Bush's little speech was total crap, it could have come out of the mouth of Jimmy Carter. (I wonder what the reaction of people on this forum would have been if there had been no publicity on this speech and I had posted it here claiming that it was a speech Jimmy Carter had made in Africa a couple of years ago.)As starving men will eat grass and worms, so the favorable mention of Christianity (a public rarity, as the author noted) has apparantly so enthralled Colson that he is willing to overlook its faults. One of the oddest of those faults is its peculiar theology. According to Mr. Bush "there were men and women who clearly saw this sin and called it by name" and "Christian men and women became blind to the clearest commands of their faith and added hypocrisy to injustice". Jesus Christ himself didn't condemn slavery as a sin, but luckily He now has Bush and Colson to set Him straight on the matter. The remarks in fact are a backhanded swipe at Christianity (I wonder who wrote this speech, it certainly wasn't GWB). As I say, starving men . . .
Were you really tired when you wrote this post? It's very cranky, whiny and incoherent.
Bush's little speech was total crap, it could have come out of the mouth of Jimmy Carter.
What part of the speech was Carteresque? Are you sure you remember Carter? Are you perhaps thinking of Gabe Kotter? Trust me, Carter would have sent this speech back, because it only criticizes (some) past Americans and has nothing to say about the horrible evil Carter sees America as these days. A Carter speech would have had a long, repentance-filled section calling for us all to bend down and kiss Jesse Jackson on his Heinie-town.
Jesus Christ himself didn't condemn slavery as a sin, but luckily He now has Bush and Colson to set Him straight on the matter.
Let me do a slight edit on that for you and see what it sounds like:
Jesus Christ himself didn't condemn homosexuality as a sin, but luckily He now has Jim Dobson and Chuck Colson to set Him straight on the matter.
These days we have
sodomites "people of different sexual preference" running churches in mainline denominations. Why? Because they say, "Homosexuality isn't a sin, because Jesus never condemned it." That's the exact measure you're using to criticize the President and Colson. By your measure tyranny is not sinful because Jesus didn't speak against the Romans or advocate revolt against them. What if the Founders had followed your standard? We would still be subjects of the Crown. Christianity is about following Christ, not looking for what we can get away with. What do you think the chances are that Jesus would own a slave? "WWJD? Buy some darkies to help around the carpentry shop." Somehow, I don't think so.
Sorry, but if you think that it's within the will of God for Christ's followers to own Africans, you should get on a plane to Sudan, settle down and buy a couple. The not-quite-as-sinful-as-I-thought-apparently government there has killed two million Christians and animists there in the last twenty years, and enslaved two million more, so it shouldn't be too hard to find some unused land and a few folks to do the work for you.