I am probably more vocal about BLT than most white Americans; however, I suspect that their silence will show up in November as votes against Obama.

A ‘form’ of BLT may have been started by the NCNC in 1996, but it was not the doctrine of hatred that James Cone started with his Black Theology and Black Power (1969), and his A Black Theology of Liberation (1970). James Cone’s works were also heavily influenced by Islamism and Marxism…as he has stated.

The NT offers very little of Jesus’ own words, and offers a lot of words from the Roman citizen Paul, i.e. Pauline Christianity. Even the four Gospels have difficulty agreeing on what Jesus said, and/or even what actually happened, e.g. the sign on the cross, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. The few actual recorded words of Jesus are misunderstood to this day. Today’s NT is actually what the Roman Emperor Constantine I authorized, i.e. Pauline Christianity. Thomas Paine’s The Age Of Reason – Part I does a much better job at explaining the NT’s many discrepancies that I can.

Take a look at Dr. Cleophus James Larue, Professor of Preaching at Princeton Theological Seminary: “[the book] The Heart of Black Preaching is an effort to go back into three hundred years of black preaching history to see if we could discover some thread that ran throughout the whole of our preaching in this country. What I was able to discover is that there is in black preaching a common thread that centers around a sovereign God. Throughout history, in every period of our lives upon these shores, we have always believed that a sovereign, all powerful God was at work on our behalf. Had we not believed that I don’t know if we could have come through the dark night of slavery or the oppression of segregation and many other things that we have been able to come through.
http://www.csec.org/csec/sermon/LaRue_4517.htm

That's definitely Black, but not Black theology – just plain old theology of a sovereign God.

On God requiring worship, we differ on the historical record of the bible, e.g. Romans 12 or Luke 4:8 which are pretty clear on God saying he's worthy of worship and demanding that. worship.

Not talking theology, per se, as much as history of the Bible and Jesus. “Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for the unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.” (F.F. Bruce: 'The New Testament documents: Are they reliable?')

Essentially, historicity is not in dispute by secular of religious scholars. Jesus' theology, what he said, is what he himself has left us to believe or not, not forcing belief but warning us against rejecting him and even further commanding worship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jes...

The warning is for us to stop the silly judging of each other because we'll all stand before God one day:

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

I am probably more vocal about BLT than most white Americans; however, I suspect that their silence will show up in November as votes against Obama.

A ‘form’ of BLT may have been started by the NCNC in 1996, but it was not the doctrine of hatred that James Cone started with his Black Theology and Black Power (1969), and his A Black Theology of Liberation (1970). James Cone’s works were also heavily influenced by Islamism and Marxism…as he has stated.

The NT offers very little of Jesus’ own words, and offers a lot of words from the Roman citizen Paul, i.e. Pauline Christianity. Even the four Gospels have difficulty agreeing on what Jesus said, and/or even what actually happened, e.g. the sign on the cross, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. The few actual recorded words of Jesus are misunderstood to this day. Today’s NT is actually what the Roman Emperor Constantine I authorized, i.e. Pauline Christianity. Thomas Paine’s The Age Of Reason – Part I does a much better job at explaining the NT’s many discrepancies that I can.

Take a look at Dr. Cleophus James Larue, Professor of Preaching at Princeton Theological Seminary: “[the book] The Heart of Black Preaching is an effort to go back into three hundred years of black preaching history to see if we could discover some thread that ran throughout the whole of our preaching in this country. What I was able to discover is that there is in black preaching a common thread that centers around a sovereign God. Throughout history, in every period of our lives upon these shores, we have always believed that a sovereign, all powerful God was at work on our behalf. Had we not believed that I don’t know if we could have come through the dark night of slavery or the oppression of segregation and many other things that we have been able to come through.
http://www.csec.org/csec/sermon/LaRue_4517.htm

That's definitely Black, but not Black theology – just plain old theology of a sovereign God.

On God requiring worship, we differ on the historical record of the bible, e.g. Romans 12 or Luke 4:8 which are pretty clear on God saying he's worthy of worship and demanding that. worship.

Not talking theology, per se, as much as history of the Bible and Jesus. “Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth', but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for the unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.” (F.F. Bruce: 'The New Testament documents: Are they reliable?')

Essentially, historicity is not in dispute by secular of religious scholars. Jesus' theology, what he said, is what he himself has left us to believe or not, not forcing belief but warning us against rejecting him and even further commanding worship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jes...

The warning is for us to stop the silly judging of each other because we'll all stand before God one day:

Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Rom 14:11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

I’m against any doctrine, theology, dogma or religion that teaches and/or promotes hate, and/or claims ownership of God – particularly any one of the main three Abrahamic Religions. Thru Judaism, the other two are based on the God/s of ancient Sumer and Egypt civilizations – primarily the Gods Ptah and Enki, which Yahweh can be traced back to. God cannot be owned…does not require worship…does not require belief in or faith in, and does not punish or reward humans.

The Democratic Party is about promoting hate, e.g. hate the “Evil Rich”, “BIG Corporations”, “White Men”, “White America”, etcetera etcetera etcetera. BLT is just one of the forms that the Democratic Party uses to promote hate.

I know some polls are showing the race closer than it should be but I think that come election, Washington will be firmly in Obama's column.

What I hate is that the value and freedom to worship culturally – vs. worshiping one's own race or denigrating others – is a true Christian freedom. We can mix and not – and both are all good. It is possible to enjoy Black culture and find comfort there as a Black person with none of that remotely having to do with hating white.

But we's all confused. There is no black theology or white theology that can be justifiable. We can justify theology held by both and operating in a cultural context – because we ain't defining theology for ourselves and giving weight to some racial standard.

I think if you could hear the black expository preaching of W.J. Shaw, Caesar Clark, Gardner C. Taylor, Wyatt Tee Walker, or Manuel Scott, you'd be happy to pull up a pew on sunday after sunday…

Obama-Biden '08!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEM8JgPninI
“Hallelujer!” :>)

Obama-Biden '08

BULLSH*T!!! You've yet to make the argument that TUCC is racist. And CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS don't count, Karmi.

You got FOUR points to respond to. Let's see if you got the intelligence to do it.

FYI… That's FOUR points where your charges of racism fall flat. FOUR points that show how the KKK produces the opposite effect to TUCC/BLT because the KKK:

#1 __ KKK has a history of racist violence.
#2 __ KKK has no known non-white members.
#3 __ KKK is against interracial marriage.
#4 __ KKK actually espouses separatism.

Barack and Michelle split over politics the same way McCain split with his past principled, “maverick” stances.

That racism is about to come up again…

You are out of your league and showing your pathetic (and deteriorating) emotional state of mind.

Whatever “racism” you want to “come up again” would only go to show how much racism resides in those, like you, trying desperately to say “BLT = racist” enough times for you to actually believe it.

You can't even convince yourself that BLT/TUCC is racist. Like a lame, you tried to say BLT = Black Supremacy/Black Separatism but your asthmatic azz can't keep your head in the sand that long.

NEVER at NO TIME have you EVER pointed how TUCC/BLT actually promote or practices Black Supremacy or Black Separatism. That sh*t won't fly when we know Trinity, which has embraced BLT, remains and continues to fellowship in a largely white Christian denomination and welcomes and embraces White members and visitors, alike (which is part of the reason, after more than 30 years of BLT at TUCC, ignorant White folk are just now “discovering” it).

As I've said before, Rev. Wright, e.g., can't be the racist you want him to be when he says, “different does not mean deficient.” That makes him different from the KKK types. They are very vocal in saying something different. You know, the opposite version of the conclusion made about “different.”

That racism is about to come up again…for the public to take another look at.

I forgot her best line: “we can have Larry play the tape!” ahahahahahahahah.

And that's all you got. You go from one lame whispered assertion to the other.

Note: Asking “why?” is not an argument. It shows your lack of an argument.

“3 gay men were murdered…”

Okay, no Lazarus jokes from me (to you)… lol
And I don't know what the Biblical character's orientation was but your arguments are flat out gay. They sure aren't… straight. You know, like in straight to the point as in showing a straight, direct connection.

No, you have to beg people to JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS with you.

The media, oddly, keeps trotting out this line that “Obama can't close the deal” but that's the exact description thing of all these lame arguments of yours: you can't close the deal.

You can come up with all kinds of crazy azz ASSERTIONS but you never back them up.

And all that has me wondering about you Karmi… you and your obsession with this idea of Black Supremacy.

I think you're trying to tell us something about yourself. Sounds like you feel inadequate.

::

That's exactly what Bill said about Barack to a crowd in Kentucky during the primaries.

The wealthy support Barack in large numbers. It could be a dog whistle.

But I don't think anyone's listening.

I'm working hard and seeing results. I'm confident. Everyone who wants to stop Barack will throw it all out there and see what happens.

I say: NOTHING.

A Barack win will render Rovian politics impotent.

I can't wait.

It. Won't. Work.

Most poor people in rural America don't even watch television. They can't afford the electricity. They're bracing for a terrible winter and hoping they won't freeze to death if they can't afford to heat their homes. They don't have cable or a dish. They can't afford it.

Seriously, dirt-poor folks don't read the internet like some of us do. They can't afford the luxury.