when he writes about those despicable atrocities, he has a God-based, unchanging, absolute moral standard by which he can objectively judge the actions of others as being evil; evil actions which are not rooted in God's absolute moral standard, but rooted in the hearts of evildoers who disregard that absolute standard by transgressing it.

Well, anon - if you believe that morality cannot e...

2008-04-01T22:36:00.000-06:00

Well, anon - if you believe that morality cannot exist without god - produce your god . Otherwise you have nothing but vacuous arguments.

We can clearly see when we have hurt another or trespassed another's right to self ownership without a god myth. That is all that is necessary. If you wish to prostrate yourself to myth and you enjoy it then so be it, it does me no harm and I don't begrudge you in the least. Just show the same respect for others if you are not too shallow to do so.

Ah yes, and 'dr' exposes the very root of all atro...

2008-04-01T22:03:00.000-06:00

Ah yes, and 'dr' exposes the very root of all atrocities that Will writes about regularly - the explicit demand for a 'standard bearer' and the implicit demand that it be 'his' standard bearer.

Sorry dr, but the only standard is that of the fundamental principle of self-ownership. Where we can agree, we agree; where we don't, we don't. No more - no less.

Anon 1:12,There is no logical basis for absolute m...

2008-04-01T19:13:00.000-06:00

Anon 1:12,
There is no logical basis for absolute morality without God. If man is left alone in the universe, he is free to determine his own individual morality. The existential atheist philosopher Paul Sartre accepted and understood this point. Without God, we would all be empty vessels, existing in a pointless and meaningless universe where eventually everything will cease to exist. What message of hope can the atheist ever offer, and from whence does his standard of morality derive?
I do not worship the state, nor do I worship religion; I worship God. In his quest for a god substitute, It is the secularist who is prone to government worship, not the Christian. As a Christian, I have a logical basis from which to call the actions of others either good or evil. The logical, consistent atheist can only say: "Well, Ted Bundy was doing what he felt was right, and since I believe in moral relativism, I have no objective standard by which to call his actions wrong. Sure, I want to say his actions were wrong, but I can't. If I did I would be imposing my views of morality upon him since I would then be appealing to an absolute standard of righteousness above both him and myself, which would be wrong...and logically inconsistent with my atheism's groundless view of morality."
Anon 1:12,
You have yet to disclose what you mean by "lacking moral integrity". Whose moral integrity? You have no objective basis of morality to offer me, but don't worry I already have one. You see, from my Judeo-Christian view of absolute morality, I have a logical basis from which to call the actions of the atheist mass-murderer Joseph Stalin and the sociopathic mass-murderer George W. Bush evil.

You do not.

"If men will not be ruled by God, they will then be ruled by tyrants."

No, may your chains rest lightly upon you!

The "no-standard" bearers continue to assume no st...

2008-04-01T14:49:00.000-06:00

The "no-standard" bearers continue to assume no standard while they argue vehemently for their position against the hypocrites, religious zealots, racists, etc. They are like those who say;

"There is no truth." (and that's the truth).
"There is no absolute knowledge." (and I know this absolutely).
"Don't tell me what to do." (telling you what to do).
"Everything I say is a lie." (if it's true, it's false).
"There is nothing more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes."

They are like a man who argues against the existence of air, using it all the while he makes his case against it.

Anon - the one who demands a god for his morality ...

2008-04-01T14:12:00.000-06:00

Anon - the one who demands a god for his morality - you really deserve to be ruled by both religion and govenment as you apparently are an empty vessel without them.

May your chains set lightly on you . . .

What benefit and for whom? What is the right thing...

2008-03-31T23:04:00.000-06:00

What benefit and for whom? What is the right thing with all things being equal and when everything will die? Forget the 'carrot and stick' analogy of Heaven and Hell for a moment and focus on the prospect of a universe without God. My views on morality would be just as valid as yours and vice versa or any other individual for that matter, whether that individual was Mother Theresa or Ted Bundy, in a universe without God. Reread the comment and try to think really, really hard about it.
Again, Dostoyevsky was right. No God and everything is permissible. Nietzsche was also right when he told his fellow atheists to stop picking the pockets of God's corpse Whom they just killed. One of those atheist pickpocketers grabbed 'absolute morality' from the corpse of God. Nietzsche says throw it back; we create our own subjective morals now. Up can be down, black can be white and anything goes in a universe without God. Be a consistent atheist, that's all I ask....and stop borrowing moral capital from Christianity.

Anon - if you are so lacking in moral integrity th...

2008-03-31T12:35:00.000-06:00

Anon - if you are so lacking in moral integrity that you cannot see the benefit of doing the right thing without the promise of heaven or the threat of hell - then you are beyond hope. Certainly beyond anything I care to engage.

Very sad indeed . . .

Just food-for-thought:If there is no Heaven, no He...

2008-03-31T09:53:00.000-06:00

Just food-for-thought:
If there is no Heaven, no Hell or no do-overs, why be the best you can be? Why not just 'be' and do whatever thou wilt? And what is the best one can be? If everything, including the universe, will reach in due time non-existence, how can any of our actions or lives mean anything? The memory of Stalin's and Hitler's "atrocities" will have long been incinerated in the furnace of nothingness along with them when everything runs its course.
Who would be here to remember mankind's "good" (whatever good is) achievements and "evil" (however evil is defined) deeds when the universe dies a second law of thermodynamics' heat death becoming cold and lifeless with no useable energy? So if you can get away with microwaving babies and you enjoy those kind of activities, how would that be wrong if that activity empowers you to believe that you are being the best you can be? If you're right, let's follow the Nike commercial and 'just do it'
-whatever it is- for tomorrow we die. Dostoyevsky was right. No Heaven, no Hell and no God means everything is permissible. Everything!

Thank's 'mot', you summed things up well as I'm on...

2008-03-30T21:10:00.000-06:00

Thank's 'mot', you summed things up well as I'm one of the 'could care less' crowd.

I was just noting that the mass ideology of both the 'religious' and the 'political' have common roots.

As for what I believe - on the scale of the universe we are insignificant carbon based blobs on a rather non-descript planet orbiting a rather plain star in the far corner of a pretty average galaxy. In four billion years, the sun will expand and turn our little rock into a cinder. So I live for the day and my life is defined by how I interact with others through the course of my life - nothing more and nothing less. No heaven, no hell and no do-overs - so be the best you can be today to all you meet.

"He was still imprisoned when that prophesy was fu...

2008-03-30T13:33:00.000-06:00

"He was still imprisoned when that prophesy was fulfilled. The Babylonians freed him, and some traditions claim that Jeremiah wound up in Egypt, where he was murdered in his dotage by former fellow citizens of Jerusalem who had never forgiven him for bearing prophetic witness against the City's evils."

Actually, it is written in Jeremiah's book, ch 43:

4 So Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, and all the people, obeyed not the voice of the LORD, to dwell in the land of Judah. 5 But Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, took all the remnant of Judah, that were returned from all nations, whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah; 6 Even men, and women, and children, and the king's daughters, and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, >>>and Jeremiah<<< the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah. 7 So they came into the land of Egypt: for they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: thus came they even to Tahpanhes. (Emphasis added)

I do not recall a record of Jeremiah's death. But considering his prophecies against Egypt it is possible that Pharaoh may have wanted him dead. In chapter 42, Jeremiah gives the following:

15 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; If ye wholly set your faces to enter into Egypt, and go to sojourn there; 16 Then it shall come to pass, that the sword, which ye feared, shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt, and the famine, whereof ye were afraid, shall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there ye shall die.

So it may also be that Jeremiah fell victim to the Babylonian sword.

Great post... It's a shame that all of the Rev's w...

2008-03-30T09:29:00.000-06:00

Great post... It's a shame that all of the Rev's words are suddenly "anti-American"...

As a Catholic, i can see parallels between this story, America's Christians, and today's first reading (Acts 2:42-47), about how the early Christians lived -- sharing everything, eating and working together, constantly in exultations.

I've heard so many arguments "teaching" why we shouldn't be living like that.

That terrible idol: Practical Christianity...

It seems, if there is one passage that could re-form America, it's that one.

Good comment about lining up for the autograph.

We can only pray he made atonement under the laws of Just War...

"f this standard, recognized by this anonymous ath...

2008-03-30T00:36:00.000-06:00

"f this standard, recognized by this anonymous atheist, is the standard of a holy and righteous Triune Christian God..."

That's a big assumption, that there is a "standard" at all. What I've found is that so-called believers will manipulate the bar up and down to suit their own tickled ears. It doesn't require much to see that "hypocrisy" is simply saying one thing and doing another. Nothing more or less.

"...atheists have deliberately chosen not to follow this God. Therefore, the atheists and hypocrites, in some way, are on the same side."

Agnostic or atheist? You can be passive or aggressive in varying degrees within either camp. The passive could care less. The evangelical atheist is on a mission. They hate the idea and by extension anyone who harbors it.

"Also, doesn't atheism "require 'belief' in vacuous, untenable and unprovable premises."? "

Like all religions. I'd say their faith, for the angry atheist, is in their "unfaith". A true atheist on the other hand wouldn't even bother with arguing the merits or demerits of his being an atheist. The whole issue would be considered absurd, and rightly so, therefore they'd view all the dust being kicked up between proselytizing atheists and foam flecked "believers" as a sort of school yard brawl. They'd keep out of it and let the children figure it out.

I for one sympathize.

Anonymous, you're exceptionally kind -- but I'd pr...

2008-03-28T19:29:00.000-06:00

Anonymous, you're exceptionally kind -- but I'd prefer to earn an honest living!

Mr. Wetzel, thanks for the kind comments and also for catching the keyboard slip. I'll correct it right away. (And isn't it great to be able to do that kind of thing? I love blogging!)

William N. Grigg for President anyone?

2008-03-28T19:13:00.000-06:00

William N. Grigg for President anyone?

Great post, Mr. Grigg! I appropriated big chunks ...

2008-03-28T18:13:00.000-06:00

Great post, Mr. Grigg! I appropriated big chunks for my own nefarious purposes -- with attribution, of course. Thank you for your insights. I don't know why it didn't occur to me that there might be a parallel or two between Rev. Wright and his Biblical namesake.

Please forgive me for picking a tiny little nit: "prophesy" (with a penultimate S) is a verb ... "prophecy" (with a C instead of the S) is a noun. Nit picked.

Keep up the excellent work!

Good article, Mr. Griggs, Sir. The anonymous athei...

2008-03-28T09:24:00.000-06:00

Good article, Mr. Griggs, Sir.

The anonymous atheist "Abandoned religion at a very young age because of the blatant hypocrisy that permeated those religions [he] was exposed too."

To recognize "hypocrisy" one must also recognize a standard of righteousness to which the hypocrite has fallen short.

If this standard, recognized by this anonymous atheist, is the standard of a holy and righteous Triune Christian God, then the hypocrites are not following this God. Also, the atheists have deliberately chosen not to follow this God. Therefore, the atheists and hypocrites, in some way, are on the same side.

Also, doesn't atheism "require 'belief' in vacuous, untenable and unprovable premises."?

dr