I would LOVE to quit responding, but when you post things which have nothing to do with the original argument in order to try and "prove" your point......<quoted text>
Geez, you cherry pick definitions like you cherry pick quotes.
It is man's understanding of God and Its nature that changes, thus the continued effort to study and re-evaluate man's understanding of God's relationship to the universe. If everything were as fixed as you you portray why has human history shown us moving from animism, to polytheism, to monotheism, was it because God's nature and relationship to the universe changed, or did man's understanding of the universe change nessitating a change in how God is viewed. Theology reflects man's study, man's understanding, so of course it is going to be continuely changing.
Here is a definition to ponder...
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.
"May we please drop this. It is pointless."
Sure, don't respond.
Nor do I cherry pick definitions or quotes, you supplied the additional definitions (which completely supported my point), I took the relevant phrases out to contrast them with Cone's definition - that was also supplied and - I have given you the source of the quotes I used -A Black Theology of Liberation (for the fourth time.)
We were not "discussing" the development of various theologies, which is what you just posted about. We were talking about Christian Theology vs Black Liberation Theology. ANOTHER poster than myself (one on YOUR side of the political fence) asked someone to name "any" minister that wasn't pro Republican, I responded Jeremiah Wright. That same poster then asserted that Jeremiah Wright was hardly "mainstream." I agreed and stated that Jeremiah Wright was actually an adherent of Black Liberation Theology.
You responded "thanking" God that I could "tell us who the True Christians are". The argument has always been is BLT accepted as "mainstream" Christian doctrine by Christian Theologians. The answer continues to be "NO" - and Cone gives his definition what he considers to be the irrefutable high ground by saying : you cannot use a "white definition" to argue against his definition -(post 16173). He thus destroys his own argument by stating that definitions are relative.
You now once again try to change the subject by posting definitions of "conservative" in some lame attempt to try and bolster your position that you have continually not been able to support.
I will repeat: Try Again.
But I would really prefer you didn't - you have yet to support your position and no one else is interested. If you really want to continue - send me a message and we can continue this "off thread" to your heart's content.