The Noak ark story is cool but how did he make the huge animals get on and who shovelled up their mess every day?

oh now daddys coming. I better get back to the vegi tails website or hell get mad.

Posted by: Gavin the Great | April 11, 2008 2:59 PM

The willing will become "saved" not because of our actions, yet by the grace of out Saviour. We all too often focus on our roles in the process, and somehow believe we stand at the wheel of the life-boat, or are captains of the Ark - though truth is we are merely passengers being rescued as well. We were not put into position to establish God's chosen through our own geneology, as Noah repopulated the world through his.

"So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.” (v17) "

The scripture referenced in the article to drive home Rich's point was God's declaration for that particular situation - not for today, and surely not for a alternative plan to Salvation. The Ark Theology's time has passed. I believe that although God desires for all of mankind to accept His plan of salvation it clearly is not reasonable to believe He expects it.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 11, 2008 3:54 PM

Moody was an evangelist -- so his call was to be the lifeboat. And he did a great job of that. He was also a salesman -- which is an interesting connection. I am glad for evangelists. My grandmother was saved a Billy Sunday crusade, thus my heritage changed considerably. (That's not to say I agree with everything Billy Sunday ever said or did.)

About a month ago I adopted a dog from the local pound. He'd been a stray so long that his ears were about 4 inches thick with mats. Once I got him home I looked him in the eyes and said, 'You realize you're about the only thing I can save.'

I really don't think I'm doing anything of eternal significance in saving my dear, goofy dog. I'm glad I could do it, but it doesn't really compare to bringing further in their understanding of God.

The most amazing thing to me is that even after the fall, so much of His creation remains in tact -- beautiful, awesome and spell-binding.

Posted by: frankie | April 11, 2008 5:00 PM

"I really don't think I'm doing anything of eternal significance in saving my dear, goofy dog. I'm glad I could do it"

This is off topic I know, but I can't resist. Thank you for adopting your dear goofy dog and I hope you give each other much joy for many years!

Blessings and peace,

Posted by: JEM | April 11, 2008 5:36 PM

Both of these are interesting images, but neither seems to me to deal with the more disturbing theological elements in the story of Noah and the ark.

Posted by: James McGrath | April 11, 2008 6:16 PM

It is interesting to me that when catastrophes took place in ancient times man was inclined to assume he had done something to offend God. It is hard to imagine that man's foot print on the planet when this story was first passed down, could have had that much impact on the planet.

It certainly does remind us that we are living on a dynamic planet that is alive and powerful, and sometimes even dangerous. If it were peaceful all the time it would be a dead planet. But in the face of every great change God does not give up on his creation.

Now we live in times when man does have the potential to destabilize the entire planet and cause unimaginable catastrophe. We still can not blame it on offending God. We must be breaking his heart with every passing moment. He has created a beautiful home for us and we are managing to make a mess of it.

I can't help but wish that we had a modern day Noah. It may take a world full of Noah's to get us out of this one. Perhaps we each need to find Noahs with in us.

Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | April 12, 2008 8:02 AM

d.e., thanks for hanging in there and being open to learning; all too rare in many blog situations. Actually, a far better example for a more holistic kind of evangelism would be Charles Finney, the great American evangelist from the first half of the nineteenth century. He actually pioneered the whole phenomenon of the urban "crusade" and the use of an "altar call". What is often forgotten is that the primary content of his altar call was to "follow Jesus and join in the task of abolishing the abomination of slavery". His style and theology are being adopted by Jim Wallis in large part, thanks be to God! An ark of inclusion and hope is a useful image of God's saving purpose for all. (And, yes, there are deeply disturbing and even offensive aspects of the whole Noah saga. Dare I say that it is a myth, borrowed from the Babylonians and adapted by the Hebrews? Neverless, it is an image of "saving" both humanity and all living species, which present-day humanity is putting at risk with our greed and ignorance.)

Posted by: Dale G. | April 12, 2008 1:39 PM

Rick,
You may be a dispensationalist and not even know it.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | April 12, 2008 2:58 PM

God will restore every creature? Care to explain or perhaps further define "restore"?

Posted by: brett maxwell | April 12, 2008 3:46 PM

Sorry!
I must keep saying it. Apart from Christ we can do nothing. Apart from the Holy Spirit we will never be able to discern the spirits, or the Word of the living God. Apart from the Father all is lost. All things are possible through Christ and Him crucified. The salvation of souls is the Key the opening the door. Without that key we cannot be discipled in the faith. I believe that is why the faith stresses salvation as crucial. The problem comes in when churches place little or no emphasis on discipling converts. I wonder how my fellow writers claim they were discipled in the churches they attend or by the person that led them to the ultimate salvation of their soul.

Posted by: Lars | April 12, 2008 9:06 PM

No, Jeff. Dispensationalism may have been named after its adherents' belief in various eras or "dispensations" of biblical history, but they are by no means the only ones who recognize such eras.

The distinctive teaching of dispensationalism as taught by John Nelson Darby and handed down through Scofield, Dallas Theological Seminary, Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, and most popular "end times" preachers today, is that God has two distinct peoples in the earth--the church, a "heavenly" people, and Israel, an "earthly" people. Dispensationalism is rooted in a hermeneutic which insists that the Old Testament promises given to Israel and prophecies about their future peace and prosperity will literally be fulfilled to Israel.

I know that Rick Nowlin rejects that teaching and hermeneutic. So do I. The hermeneutical problem with it is that the prophecies that they insist can refer only to Israel are regularly applied ("non-literally") to the Church by the (inspired) writers of the New Testament.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | April 12, 2008 10:18 PM

My hope is built on nothing less
than Scofield's notes and Moody Press

Posted by: canucklehead | April 13, 2008 12:07 AM

Kevin,
Funny, but I'm sure that will happen if his poll numbers take a hit and this story gets more traction. Remember, "we shouldn't be in the pocket of any party or any candidate."

Posted by: jesse | April 13, 2008 8:06 AM

"Saying that it doesn't happen that way sounds like just a touch of arrogance in that we can somehow "reach" God through our own efforts and that we ourselves can produce the desire to know Him."

That's the Calvinist trump card, that any other explanation of salvation amounts to self-glorification. But you are then left with a God who has regenerated your soul from birth, which makes rebirth meaningless and renders Paul an embellisher if not an outright fraud.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 13, 2008 2:24 PM

But you are then left with a God who has regenerated your soul from birth, which makes rebirth meaningless and renders Paul an embellisher if not an outright fraud.

Nope -- because God is outside of time while we humans are basically ruled by it. And in fact, as God chose us believers "from the foundation of the world," it takes time, not to mention the specific circumstances that He ordained, for that to be worked out. You seem to be saying that God is not really that sovereign -- which is personally offensive.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 13, 2008 2:37 PM

Don,
Not all people who adhere to a dispensationalist theology share the eschatology that so many on this site define as dispensationalism. I think you are focusing on some teachings from these men that are not universally excepted by or seen as dispensationalism. Rick's point had been about eschatology and the heavenward focus of some.

I go back to my earlier observation. There seems to be many here who are more concerned with Rich's theology or "evangelical" theology than the feeding of the poor. Rick has even given us a reason for his perception that evangelicals don't serve the poor. To heavenly minded.

But year in and year out conservative evangelicals are the most generous givers to charities. With such "superior" theology, why don't liberal nonevangelicals give as much?

Every time this point is made someone chimes in with "they have the wrong motivation" or the "wrong theology". It comes across as very judgemental. Maybe SOJO and like-minded folks would do better challenging the liberal church in this area, at least until they catch up to us evangelicals.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | April 13, 2008 7:37 PM

"The fact remains, conservative evangelicals are proven to be more generous in charitable given. The stats come out every year."

No, I don't think "the stats come out every year" on this. This idea is just based on one study that some folks love to quote but whose methods were controversial. If there are annual stats that show this, give us a link to them or put the idea to rest.

Posted by: I and I | April 13, 2008 9:51 PM

If we are to be regenerate (to use your term) at any point in our lives, then, we must always have been so, as we are incapable of having made any other choice. In fact, we made to choice at all.

In God's view, perhaps, but because we live in time we don't see that. The point remains, did you choose to be "saved"? Of course not, and the Scripture is clear about that; you simply yielded to God. Remember that Jesus said, "No one comes to Me unless the Father draws him."

But year in and year out conservative evangelicals are the most generous givers to charities. With such "superior" theology, why don't liberal nonevangelicals give as much?

What's often not said -- but I've this known for years -- is that most giving that conservatives do actually goes back to organizations that they themselves belong to, such as their churches. And, really, they don't have much reach outside of their local areas. Most secular charities, on the other hand, receive much, if not most, of their money from foundations.

Did the Lord call Rich Nathan to be critical of his designs?

I don't think he's doing that. I see him as going a bit "deeper."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 13, 2008 11:56 PM

Jeff said
The fact remains, conservative evangelicals are proven to be more generous in charitable given. The stats come out every year. So when this is pointed out or an evangelical like Rich is highlighted, the argument turns theological (wrong motives or wrong theology). It is rather judgemental.

jonabark
It would be good to provide a reference for these dubious stats and examine how they were derived. But even if true, what does it mean .The Sadducees probably brought in a lot more money than the destitute widows with their pathetic mites.

All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
Some sing out loud on the telephone wire
And some just clap their hands, or paws
Or anything they got.

Listen to the bass, it's the one on the bottom
Where the bullfrog croaks and the hippopotamus
Moans and groans with a big to-do
The old cow just goes MOOOOO

The dog and the cat pick up the middle
While the honey bee hums and the cricket fiddles
The donkey brays and the pony neighs
And the old coyote howls

All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
Some sing out loud on the telephone wire
And some just clap their hands, or paws
Or anything they got.

Listen to the top where the little birds sing
On the melody with the high note ringing
The hoot owl hollars over everything
And the jaybird disagrees

Singin' in the night-time, singin' in the day
Little duck quacks, and he's on his way
The possum ain't got much to say
And the porcupine talks to himself

All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
Some sing out loud on the telephone wire
And some just clap their hands, or paws
Or anything they got.

It's a simple song of livin' sung everywhere
By the ox and the fox and the grizzly bear
Grumpy alligator and the hawks above
Sly raccoon and the turtle dove.

All God's critters got a place in the choir
Some sing low, some sing higher
Some sing out loud on the telephone wire
And some just clap their hands, or paws
Or anything they got.

By Bill Staines

The whole picture of most of humanity drowning and headed for eternal torture by the great vengeance of God while the chosen people(supposedly free, but throughout the centuries sending their children off in the imperial armies of one avaricious and murderous Caesar after another) preach to the lost and pull them into the life raft, is not what I would call good news. It is one of many nasty forms of colonialism. Jesus was against such nonsense, so the colonizing head honcho killed him. Something about him wouldn't die though. The fearless love, the shared table, the humility of service, the joy of friendship with God and with the lilies and with humans and birds and light, the peasant wisdom of sowing and of reaping what you have sown, the pleasure of being alive, unable to be colonized by religion or any Caesar.

Jesus is not out in space somewhere or in some alternate spirit world. He is in the wisdom of love, in the molecules we share, the children we bear, the beautiful blue planet we live on and must learn to love as the very self it is, an ark made to last for many millennia.

Posted by: jonabark | April 14, 2008 3:01 AM

Don,
Your missing something. The attacks are on conservatives. My point is when compared side by side (Gallup gives a report every year) conservatives do give more. When this is pointed out the argument always goes to motive. We can split hairs on who has the best theology or we can feed the poor. SOJOs criticism of conservatives in this area rings hollow when their own camp doesn't measure up to those they are criticizing.

Jonabark,
I like your Sadducee/widow point. The widow gave what she could without fanfare. The religious made a show of their larger but less sacrificial giving. Criticism of those who give, criticism based purely on their political or religious beliefs, not based on sacrifice takes this to a new level.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | April 14, 2008 9:48 AM

First: Rick Nathan makes a pretty good point about preserving our environment and uses the metaphorical story of Noah's Ark to do so. But my feeling is if we don't do it it won't get done. A supernatural sky god is not going to swoop down from the heavens and make all things right. I am sorry if that offends or sounds cynical but expecting such a fairy tale event is a cop out.

Second: Obviously the Noah's Ark story is not literal nor historical. The story is a response to the Babylonian myths and is also the story of Israel in exile. It was put into writing about the time of the Babylonian exile in the sixth century bce. It was, for ancient Israel, a story of hope that the exile would end and once again they would be restored to their homeland just as their God protected Noah and his family during the chaos of the mythological flood and returned them to dry land. For the Jews in exile in Babylon the greatest fear was that they would assimilate into the empire and loose their identity. Stories like this and others offered them hope and gave them their personal story and identity in an attempt to prevent assimilation.

Third: It can also be a story of hope for us without having to literalize it. We in the United States are in exile from the ways that bring true peace—practicing love, compassion, generosity, etc.—and have all but assimilated into the ways of empire. There is still hope that we can regain our spiritual perspective and learn how to live peacefully and respectfully of all life before it is to late. But I repeat, if WE don't do it it won't get done.

Posted by: jackfate | April 14, 2008 10:46 AM

Dismissing the very moderates he will need to persuade in a general election as yokels speaks to his temperament.

You wish -- but it does no such thing. What Obama meant was that policians who have no interest in making things better for the common people often use those kinds of hot-button issues to keep them in line. That's not at all "dismissive" -- that's precisely what the Republicans did in Ohio with gay marriage and abortion during the last presidential election; however, it didn't work two years later.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 14, 2008 11:46 AM

"What Obama meant was that policians who have no interest in making things better for the common people often use those kinds of hot-button issues to keep them in line."

So he accused Hillary of leveraging religion and abortion? That was the substance of his comments. That makes no sense, though I'll credit you with the ability to pivot just about anything to the abortion/gay marriage talking point.

It is fine to appeal to those who care about certain issues. It is also fine to say that you are not succeeding in reaching certain people because you do not share those values. But for Barack Obama to suggest that working-class people are supporting Hillary simply because they are bitterly clinging (his words) to bigotry and trivia is presumptuous at best.

Maybe they just think he's a pompous twit. These statements do little to prove them wrong.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 14, 2008 12:16 PM

That makes no sense, though I'll credit you with the ability to pivot just about anything to the abortion/gay marriage talking point.

Obama wasn't speaking about Hillary per se -- and you know this, because their views on such things are similar. I was only pointing out how such issues have been used as wedge issues to distract from their economic realities, which politicians don't intend to address. (And you know my stances on abortion and gay marriage, so don't change the subject.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 14, 2008 12:25 PM

Hey - foreign missions is a biblical mandate -- and often helps poor people, really, really poor and oppressed people. That's what the church is supposed to be doing with their money.

If you want to fault them, jump on their espresso machines, but not on their missions.

Oh, I won't fault foreign missions; 40 percent of the budget of my denomination goes to that and I know personally about a half-dozen people who are on the field as I write. But even then, people go on the field with the same contempt for the poor as they exhibit in this country, and a couple of years ago the pastor of my church confronted some of our field workers in southeast Asia on that. There are people on the field who are running from God even though they claim to serve Him.

But, getting back on topic, jackfate is right in saying that if we want to make things better in this world we need to do it ourselves -- or, perhaps more accurately, that God empowers us to do so. Our objective should always be to glorify Him in whatever we do.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 14, 2008 12:52 PM

"WalMart uber alles" ROFL

Posted by: carl copas | April 14, 2008 1:41 PM

I grew up in the city, my dad grew up in the hills -- as a hillbilly. He's proud of it. He grew up with guns and loved hunting, gave them all up when he had kids. He'd have never shot an intruder.

He took us to his hometown -- he tried to move us to a small town when I was in highschool. My complaint was that small town living was not the real world.

He said, "Funny -- I think small town living is real. People believe a lot more lies in the city then they do in the country."

So I spent a couple years doing the small town thing. You have to have done it to appreciate it. I don't think Hillary is trying to be Annie Oakley (or what was really wrong with Annie Oakley that merited that comment) but at least Hillary has seen and appreciates where these people are coming from.

Obama shouldn't have said what he did, and could learn from politicians who have done some incarnate things -- like Jane Byrne (former mayor of Chicago) who went and lived in a housing project for a few months. Maybe he should do the same in a small town in America.

In a democracy, small town Americans have a right to be heard and understood. Doesn't he want to bring change to them too?

Posted by: frankie | April 14, 2008 2:07 PM

Obama shouldn't have said what he did, and could learn from politicians who have done some incarnate things -- like Jane Byrne (former mayor of Chicago) who went and lived in a housing project for a few months. Maybe he should do the same in a small town in America.

Uh -- what was his occupation before going into politics? He was a community organizer -- in Chicago!

In a democracy, small town Americans have a right to be heard and understood. Doesn't he want to bring change to them too?

Samll-town America often resists change and looks down on "city-slickers" no matter how genuine.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 14, 2008 3:22 PM

City-slickers have historically looked down on small-town America too -- myself included. He's promising change -- his view on small-town America is same-old to me.

I don't buy that. Remember, he had to campaign in downstate Illinois to get elected to the U.S. Senate in the first place, and he was a hit everywhere he went there. (Apparently he played well in Peoria -- literally.) See, this hits home to me just a bit, since I live in Pennsylvania, which means we're getting much of the media attention right now.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 14, 2008 4:02 PM

Ark Theology may be an improvement from Lifeboat Theology, however I'm not so sure I like the idea of a God who destroyed nearly everything because they were naughty.

Jesus teaches us, before he dies, that God blesses the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:45)

God loves the people in the boat and those left behind.
www.krogermix.com/2008/01/god-loves-that-guy.html

Posted by: Karl Kroger | April 14, 2008 4:38 PM

Several of you (well, at least two of you) posting here have touted the notion that "conservative" Christians are more generous than "liberal" or "mainstream" Christians, but not one of you has posted any evidence of it or told us where we might learn this important truth for ourselves. One of you even was so bold as to tell us three reasons why we mainstreamers aren't as generous as you conservatives.

You seem to think that simply by repeating it enough times, the rest of us will start realizing that it's true even without evidence.

Time to put up or shut up, folks. If you can't prove your point with evidence, stop trying to clobber people over the head with it.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | April 14, 2008 5:01 PM

Carl: The Civil War was more about economics than slavery anyway. War is usually about economics and rarely about principles.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 14, 2008 6:24 PM

Frankie: You may be surprised at how much inner-city Chicago and "hillbilly" Appalachia have in common.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 14, 2008 7:17 PM

I am not going to argue any part of Rich Nathan's Ark theology. I just want Nathan and the many bloggers know that Moody was not only the evangelist depicted in his article.
As a graduate of Northfield - Mt. Hermon School, as a native of Northfield,MA. and as a child who worked and played with D. L. Moody' daughter and many relatives, I just want to clarify Moody's "life-boat" evangelism. Yes, God called Moody to "save sinners" so through His grace they could follow a loving God who gave us his Son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit to guide them on their earthly faith journey to do His will while living day by day for themselves and others.

But he was also known as a great educator of poor youth. At Northfield, He founded a boys' and a girls' school for the poor boys and girls in the community that even today continues to give many scholarships to worthy students from many states and around the world. Along with learning with your head, everyone was taught to use their hearts and hands. Loving others as yourself was a prime rule. He believed in helping each student to learn every day skllls through the work program (called "dummy" in my day) that would help him/her learn to care for his/her daily enviroment and earn a living. His farm program still goes on today.
He spent much time leading some of the wealthy "robber barons" like Marquand and Gould to give money to build his schools as well as the Moody Institute in Chicago.
His summer religious conferences brought some great preachers and missionaries to the campus. One of these was John Mott who helped to found the YMCA.
The thousands of alumi/ae are, indeed, very grateful for all Moody's insight and wisdom.Many of us are still are involved with "evangelizing" through being His active followers in working on social justice issues which mostly are created through the poverty that exists in our man-made world bcause of materialism and greed. that is why I am (at eighty) going to the Evangelism/Poverty Revival this week in Columbus, Ohio.

Posted by: A.F. Reynolds | April 14, 2008 8:25 PM

"Because in most cases almost all of that money -- and this is on the record; we're talking about 97 percent on the average -- go directly to the church to maintain its own programs (staff etc). "

Can you use scripture to identify the problem here?

"heck, they often spend more on foreign missions than on the poor."

False dichotomy eh? Unless churches are sending missionaries to Luxembourg.

"But even then, people go on the field with the same contempt for the poor"

So your throwing our MISSIONARIES under a bus? Missionaries?

"Obama wasn't speaking about Hillary per se"

Then he wasn't answering the question.

"and you know this, because their views on such things are similar."

Well, this is some sterling political analysis. Whether this is true depends on what "things" and "views" you are talking about.

But you are correct that there are no policy distinctions (per se) to be drawn. His statements were not (per se) political.

But they are problematic. Hillary knows full well why people won't support her. Obama seems to deem opposition to his nomination to be some sort of character flaw.

"(And you know my stances on abortion and gay marriage, so don't change the subject.)"

You brought them up, dude.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 14, 2008 11:48 PM

I and I, I tried to find a Gallup poll which did indeed breakdown "giving" by intensity of one's faith as oppossed to the general information I stumbled across. I could not. I've never seen such information, but would be enlightened by it, no doubt.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | April 15, 2008 8:01 AM

Pastor Jeff --
Actually, a great deal of Appalacia (and hillbilies) moved up to Chicago to get work in factory jobs and steel. Many of them got laid off when those places shut down, and since I've not been back to those neighborhoods in a long time, I don't know what they are doing now. They are sort of their own people group in little pockets around the city. Many of them are very bitter about their factories closing, but I don't recall them having guns, since they didn't hunt.

In small town Pennsylvania -- they all had guns and had really lousy factory jobs -- but they seemed happy. They had jobs sewing underwear or stars on flags -- paid by the piece if they met their quota. Most of them went to church, since church is your social life in a small town. None of the ones I was close to would vote for Hillary.

I really don't know why Obama would say what he did about them. People in small town Iowa were supportive of him and open to his ideas, in fact he's done better in rural states than the larger states.

Posted by: frankie | April 15, 2008 11:54 AM

"Carl: The Civil War was more about economics than slavery anyway. War is usually about economics and rarely about principles.

Pastor Jeff"

Economics that had everything to do with the fact that the Southern economy was grounded on slave labor and the North's was not. No matter how you try to shift the cause of the War away from slavery--"it was economics" "it was to protect a way of life" "it was to defend states' rights"--you always get back to slavery as the root cause.

Posted by: carl copas | April 15, 2008 1:25 PM

Frankie: The reason you "don't understand why Obama would say that about them" is that the object of the statement was not the "bitter" people but the failed promises and hypocrisy of the Clinton/Bush abandonment of rural/industrial America. The commonalities I was referring to are the hopelessness and cynicism we deal with in rural America. Both inner city and rural America suffer from the same spirit. Obama's mistake was to specify "religion and guns" as areas in which the displaced anger resides (unquestionable, sacred cows), but he did correctly identify xenophobia as a by-product of these failed policies. Obama probably comprehends the causes and outcomes of the rural displaced than many expect. We've all been waiting for "trickle down" and "free trade" policies to "renew" our communities and Obama seems to be the only one to say that these policies are failures for the rural poor.

PJ

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | April 15, 2008 2:16 PM

He is not succeeding to the extent that they are supporting Hillary. He explains their support of Hillary by citing bitterness and clinginess. "Antipathy" toward certain people is the definition of bigotry.

That's an overstatement and highly misinformed analysis anyway. For openers, arguably most of the small-town/rural folks around the country have more recently voted Republican but likely feel betrayed by Bush Inc. and are thus looking for something different. I thus saw nothing specific he said as to why many supported Hillary, though many of them certainly loved Bill.

As for your charge of "antipathy" -- well, I won't go there.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 15, 2008 2:30 PM

Which has nothing to do with Hillary's support amongst same, which was what Obama was addressing.

HE NEVER USED HER NAME!!!

Republicans have little to do with his poor showing amongst working class Democrats.

If you forget, these were the "Reagan Democrats."

I didn't charge anyone with antipathy. I said he accused other of exhibiting antipathy. Which he did. He used that word exactly. He said that the working class clings to antipathy, which is a fancy way of saying they are racist.

Based on your posts, I've seen a pretty obvious antipathy here, especially toward Obama, on your. Does that then make you a racist? That's how ridiculous some of your comments have become.

That said, truth be told, we've gotten way off track here. We're supposed to be talking about the various streams of evangelicalism.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 15, 2008 4:06 PM

You know - I don't know which is more entertaining. Watching the news and see what Obama and Hillary have to say about one another. Watching them shread each other or redefining terms after the fact. - OR - Reading what people are posting on this site about the two of them.

It is too darn funny -

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 15, 2008 5:56 PM

I don't know which is more entertaining. Watching the news and see what Obama and Hillary have to say about one another. Watching them shread each other or redefining terms after the fact.

You won't be laughing if or (more likely) when one of them gets to 1600 Pennsyvania Avenue. (BTW, Obama showed up at my job today.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 15, 2008 6:14 PM

"Lincoln only made it about the slaves when it became politically expedient for him to do so."

Only somewhat true. Slaves began escaping to freedom in large numbers once the war broke out, forcing Lincoln's hand on the issue. It likely would have been impossible to maintain the institution of slavery if the Union had won the war and allowed the South to continue practicing it.

But, agreed, emancipation made for good propaganda abroad, and seems to have helped persuade Britain, and perhaps France, to not support the Confederacy.

Worth remembering that when Lincoln announced the Emancipation, several thousand Union soldiers deserted. They insisted they were fighting to preserve the Union, not to free a group of people that these soldiers regarded as inferior. So, the political angle wasn't automatically favorable to Lincoln.

There is also good evidence to suggest that over the course of the war Lincoln became convinced that emancipation was morally necessary. He justified the war, importantly both in private and in public, as the divine punishment of white Americans, both northern and southern, for practicing slavery for 250 years.

Posted by: carl copas | April 15, 2008 7:31 PM

Posted by: JamesMartin | April 15, 2008 6:47 PM

Bush has been a joke but not a funny one, unfortunately.

They said the same thing about Reagan and now we know that much of what he had to say was true.

Hillary is the 'same old same old dem'
Obama is the 'the more things change - the more they are the same'

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 15, 2008 8:52 PM

"Wow, it took a lot of explanation"

47 words is a lot of explanation? This, coming from a lawyer?

"to twist Obama's statement into what you wanted it to say."

I didn't want him to say what he said. I wish he didn't believe what he said. I wish viable candidate believed what he said.

"Thanks for sharing the manner in which you re-shaped his statement"

Context can do that, yes. My interpretation gels with that of virtually every political analyst out there.

"to cast him in the worst possible light."

Do you deny that he said his opponents cling to antipathy toward certain people?

"And I couldn't agree with you more that "antipathy" toward certain people is bigotry."

So we agree that he called his opponents bigots, and you are about to call me one.

"You have illustrated that point quite well."

How so? What have I said here that is bigoted?

Posted by: kevin s. | April 15, 2008 10:27 PM

"HE NEVER USED HER NAME!!!"

The only evidence that he is failing to woo the working class comes from his poor showing among the working class throughout this process. Again, nobody would bother to ask why Obama performed poorly among conservatives.

"If you forget, these were the "Reagan Democrats.""

Some are. But my point stands that Republicans have nothing to do with the working class favoring Hillary over Obama.

"Based on your posts, I've seen a pretty obvious antipathy here, especially toward Obama,"

Which is exactly the opposite of the antipathy Obama shackles his opponents with. He accuses them of antipathy toward people who aren't like them. What do you suppose Obama meant by "people who aren't like them"?

Posted by: kevin s. | April 15, 2008 10:37 PM

What do you suppose Obama meant by "people who aren't like them"?

The "leisure class," such as the folks Obama was addressing in San Francisco, which is precisely why he said it -- he actually was explaining why there's probably more resentment toward the "elite" than anything else toward that class of people. (A good book to read on the subject: "Born Fighting" by Jim Webb.) Trying to make it into a race issue thus just doesn't fly.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | April 15, 2008 11:06 PM

Hillary vs Obama -

You can't write this kinda stuff. The 'oneupmanship' that is playing out in front of us - this is great drama. So Hillary does a shot and a beer with her group - what will Obama do to make him more appealing. (or apalling - LOL)

I was I could watch the debate tonight but I have to work my second job. Will have to catch it on rerun - and I am sure that it will be rerun'd a lot on all the cable stations.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | April 16, 2008 9:28 AM

"You're welcome, Kevin. I stand in awe of your intellectual prowess. "

And with this touch of sarcasm, I will continue to have to dig to find the true meaning of your words, yes? You were calling me a bigot. Just own up to it instead of being coy.

And while your at it, defend your assertion.

Posted by: kevin s. | April 17, 2008 1:49 AM