Saturday, October 11, 2008

Confederate wannabes

I see that BJ, the Confederate wannabe, is fibbing about my position:

“Recently, I have been talking to Christians who think it is UnChrsitian to identify yourself as anything other than In Christ.”

Did I ever say that? No. Can he quote me to that effect? No.

What I did do was to discuss how we should rate racial identity in relation to other forms of individual and social identity. It’s low on the priority list.

“If you consider yourself to be white you are UnChristian. Note: Appearently you can be a Black Christian and dodge the UnChrsitian label. Ironically this link comes via the same men who claim Identity is only to be found In Christ, not race.”

No “irony,” since BJ is burning a straw man.

“Also, notice this post and the authors use of the term Black Pastor. Why distinguish between ‘colors’ of Christain pastors?”

One thing you can say for BJ: when he’s wrong, he’s consistently wrong.

“I guess these men think that only ‘White’ people can’t identify with any category other than Christ.”

Same smoldering straw man.

“I happend to think strong Black identity is important, and that every race has this right to racial Identity.”

The right to be white? In what sense are racial characteristics a “right”?

Reading BJ is like reading about a Star Trek convention where the fans wear Andorian make up or speak in conversational Klingon. If you have to try that hard, then you’re play-acting.

“Most races in the world already think this way except for white guys with white guilt!”

How, exactly, does BJ define “white”? Must you be an Aryan/Nordic racial type? Is Sophia Loren white? Is Maureen O'Hara white?

If we’re going to make a big deal about racial identity, then I’d define “white” is such a way as to exclude BJ since BJ is a very poor representative of the white race.

“This list focuses on the concept of Identity, and categories we all use everday to distinguish one from another. To say a person cannot be a Christian and Identify with some of these examples is absurd.”

Maybe attacking a straw man makes BJ feel good inside, like a warm glass of milk. Unfortunately, BJ doesn’t come across as a very intelligent spokesman for the white race, so I think we’ll have to lock him in the attic since folks like him simply harm the reputation of the Master Race.

8 comments:

  1. I am a Confederate Southern American.

    I expect to receive the same respect you give others? I deserve it!

    My ancestors were of the first colonist in this country. My ancestors fought for our 1st and 2nd War of Independence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CAJIE SAID:

    “I am a Confederate Southern American.”

    I’m astonished by your longevity. I had a great-great Aunt who was a Confederate Southern American. She died in 1934 at the age of 93.

    So unless your communication was mediated by a séance, I find the timeframe a bit of a stretch.

    “I expect to receive the same respect you give others? I deserve it!”

    I’m happy to give you the same respect I accord to others…like John Loftus.

    “My ancestors were of the first colonist in this country. My ancestors fought for our 1st and 2nd War of Independence.”

    If you want to play the genealogical card, I’ll call you and raise you.

    My dad’s ancestors migrated from 17C Scotland to colonial New England while my mom’s ancestors migrated from 17C England to colonial Jamestown, Virginia (then-North Carolina). We’ve been there, done that, too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve-

    Your such an ass! I specifically referenced the person who said I was engaged in sin (being UnChristian for indentifying myself as something other than "In Christ"). I suppose someone could be, momentarily, mislead by the introductory paragraph in my blog entry though. However, by the time the average reader gets through the second paragraph they should be able to understand who the individual is I was referring to. Guess your not average!

    That said...
    if one understands who I was referencing (Gene Bridges) it shouldn't be hard for the average reader, then, to deduce that your post is arguing for a strawman, being that I am not talking about you in my post. The fact that you think I am referring to you in your post is crucial to your post having any bite. Since your wrong about that, your post is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BJ,

    You’re such an ass! You can’t follow the wording of your own stupid post. Yes, you referred to Gene, but your references weren’t limited to Gene.

    You said “I have been talking to Christians who think it is UnChrsitian to identify yourself as anything other than In Christ.”

    “Christians.” Plural form.

    You also said “Notice this post and the authors use of the term Black Pastor.”

    “Authors.” Plural form.

    And that was my post, not Gene’s.

    You also said, “Ironically this link comes via the same men...”

    “Men.” Plural form.

    Try to learn elementary English grammar.

    As I say, you’re an embarrassment to the white race. At this rate the Knighthawks will have to disappear you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve-

    Thanks for pointing out my grammatical mistakes.

    In light of my mistakes, though, you appearently understood them before writing your post. So if you knew in advance my post, with all its typos, was not really about your "position" why did you respond to my post? You knew it wasn't intended for you, yet charged me with attacking a straw-man throughout your post. Seems a little dishonest, Steve.

    At best you should have only posted on my poor grammar skills, instead of pretending I was really talking about you. Do you always try and lead your audience astray?

    How UnChristian of you.....

    I guess its the other writers on this blog that John Frame thinks worth while.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BJ,

    It seems as though Steve wasn't pointed out your inaccurate grammar usage. Rather, he was responded to what you wrote not assuming your grammar was off. I thought Steve's response fit just fine as you seemed to be responding with generalizations.

    Even if it was your grammar that was incorrect, as you say, what you said should still be able to be used to speak to and support general positions.

    You seem to be better at dropping subtle insults rather than interacting and supporting your position.

    I certainly don't understand where any notion of racial pride comes from within the Christian world view. I can be no more "proud" of my race than I can of my salvation since it is God who give me both.

    So in as much as I would boast in the Lord for my salvation I find no biblical warrant to boast in Him for my race.

    I ask you, provided I understand your position, on what grounds do you boast in your race?

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  7. BJ77 SAID:

    “Steve-__Thanks for pointing out my grammatical mistakes. __In light of my mistakes, though, you appearently understood them before writing your post. So if you knew in advance my post, with all its typos, was not really about your ‘position’ why did you respond to my post? You knew it wasn't intended for you, yet charged me with attacking a straw-man throughout your post. Seems a little dishonest, Steve. __At best you should have only posted on my poor grammar skills, instead of pretending I was really talking about you. Do you always try and lead your audience astray?”

    It’s a grammatical mistake if you were using plural forms when, in fact, you intended to refer to just one person (other than me). And even that would fail salvage your claim that you were really targeting Gene when, in one case, you singled out a post by me.

    In addition, this isn’t an either/or choice. It’s quite possible for you to target more than one person.

    When you single out a post I did, then I’m the referent, not Gene. And when you mention something on our blogroll, that is not a reference to Gene, since it isn’t Gene’s site, and since Gene isn’t responsible for what appears on the blogroll.

    I was *responding* to your *ex post facto* claim that you singled out Gene, despite evidence to the contrary. That implies nothing about my *prior* interpretation of your post.

    I was aware of the fact that your post was, *in part*, a reply to Gene, but it wasn’t *limited* to Gene. And my reply was framed in terms that are not dependent on that identification.

    “How UnChristian of you.....”

    How irrational of you.

    “I guess its the other writers on this blog that John Frame thinks worth while.”

    Like Gene Bridges, you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Your such an ass! I specifically referenced the person who said I was engaged in sin (being UnChristian for indentifying myself as something other than "In Christ

    As usual, you trade in dishonesty. You characterize a position, then attack the characterization.

    What I said is that you are "unChristian" because you are racist. The Bible classifies Christians as being "in Christ," there is no Jew or Greek, et.al. in Christ. I did not say that "in Christ" is the only way we can classify ourselves. However, you, sir, defend racial identity and racial segregation. You wrap your words in language that tries to make it sound acceptable, but it's not.


    So, I'll make this plain - your brand of "Christianity" appears to me to be no different than the Grand Dragon of the KKK. and you have yet to show otherwise. You, sir, are a confederate flag waving racist who lives in the mythical world of white plantation owners and happy darkies worshiping God in separate churches where never the twain shall meet, and if they do the one serves the other - and that is what makes you "unChristian."

    ReplyDelete