and this guy was supposed to be bad, why, again?

[callmeslick]

the Reverend Wright was in town the other day:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/2 ... e-get-help

[CUDA]

And I'll bet you asked that question with a straight face too

[Will Robinson]

So if we selectively report on the things someone says we can use those selections to legitimately dismiss the other things they have said that warrant criticism?

Or are you trying to say something altogether different?
Perhaps you are just trying to illustrate the old adage that even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

[callmeslick]

seriously, what did he ever really say that was that bad, in the context of that school of ministers/preachers who tend toward over the top. All he ever said that got people's panties in a bunch was to paraphrase, that 'God should damn America for slavery', or some such. So what? I mean, I've sort of said the same thing for years to certain friends who insinuate that God is going to punish America for homosexual freedoms and stuff like that. I always retort with the observation that if God didn't smite us to ashes over enslaving other people, I figure homosexual tolerance or abortion rights aren't exactly going to set him off.

[flip]

Eh, I think people like that with a national voice, especially those that claim to speak for God, have a responsibility to do just that. They are supposed to be Ambassadors of peace and being completely diplomatic, not taking sides. As far as God is concerned, I've always seen Him let you make your bed and then lie in it. The worst thing that could ever had happened to this country is slavery. We are still reaping the consequences, and will continue to do so.

[flip]

The reason I say this is this:

Even if you do not believe Jesus is the Son of God, there is one thing you cannot argue with. He did exist, and by speaking wisdom and truth, His words spread throughout and changed the whole world. We are all immensely powerful. Each one of us. We all possess the ability to change the world through our words, but the only way to attain such truth and wisdom, is to acknowledge your God and Creator.

Christians are only supposed to be on God's side.

[Sergeant Thorne]

He did exist, and by speaking wisdom and truth, His words spread throughout and changed the whole world. We are all immensely powerful. Each one of us. We all possess the ability to change the world through our words, but the only way to attain such truth and wisdom, is to acknowledge your God and Creator.

It wasn't just words that spread throughout the whole world. When we speak truth we represent/present truth, we don't create it.

Christians are only supposed to be on God's side.

Christians are supposed to be concerned with God's will, not politics or social struggles. I don't believe that "reverend" Wright speaks for God at all. Some of what he says may agree with the scriptures to a greater or lesser degree, but I've never seen any indication from him that would lead me to believe that he speaks for God or is called by God to minister, even, necessarily.

Regarding the OP, the answer is simply that our most recent President came out of a congregation which was rather radically pro black people and anti-establishment/anti-America, and Jeremiah Wright was leading that. There are plenty of Jeremiah Wrights in this country, and he isn't necessarily any better or worse than any of them, but did the man holding our highest office sit under such a one as mentor--that is the issue entirely. Otherwise he's just another political preacher and we can always change the channel.

[vision]

Even if you do not believe Jesus is the Son of God, there is one thing you cannot argue with. He did exist....

Actually, there is no evidence Jesus existed. The bible is not evidence any more than ancient Greek texts are evidence for Zeus. There is no credible archeological evidence for Jesus, which is too bad. I actually believe there was a person who inspired the New Testament. And when I say "believe" I mean "it seems likely" that mythology of the time was grafted onto the events of a living man or men from that era. I say men because there is the possibility that the life of Jesus could actually be the tales of more than one man but over time condensed into one.

[flip]

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

Vision, is there evidence that Paul existed? Yes, we have 14 letters He wrote. Is there evidence Peter existed, yes, the whole Catholic church has built on his very name. I think your trying too hard . No one had ever spoke like Jesus before, with such authority and insight, and thus He created a movement that to this day includes millions if not billions of people. N

[vision]

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life

^ This sort of stuff does not help your argument, by the way. Platitudes are empty in a discussion like this. Learn the difference.

Vision, is there evidence that Paul existed? Yes, we have 14 letters He wrote. Is there evidence Peter existed, yes, the whole Catholic church has built on his very name.

Neither of those things are proof Jesus existed. Don't get me wrong, I believe there was probably a Jesus that inspired writing. However, there is no concrete evidence. It's actually something I'm interested in because I don't like the wishy-washy feeling I have when I write about Jesus. I want to change from "probably lived " to "almost definitely lived."

I think your trying too hard . No one had ever spoke like Jesus before, with such authority and insight, and thus He created a movement that to this day includes millions if not billions of people.

Actually, from a historical perspective, there has been speculation that whoever this man Jesus was could have been influenced by Buddhist philosophy as it traveled west across trade routes (Buddha lived 500 years before Jesus). Of course, the similarities are purely allegorical, but there are enough of them to fill a book. Some of the concepts in Buddhism were radically different to Hindus in the same way Jesus' teaching were to Jews -- primarily the stuff about loving everyone equally, non-violence, etc... The Old Testament is disgusting and barbaric compared to the New Testament. Likewise, the Hindu caste system (which still exists today) was turned on it's head when Buddhism was established throughout Northern India.

Note: As I said before, the similarities between the two religions is allegorical. They are fundamentally and irreconcilably different. However, the similar social and moral concepts might be part of a significant change in perspective across the developed world between 500 BCE and the birth of Jesus. You are right, no one spoke like that before Jesus. But, people might have been thinking it for a while before hand. It's like how we look at Martin Luther King Jr. as the voice of civil rights. We have a holiday for him, just like Jesus! But he was just a voice -- the idea was already there.

[flip]

I'm not making an argument persay, just speaking my mind. There is enough historical and eye-witness testimony to support an individual Jesus. At the time, the things He said were radical, even today there are multitudes of people who credit Him and His words to changing their lives. There's even historical writings that testify to the darkness that came across the land while Jesus was on the cross, but they dismissed the idea that the darkness was caused by the crucifixion, and rather said it was a solar eclipse and coincidence. Either way it is third person testimony of an unbeliever that a man named Jesus was crucified and that darkness came on the land at the same time. None of this addresses my point though. It's obvious to any willing to be honest to themselves that a man named Jesus lived and radically changed peoples thinking with the words He spoke. Eyewitness testimony alone attributes to that. My point is that in the same way we all personally could do the same thing, as long as we spoke unadulterated truth. I wouldn't expect you to agree with this sentiment or even understand it, although I wish you could. There is the written Word of God, then there is the Living and Active word of God. The words that He brings to our minds throughout the day. The words that He uses to guide and teach us in our own personal lives. Those words that He whispers in our ears, we should shout from the rooftop.

[CUDA]

Even if you do not believe Jesus is the Son of God, there is one thing you cannot argue with. He did exist....

Actually, there is no evidence Jesus existed. The bible is not evidence any more than ancient Greek texts are evidence for Zeus. There is no credible archeological evidence for Jesus, which is too bad. I actually believe there was a person who inspired the New Testament. And when I say "believe" I mean "it seems likely" that mythology of the time was grafted onto the events of a living man or men from that era. I say men because there is the possibility that the life of Jesus could actually be the tales of more than one man but over time condensed into one.

you're wrong

"The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero.
The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the Canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus."

There are other historical accounts that testify to the existence of Christ. The antiquities of the jews by Josephus is one thst comes to mind. Also this

The scarcity of archaeological artifacts can be contrasted, however, with the wealth of historical evidence for Christ. Soon the apostles had written letters detailing Christ's life and teachings, to be followed by the writings of Paul all widely copied and circulated, within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. The Roman historian Josephus mentioned Christ several times while relating noteworthy civic events, including the execution of one named "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah" referring evidently to Jesus' brother James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name.

The new artifact is an ossuary, a medium-sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed away. This practice was employed for only a brief period of time from about B.C. 20 to A.D. 70. The box is made of a soft, chalky, limestone, common to the area. The contents have long since vanished.Most remarkably, an inscription has been etched into the side which reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in the Aramaic script of the time. Careful studies, including scrutiny under a scanning electron microscope show the inscription to be genuine. The patina, or oxidized surface equally covers both box and the interior of the etched letters. The recognized expert on such matters, Dr. Andre Lemaire, concludes: "I am pleased to report that in my judgment it is genuinely ancient and not a fake."

All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the ossuary of the Biblical James.

[callmeslick]

Eh, I think people like that with a national voice, especially those that claim to speak for God, have a responsibility to do just that. They are supposed to be Ambassadors of peace and being completely diplomatic, not taking sides. As far as God is concerned, I've always seen Him let you make your bed and then lie in it. The worst thing that could ever had happened to this country is slavery. We are still reaping the consequences, and will continue to do so.

so you prefer a God of diplomacy, as opposed to truth? Just wondering.

[CUDA]

Eh, I think people like that with a national voice, especially those that claim to speak for God, have a responsibility to do just that. They are supposed to be Ambassadors of peace and being completely diplomatic, not taking sides. As far as God is concerned, I've always seen Him let you make your bed and then lie in it. The worst thing that could ever had happened to this country is slavery. We are still reaping the consequences, and will continue to do so.

so you prefer a God of diplomacy, as opposed to truth? Just wondering.

please give me an example where Christ taught as Jeremiah Wright did and I will consider your point. The "truth" you claim Wright speaks about is not the truth Christ speaks about.

[CUDA]

Also to vision.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and although there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity, biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

You "might" be able to debate the deity of Jesus. You cannot debate the historicity of Jesus

[callmeslick]

Eh, I think people like that with a national voice, especially those that claim to speak for God, have a responsibility to do just that. They are supposed to be Ambassadors of peace and being completely diplomatic, not taking sides. As far as God is concerned, I've always seen Him let you make your bed and then lie in it. The worst thing that could ever had happened to this country is slavery. We are still reaping the consequences, and will continue to do so.

so you prefer a God of diplomacy, as opposed to truth? Just wondering.

please give me an example where Christ taught as Jeremiah Wright did and I will consider your point. The "truth" you claim Wright speaks about is not the truth Christ speaks about.

my comment did not refer to Wright(although he seems both Christian and sensible, within the overall context of the African American church style). I was just addressing Flips suggestion that prominent ministers should be extra-sensitive to such human vagaries as political sensitivities. I see no reason why they should.

[callmeslick]

CUDA, addressing your question, though:

Let's look at Rev. Wrights words the other day in Delaware:
he told more than 500 people in attendance to look to God – and not the government – when they are in need.

“Our help doesn’t come from government. Our help doesn’t come from guns. Our help comes from God,” he said.


seems to me this sort of dovetails with 'render unto Caeser what is Caeser's....' and a lot of the substance of the other teachings of Jesus Christ regarding looking to God and not the earthly kingdom(government of the times). Don't you agree?

Finally, my whole point in this thread was NOT to state that I agree with Wright and his substantive preaching(heck, I'm an agnostic, how could I?), but to illustrate that the issues that grew up around him(and by extension Obama) were the direct result of cherry picking words from a man who delivers several sermons per week, until something sinister or radical was found. The more I've encountered Rev Wright, and his ministry in the years since, he does not strike me as either sinister or radical. He is a black man, giving his views of the word of God to a black audience in modern America, and, overall, seems pretty much a positive influence. I suspect that has been the case all along, save for the vultures looking to attack Obama by proxy.

[CUDA]

I respectfully disagree, I've watched portions of several of his sermons online and he tends to always be political and controversial.
While Christ was controversial he was speaking to the religious Pharisee of the time he never spoke politically, in fact he was quite the opposite.

Paul teaches us in Galatians that Christ plus or minus anything is not the gospel Wright seldom speaks from the scriptures (referencing them) and it almost always telling his people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear. What Christ taught.

[flip]

Slick, I believe in speaking the absolute truth in love and while I do think that Christians should get absolutely involved, they should only get involved to the point of creating peace or establishing truth. You cannot be diplomatic and at the same time choose sides. I look at it just as the angel did:

"13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”

15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so."

This means that in all affairs human, Christians should seek God's perfect will, who does not favor one person over another and stand for that. Having the same concern for all, friend or foe. Christians are to be true Ambassadors and diplomats in this world.

[flip]

Also to vision.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and although there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity, biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted. Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

You "might" be able to debate the deity of Jesus. You cannot debate the historicity of Jesus

Which was my point initially. I had no intention to create or enter a theological debate, just pointing out that one man of integrity, courage and boldness, speaking from the heart, can create a fire that will spread and burn forever and each one of us have that ability if we choose our words carefully and stand for truth, love, justice and accountability.

[CUDA]

Christians are to be true Ambassadors and diplomats in this world.

and more often then not we fail at miserably

[Will Robinson]

Wright preaches Black Liberation Theology and that is a school of thought that uses revenge as as an incentive to gather blacks under its tent.
The founders of BLT quickly embraced Marxism as solution to address the inequalities they identified between the whites and blacks.

So you have a preacher (one of thousands) who builds victim hood into his congregations mindset and teaches them that the whites they see today are spending the fortunes stolen from the black people. Teaches that redistribution of wealth is what god wants.

Imagine if you were a politician and wanted to harness the power of the black vote. How easy would it be to pander to a constituency that is programmed by BLT and earn their support?
What would your rhetoric sound like? How easy would it be to paint your opposition as inherently evil?

How does BLT lend itself to healing the racial divide in the country? It does the opposite!

So, you ask, what is wrong with Wright?
I guess the answer is entirely dependent on your ideology and integrity.

[callmeslick]

I respectfully disagree, I've watched portions of several of his sermons online and he tends to always be political and controversial.

and I, respectfully as well, would submit that the SOLE reason those 'portions' are online is because some selective editing group with an ax to grind put them there. We are talking about a man, here, who probably speaks for 2 hours per week, 50 weeks a year, for the past couple of decades. By my math, that would be a couple THOUSAND HOURS of public sermons. You are so willing to judge from 'portions of several of his sermons online', and at the same time hold up a deity who supposedly preached, 'judge not, lest ye be judged'? Something seems amiss, my friend. Note also, that Jesus himself didn't cite 'scriptures'(for him that would have been the Old Testament), but talked about what he felt was important. Thus, whether Wright cites scripture enough for you(he references it a bit, from what I've seen and been told) seems a bit of a dodge.

[callmeslick]

Wright preaches Black Liberation Theology and that is a school of thought that uses revenge as as an incentive to gather blacks under its tent.
The founders of BLT quickly embraced Marxism as solution to address the inequalities they identified between the whites and blacks.

and yet the man spoke for over an hour in Wilmington the other day, mentioning nothing of revenge or Marxist political thought. Methinks you are guessing about a man, based on what you've been told to think.

So, you ask, what is wrong with Wright?
I guess the answer is entirely dependent on your ideology and integrity.

you seem to demonstrate that, perfectly, Will.

[CUDA]

I respectfully disagree, I've watched portions of several of his sermons online and he tends to always be political and controversial.

and I, respectfully as well, would submit that the SOLE reason those 'portions' are online is because some selective editing group with an ax to grind put them there. We are talking about a man, here, who probably speaks for 2 hours per week, 50 weeks a year, for the past couple of decades. By my math, that would be a couple THOUSAND HOURS of public sermons. You are so willing to judge from 'portions of several of his sermons online', and at the same time hold up a deity who supposedly preached, 'judge not, lest ye be judged'? Something seems amiss, my friend. Note also, that Jesus himself didn't cite 'scriptures'(for him that would have been the Old Testament), but talked about what he felt was important. Thus, whether Wright cites scripture enough for you(he references it a bit, from what I've seen and been told) seems a bit of a dodge.

sorry when you have a reoccurring theme you establish a pattern. And where there is a pattern there is intent

Dodge on whos part? Mine?

If you are going to preach the word of God. Then back it up with Gods word. If you don't then you are creating your own religion, which is empty

[CUDA]

Sorry I can go further in-depth later. I'm actually sitting in church now getting ready to start in 15.

Oh and FYI I'm not judging his heart I'm judging his actions.

[callmeslick]

worth a glance is this brief biography from a site with no ax to grind that I can see:

Personal Information

Born on September 22, 1941, in Philadelphia, PA; son of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sr. and Dr. Mary Henderson Wright; married Ramah Reed; children: Janet Marie, Jeri Lynne, Nikol, Nathan, Jamila
Education: Virginia Union University, 1959-61; Howard University, BA, 1968, MA, 1969; University of Chicago School of Divinity, MA, 1975; United Theological Seminary, DMin, Black Sacred music, 1990.
Religion: United Church of Christ.
Military/Wartime Service: U.S. Marine Corps, private first class, 1961-63; U.S. Navy, hospital corpsman third class, 1964-67.
Memberships:
Selected: Ministers for Racial and Social Justice, United Church of Christ, 1972-; Black Theology Project, Board of Directors, 1975-95; Evangelical Health Systems, Board of Directors, 1986-89; Chicago Theological Seminary, Board of Trustees, 1999-2000; Virginia Union University, Board of Trustees, 2001-.

Career

Zion Church, interim pastor, 1968-69; Beth Eden Church, assistant pastor, 1969-1971; American Association of Theological Schools, researcher, 1970-72; Trinity United Church of Christ, pastor 1972-. Chicago Center for Black Religious Studies, executive director, 1974-75; Chicago Cluster of Theological Schools, lecturer, 1975-77; United Theological Seminary, professor, 1991-97; Chicago Theological Seminary, professor, 1998; Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary, professor, 1999.

Life's Work

Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. is one of the most widely acclaimed black preachers in the United States. Combining social concern, spiritual growth, and political activism, Wright, who preaches in a black traditional style, brings a message of hope, redemption, and renewal. In 1972 he became pastor of a small United Church of Christ congregation in the inner city of Chicago. After over 30 years in the pulpit, his congregation has grown to 10,000 and is the largest United Church of Christ congregation in the United States.

Wright was born on September 22, 1941, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sr. and Dr. Mary Henderson Wright. His parents were his earliest influences, instilling in him a deep religious faith and a strong, positive image of his African-American culture. His father, who served as the pastor of Grace Baptist Church for 62 years was one of the first African Americans to receive a degree from the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, earning a master of sacred theology degree in 1949. Wright was educated in the public schools of Philadelphia.

In 1959 Wright enrolled at Virginia Union University, in Richmond, where he remained until 1961. That year he left school to join the military. He served in the Second Marine Division of the U.S. Marine Corps from 1961 to 1963, achieving the rank of private first class. In 1963 he graduated as valedictorian from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and from 1964 to 1967, he served as a cardio pulmonary technician at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. During 1965 and 1966, he was awarded with three Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

After his discharge from the military, Wright continued his education. He enrolled at Howard University in Washington, D.C., in 1967, and was awarded a bachelor's degree in 1968 and a master's degree in 1969. He then entered the University of Chicago Divinity School, receiving a master of arts degree in 1975. He ended his formal education in 1990 when he earned a Doctor of Ministry degree in black sacred music from United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio.

While continuing his studies, Wright also began making forays into a career in the ministry. Between 1968 and 1971 he served short-term stints first as interim pastor and then as an associate pastor. From 1970 to 1972 he was a researcher for the American Association of Theological Schools. He was also a columnist for Chicago's Independent Bulletin during 1972. Then, on March 1, 1972, 31-year-old Wright was hired as the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a position he continues to hold.

When Wright joined the staff of Trinity United Church of Christ as senior pastor, the inner city church boasted just 87 active members, most of whom came from the neighborhood surrounding the church. Wright embraced his new congregation and took up the phrase coined by his predecessor Rev. Dr. Reuben Sheares, "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." Within months the church had adopted the phrase as its motto and vision. Under Wright's leadership, fueled by his passion, and motivated by his preaching, the congregation began to grow by leaps and bounds. By 2004 there were over 10,000 members, with people coming from across the metro area. The congregation, which proudly notes its diverse socio-economic mix, dedicated a new 2,700 worship center in 1997.

According to Wright, the Christian call extends in two directions: upward to God and outward to the community. As a result, Wright takes seriously the need to reach out to others, especially Chicago's inner-city residents. Trinity has 70 ministry programs, 22 of which target youth. Half of the programs target the community, including adult education, literacy, computer, child care, and education for unemployed or low-income families. For Wright, religion, social outreach, and political activism go hand in hand. He vocally opposed the U.S. involvement in Iraq beginning in 2003 and has tackled such previously taboo issues such as AIDS from the pulpit.

As Wright's reputation grew as a powerful and dynamic preacher in the black sermonic tradition who incorporated music, politics, and social issues into his sermons, he became a sought-after lecturer and preacher. In 1993 he was named second on Ebony's list of the top black preachers in North America. Once admitting that he had considered a career as a seminary professor, Wright satisfied his desire to teach by accepting invitations to lecture and teach at numerous universities and seminaries. He first stepped in front of a classroom in 1974 as an adjunct professor at Chicago Theological Seminary. In 1975 he was an adjunct professor at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, and from 1976 to 1992 he served as an adjunct professor for the Seminary Consortium for Urban Pastoral Education. He has also taught courses at United Theological Seminary, North Park Theological Seminary, and Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary in Chicago.

Wright has authored several books, including Africans Who Shaped Our Faith, Good News! Sermons of Hope for Today's Families, and What Makes You So Strong? Sermons of Joy and Strength from Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. According to Cleophus J. LaRue in The Heart of Black Preaching, in his title sermon of What Makes You So Strong, Wright "demonstrates the power of the mighty sovereign at work in the lives of black people in twentieth century America. This sermon focuses on the root of black strength and survivability. Wright makes it clear throughout the sermon that the source of all strength, and especially black strength, is none other than the Spirit of God." As in his preaching, in his writing Wright focuses on the dual issues of corporate concern and spiritual sustenance. His latest publication, What Can Happen When We Pray: A Daily Devotional, was published in 2002.

In recognition of his contributions, Wright has been awarded seven honorary doctoral degrees. He has also served on a number of boards and commissions, including serving on the board of trustees for Virginia Union University and Chicago Theological Seminary. He continues to be a highly sought after preacher, teacher, and lecturer.

Awards

Selected: Howard University, Dean's List, 1968; The Fund for Theological Education, Rockefeller Fellowship, 1970-75; three Presidential Commendations from L.B. Johnson, 1965-66.

Works

Selected works

What Makes You So Strong? Sermons of Joy and Strength from Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. (ed. by Jini Kilgore Ross), Judson Press, 1993.
Good News! Sermons of Hope for Today's Families (ed. by Jini Kilgore Ross), Judson Press, 1995.
(With Colleen Birchett) Africans Who Shaped Our Faith, Urban Ministries, 1995.
From One Brother to Another: Voices of African American Men (ed. by William J. Key and Robert Johnson-Smith II), Judson Press, 1996.
(With Frank Madison Reid III and Colleen Birchett) When Black Men Stand Up for God : Reflections on the Million Man March, African American Images, 1996.
Great Preachers: Jeremiah Wright (VHS recording), Odyssey Productions, 1998.
Let Your Will Be Done (sound recording, with the Trinity United Church of Christ Sanctuary Choir), 2001.
What Can Happen When We Pray: A Daily Devotional, Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2002.

Further Reading

Books

LaRue, Cleophus J., The Heart of Black Preaching, John Knox Press, 2000.
Sadler, Kim Martin, ed. Atonement: The Million Man March, The Pilgrim Press, 1996.
Who's Who Among African Americans, 16th ed., Gale Group, 2003.
Periodicals
The Grand Rapids Press (Grand Rapids, MI), June 22, 2002, p. B4.
On-line
"Jeremiah Wright's Good News: God Triumph Overcomes Seas of Troubles," The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, http://www.ltsp.edu/news/2002-2003/0303power_wright.htm (April 6, 2004).
"Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr." The HistoryMakers: ReligionMakers, http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biograp ... gionMakers (April 6, 2004).
"Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.," Corinthian Baptist Church (Philadelphia, PA), http://www.corinthianbaptistchurch.org/ ... ght_jr.htm (April 26, 2004).
"Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.," Trinity United Church of Christ, http://www.tucc.org/pastor.htm (April 6, 2004).
"Seven Last Words," Faith Community of Saint Sabina, http://www.saintsabina.org/spotlight/wright2004.htm (April 6, 2004).


what is obvious here is that we have a man who served his nation in the Military,served his community extensively, with exactly ZERO links to Marxism and has established a LONG history of trying to exhort black people to the idea that God is their salvation, NOT government. I seems, oddly enough, that were it not aimed to an urban, African American audience, many of you where, who are detractors, would agree with his philosophy.....

[callmeslick]

Sorry I can go further in-depth later. I'm actually sitting in church now getting ready to start in 15

ah, one of those folks in the pews with a cellphone! I had one in front of us a couple weeks back when I attended with my Dad(yes, I am agnostic, but my Dad isn't, so I go with him from time to time, especially of late after the passing of my Mom.).

[CUDA]

Sorry I can go further in-depth later. I'm actually sitting in church now getting ready to start in 15

ah, one of those folks in the pews with a cellphone! I had one in front of us a couple weeks back when I attended with my Dad(yes, I am agnostic, but my Dad isn't, so I go with him from time to time, especially of late after the passing of my Mom.).

ya but it hasn't started yet :p

[Spidey]

Somebody hasn’t actually bothered to do the "needed" research here….

This guy has told people that the US created AIDS, that doesn’t sound like “typical black style” to me. (although I do hear this a lot in my part of town)

That’s only one example, and of course its “cherry picked” just like the crap those dumb Republicans say.

Ya want more...look them up...there are enough to fill a book.

This thread is a fackin joke.

[flip]

It's very possible that AIDS was created, by who nobody knows, but the first logical step of gene engineering would be trying to find a vehicle to do so, and viruses fit that bill perfectly. At first glance anyways . Probably would be the most dangerous and irresponsible way too, and very easy to get out of hand. At least now the way they do it, they can test for exactly what new proteins are created. Still dangerous in my opinion.

As far as Wright goes. He has to walk a fine line too, everybody is apt to overstep it at times. You can almost be assured that a lot of his words were taken out of context, but it's dangerous ground period when a man of God enters a political environment.

EDIT: I think it's safe to say he is no Martin Luther King Jr.

[CUDA]

I will point out the contrast between Wright and Billy Graham. In what they say.

And FYI I hold Joel Osten to the same standards of preaching as Wright. He rarely references Gods word when preaching.

Slick read through the book of Galatians and you'll understand what I refer to.

[vision]

You "might" be able to debate the deity of Jesus. You cannot debate the historicity of Jesus

I do debate it the historicity, for my own good because I want to believe with more certainty the man existed. In fact, the most interesting and convincing artifact is the writing of Josephus. Don't misunderstand me. As I stated above I believe a man such as Jesus lived, but I would like to see more concrete evidence. Unfortunately, this is necessary because there is so much mythology wrapped around his life. If he were mundane the evidence could be less extraordinary.

[Will Robinson]

Slick, Saddam Hussain could compile a similar résumé.... and he could add having his country selected to chair the Human Rights committee at the U.N.!

I don't think if I were to have read such a resume that I would think he hadn't been a deadly tyrant...

Your whole post is a dodge. Either show he hasn't pushed BLT on a regular basis or don't. But don't try to chastise us for not ignore what he has done just because you posted a resume that excludes his BLT contributions and highlights his positive ones instead! We are smarter than that and you insult us by trying.

[CUDA]

Cornelius Tacitus (56 - 120 CE) The Annals (c. 116 CE)

(comments on the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome [64 CE] in which Nero chooses to deflect blame away from himself onto the Christians)

How does Tacitus characterize Roman Christians?
For what "abominations" might the Christians have been "infamous"?
What might Tacitus mean by "hatred of the human race"?
What does Tacitus tell us about Jesus?

44.2. Yet no human effort, no princely largess nor offerings to the gods could make that infamous rumor disappear that Nero had somehow ordered the fire. Therefore, in order to abolish that rumor, Nero falsely accused and executed with the most exquisite punishments those people called Christians, who were infamous for their abominations.

44.3. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, thisdestructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated.

44.4. Therefore, first those were seized who admitted their faith, and then, using the information they provided, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much for the crime of burning the city, but for hatred of the human race. And perishing they were additionally made into sports: they were killed by dogs by having the hides of beasts attached to them, or they were nailed to crosses or set aflame, and, when the daylight passed away, they were used as nighttime lamps.

44.5. Nero gave his own gardens for this spectacle and performed a Circus game, in the habit of a charioteer mixing with the plebs or driving about the race-course. Even though they were clearly guilty and merited being made the most recent example of the consequences of crime, people began to pity these sufferers, because they were consumed not for the public good but on account of the fierceness of one man.




Read tacitus, and pliney the younger. Along with josephus.

[Will Robinson]

The words of Wrights mentor, a man who's authority Wright respects and reveres, a man who is one of, if not THE, founder/s of Black Liberation Theology, James Cone:

The God of black theology, according to Cone, differs from the God of the Bible, as seen in this quote by Cone in William R. Jones’ “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”[1] The God of black theology is one who is exclusively for the black community. In fact, he ceases to be a loving God if he does not adhere to the wishes and ambitions of this community, i.e., destroying “white people.” If this is not carried out, he is to be rejected. “Intricate and largely philosophical views of God are largely ignored in preference for concerns of the oppressed.”[2]

You will read threads of this throughout Wrights sermons. BLT is not designed to heal racial divide, it is designed to avenge it, exploit it and is remarkably akin to radical Islamic interpretations of the Koran used to create islamofacist-terrorists. It teaches a new form of 'Christianity' where God favors the destruction of whites in order to liberate blacks.

part one


part two

[flip]

Funny thing about that is there is a lot of evidence that Nero started those fires himself, then used Christians as an escapegoat.

[vision]

Read tacitus, and pliney the younger. Along with josephus.

Thanks, I am slightly familiar with these. But each is not without it's problems. I guess I'm still waiting on some benign artifact from the period on time when he was alive. The ossuary is really exciting, I remember hearing about it years ago. But again, because so much fakery exists (like the Shroud of Turin) it's hard to accept such a thing -- though it looks really good so far! Again, I believe Jesus existed, but I'm looking for something a little bit better. This mostly has to do with me being a skeptic about most things. Even if I'm 99% sure of something, I yearn for 99.1%. Either way, the historical Jesus is way more interesting than the biblical one.

And to wrap this tangent up, Wright is a narcissist like all those other preachers and not worthy of serious discussion. I tend to agree with Penn Jillette on Obama (first 2:25 of video). Does it matter if Obama agreed with Wright in any way? Obama is a liar (they all lie), so you'll never know for sure.

[callmeslick]

http://rense.com/general81/sdf.htm

sad that so many are jumping on the handful of extreme statements. I dare ONE of you to produce an entire sermon, dissect it and show that the overall intent is negative or positive.

[CUDA]

So what you are saying is that we should ignore those handfull of extreme comments and just accept him because of his handfull of non-extreme comments. Hrm doesn't seem quite right that we do that.