re: #600 Charles
Thanks Charles,
Um, I think my last post made it clear that it was my impression that you lumped Glenn in with Spencer et al. You say you did not, fine, I’ll take you at your word and re-evaluate my impression. I’m not playing gothca here. Honest. But it’s also clear that you think Glenn is a loon, which I concede, so I’m not sure why you’re being so defensive.
About the next comment. Skousen was not a ranting Bircher by the end of his life. So, just as one can find gold and dross in Luther, you can do the same with Skousen. You obviously don’t want to give Beck the benefit of the doubt -probably because of other things Beck does - that he only knows the gold and not the dross. I disagree and choose to give Beck the benefit of the doubt. Fine.
I’ve read both books and trust me, they’re harmless.
If we are going to condemn people for their associations we have to make sure that those we condemn are fully aware or un-nuanced in their endorsements, otherwise, we could call all current Lutherans anti-semites which is unfair. It’s clear because of Skousen change of heart, and Beck’s endorsement of the most harmless of Skousen’s books that’s there’s room enough for doubt.
Thanks again,
Travis