Jerry Falwell dead

[Lynn7]

I was shocked to learn of Falwell's death. It was more shocking to learn that his father and his grandfather were atheists and I thought of some of you guys here on the bb- someday your kids could grow up and be movers and shakers in the Christian movement. :D

From Breitbart:


"Falwell's father and his grandfather were militant atheists, he wrote in his autobiography. He said his father made a fortune off his businesses—including bootlegging during Prohibition.

As a student, Falwell was a star athlete and a prankster who was barred from giving his high school valedictorian's speech after he was caught using counterfeit lunch tickets his senior year.

He ran with a gang of juvenile delinquents before becoming a born- again Christian at age 19. He turned down an offer to play professional baseball and transferred from Lynchburg College to Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Mo.

"My heart was burning to serve Christ," he once said in an interview. "I knew nothing would ever be the same again."

The day before he died, Falwell had been up on the Liberty campus hillside chatting with students, Godwin said. He was talking about plans for the future that day and over breakfast Tuesday morning, he said.

"Dr. Falwell was a giant of faith and a visionary leader," Godwin said. He "has always been a man of great optimism and great faith."

[Vong]

I'll say the same thing I said in the "Free Speech Is Dead" thread:

YAY!!!! :D

[someguy]

I guess God is pretty slow on answering prayers

[Thrizzle]

I smoked weed with Falwell. He was a cool dude.

[Vong]

It's funny because yesterday in lecture my prof was talking about Christian fundamentalism and Jerry Falwell's name came up among other whack-jobs. He didn't speak nice about him, let me just say.

Today, we hear news of Jerry Falwell's death, and my prof is thinking that he had something to do with his death. LOL :D

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Vong
Today, we hear news of Jerry Falwell's death, and my prof is thinking that he had something to do with his death. LOL :D


Tell your professor to talk about the following people:

Ann Coulter
Tom DeLay
James Dobson
Bill Donahue
Sean Hannity
Brit Hume
Alan Keyes
Oliver North
Bill O'Reilly
Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Al Sharpton (at least one non-Republican)

[KcMsterpce]

May he forever
Rest in Pieces
Never find himself while lost
in the dark freezing tunnels of the Underworld
burning in flames and
screaming in endless agony
whilst those he hated and preached against become the flames
licking at his burning frame,
laughing and scolding him with sinful and merciless taunts.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by KcMsterpce
May he forever
Rest in Pieces
Never find himself while lost
in the dark freezing tunnels of the Underworld
burning in flames and
screaming in endless agony
whilst those he hated and preached against become the flames
licking at his burning frame,
laughing and scolding him with sinful and merciless taunts.


That's beautiful, you should get that published....

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Tell your professor to talk about the following people:

Ann Coulter
Tom DeLay
James Dobson
Bill Donahue
Sean Hannity
Brit Hume
Alan Keyes
Oliver North
Bill O'Reilly
Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Al Sharpton (at least one non-Republican)


I'd like to add Hillary Clinton to that list.

Just imagine the thumbs up from Bill.

[JCPhoenix]

US President George W Bush paid tribute to Mr Falwell, 73, who he said lived a life of "faith, family, and freedom".

President Bush said both he and his wife, Laura, were "deeply saddened" by Mr Falwell's death.

"He taught young people to remain true to their convictions and rely upon God's word throughout each stage of their lives," Mr Bush said. ---From BBC News...

Wow, I can't believe Bush is actually commending this despicable human being without backlash...I guess when someone dies, they're automatically treated with respect.

Now, I normally think it's respectful to say "RIP" no matter what I think of the person but in this case, I gotta make an exception for such a vile human being.

Not only is this the guy who called the Prophet Muhammad a "terrorist" (later apologized though) and "said that gays, atheists, civil-rights activists and legal abortions in the US had angered God and "helped this happen"" but this is also the guy who "denounced the BBC TV children's show The Teletubbies, because he believed one character, Tinky Winky, was homosexual". Wow. This man was deluded. He of course also once "gave a sermon at his Thomas Road Baptist Church criticizing Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, which he sometimes referred to as the "Civil Wrongs Movement" and supported the segregationist movement" (according to Wikipedia)...of course, until it was in his best interests to change views (at which point he became "opposed" to segregation).

Bah man, fuck this guy. I'm glad he's dead, one less guy fucking around with people's civil rights.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by JCPhoenix
[i]I'm glad he's dead, one less guy fucking around with people's civil rights.

1 down, 3 billion to go!

[Badbird]

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

And by "nicer guy" I mean "insaine douche bag."

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Tell your professor to talk about the following people:

Ann Coulter
Tom DeLay
James Dobson
Bill Donahue
Sean Hannity
Brit Hume
Alan Keyes
Oliver North
Bill O'Reilly
Fred Phelps
Pat Robertson
Al Sharpton (at least one non-Republican)

I'd add David Horowitz and Alan Dershowitz to that list as well.




Let's see...

First, Ted Haggard steps down as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals because he spent a night with a male escort.

Then, Kent Hovind gets 20 (I think) years in prison for tax evasion.

Now, Jerry Falwell is dead.

MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!! THEY'RE ALL GOIN' DOWN!!! :)

Who'll be next? My money's on Jack Chick.

[Cyclonus]

Jack Chick? Probably. He's already past 80, and with his recent health problems (triple heart bypass), I wouldn't be surprised if he died suddenly just as Falwell did. The downside is that we'd be deprived of further Chick tracts to make fun of. :( ;)

In addition to what you've said above, George W. Bush is scheduled to leave office in January 2009. Hopefully with a new guy in the Oval Office, the influence of the religious right will start to decline.

[Vong]

The sad part about all of this is, when these old folgies die, there are hundreds of others who will take their place and carry the torch of Christian fundamentalism.

That makes Vong sad :(

[free]

Wow, all this hate and intolerance aimed at a man whom you dislike for his hate and intolerance.

Can we say double standard?

[Vong]

Originally posted by free
Wow, all this hate and intolerance aimed at a man whom you dislike for his hate and intolerance.

Can we say double standard?

Are you saying people are intolerant of those who are intolerant of others? Wow, sorry for not seeing his obvious reasonable and logical point of view of homosexuals being evil and pro-apartheid...

[AceD]

"Are you saying people are intolerant of those who are intolerant of others? Wow, sorry for not seeing his obvious reasonable and logical point of view of homosexuals being evil and pro-apartheid..."

It doesn't matter if Falwell's views are "reasonable and logical" to you. You can't just dismiss the truth of the hypocrisy because you don't agree with what Falwell stood for. That doesn't exuse your intolerance of "Fundamentalist Christians."

I agree with free. It's sadly funny that some people claim to dislike Falwell because they think he hated people but they rejoice when he dies and wish death on others they think are like him.

"He of course also once "gave a sermon at his Thomas Road Baptist Church criticizing Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, which he sometimes referred to as the "Civil Wrongs Movement" and supported the segregationist movement" (according to Wikipedia)...of course, until it was in his best interests to change views (at which point he became "opposed" to segregation)."

That last statement doesn't make sense. Can no one EVER change their views on anything? I mean, Falwell said repeatedly that he was wrong in a lot of the things he said about the Civil Rights Movement. He apologized again and again and said he was wrong in those views. You just want to assume he did it just because it was popular. Pardon me, but I don't think the guy was interested in being accepted by the world and all it's people. He preached what he believed was truth and said he was wrong when he thought he was. If nothing else, I can respect that. And the man did a ton of good things such as setting up homes for single mothers and alcoholics. So you can't lump his whole life and label it "despicable" or "vile."

[JCPhoenix]

Originally posted by AceD
"Are you saying people are intolerant of those who are intolerant of others? Wow, sorry for not seeing his obvious reasonable and logical point of view of homosexuals being evil and pro-apartheid..."

It doesn't matter if Falwell's views are "reasonable and logical" to you. You can't just dismiss the truth of the hypocrisy because you don't agree with what Falwell stood for. That doesn't exuse your intolerance of "Fundamentalist Christians."


So are you saying that being intolerant of intolerance is hypocritical? :confused:

My post was definitely harsh about the man...I assumed he changed it in his best interest because he was intolerant to gays, atheists, and blacks and then when it became clear that blacks were being accepted in society, that was the one group he ended up reversing on. Granted, he could've changed his opinion truly; I don't know the man personally. But considering how intolerant he proved to all the other groups, I don't see it, personally. I apologize though for suggesting that this was the actual case though rather than my own suppositions.

My point isn't that he hated people. My point and reasoning for being happy that he's dead is because he's one less person in the way of civil rights for all. He attempted to hinder civil rights for African-Americans way back when, and he continued trying to hinder rights for minorities (gays) and viciously attack civil rights activists, gays, and atheists with his claim that they caused 9/11.

Oh wait, he apologized for that one too. And he apologized for calling the Prophet Muhammad a "terrorist". Forgive me if I think that his apologies and recants are completely worthless considering he keeps saying these things and then retracting them afterwards...:rolleyes:

I am pro-rights for individuals. I am pro-peoplegettingtodowhatthefucktheywantwiththeirlives aslongasitwon'taffectothers. And yes, I am intolerant of views that hinder these rights. If I am pro-tolerance than I am of course intolerant against intolerance. It just doesn't make sense to me to call that hypocritical but if you wanna call it that, I guess go ahead. I don't mind being labelled a hypocrite for being intolerant of intolerance.

I don't care what he wants to do with his life or what any person wants to do with their life. The moment that I stopped tolerating it is when he started trying to affect the lives of others by attacking other people (like the 9/11 comment).

So yes, at that point, I'm glad the guy's dead. I didn't wish death on him when he was alive (and I don't wish death on anyone alive unless it's a complete joke) but now that he's dead, I'm happy he's gone cause it means one less person stirring up hatred.

Did he do good in his life? Yes, maybe he did. But I'm more concerned with the bad he did considering the comments he made affect millions and millions of people.

I should also note that I have hardcore Christian friends; my parents are Catholic, etc. But even my hardcore Christian friends don't make comments like "gays, atheists, civil-rights activists and legal abortions in the US had angered God" and "helped this [9/11] happen". They don't go actively speaking out trying to turn people against these groups like Jerry Falwell did. That's the kind of behaviour I don't support. To me, intolerance of gays (and I don't just mean homophobia but rather direct verbal attacks) is just as bad as racism, and I definitely have no tolerance for racists, so I certainly have no tolerance for gay-bashers.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Oh blah blah blah, I've heard enough. The world is a better place without him. 'Nuff said. That's why we celebrate his death. One less Jabba the Hutt in the world.

[AceD]

JC -- To everything you said, I say fair enough. I don't agree with everything of course, but it's all reasonably formed opinion (not that you need my approval on that, just saying that I respect your views). I'm not trying to dodge anything, but I think we agree on as much as we will and I don't want to be redundant.

Plus, Brando has heard enough.

:rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

Reading all of your posts I find it amazing the level of venomous hatred that you guys direct at this man that you do NOT direct at the terrorists who cut off people's heads and blow kids to smithereens. It's funny to me.

Falwell said things that disturbed you guys but the terrorists DO heinous things. Save your extreme hatred for the ones who really deserve it.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Reading all of your posts I find it amazing the level of venomous hatred that you guys direct at this man that you do NOT direct at the terrorists who cut off people's heads and blow kids to smithereens. It's funny to me.

Falwell said things that disturbed you guys but the terrorists DO heinous things. Save your extreme hatred for the ones who really deserve it.

Oh, for crying out loud. These posts are funny to you, well your post is dishonest to me. This whole sympathy for the terrorists, while singling out the poor Christian bullshit is really getting old and it just makes you look ridiculous.

Both are scum, and not a single person here would, or has hesitated to criticize either one. And you fucking know it.

[Badbird]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Reading all of your posts I find it amazing the level of venomous hatred that you guys direct at this man that you do NOT direct at the terrorists who cut off people's heads and blow kids to smithereens. It's funny to me.

Falwell said things that disturbed you guys but the terrorists DO heinous things. Save your extreme hatred for the ones who really deserve it.

We hate terrorists just as much. But Falwell was an American terrorist. People of his ilk have caused untold harm to Americans. But because they're gay, or whatever, it get's brushed aside.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Reading all of your posts I find it amazing the level of venomous hatred that you guys direct at this man that you do NOT direct at the terrorists who cut off people's heads and blow kids to smithereens. It's funny to me.

Falwell said things that disturbed you guys but the terrorists DO heinous things. Save your extreme hatred for the ones who really deserve it.

Well speaking for myself, it's because terrorism doesnt pose a dangerous threat to this country. We have a great military, great intelligence, and cooperative allies around the world. We can monitor nuclear transactions and know when the terrorists are making a move to aqcuire WMD's, and we can easily take them out using SF's and smart bombs.

What we cant defend are idiots like Falwell using the first amendment to persecute Americans who are different and tear down the tenets of this government that make it so great. If terrorism teaches us anything, it's that religion shouldnt influence government.

[Vong]

I think Lynn's gut reaction to any Christian or right-wing pyscho being attacked by liberals is "Why aren't you putting that anger towards the terrorists?!?"

Kutos on being a puppet of Bush, Lynn :D

[JCPhoenix]

Originally posted by AceD
JC -- To everything you said, I say fair enough. I don't agree with everything of course, but it's all reasonably formed opinion (not that you need my approval on that, just saying that I respect your views). I'm not trying to dodge anything, but I think we agree on as much as we will and I don't want to be redundant.

Agreed - thanks for respecting my views and hearing my pov out :D

[Lynn7]

I am not defending Falwell from your hate. Do you think he really cared? Doubtful. You guys can hate him all you want and it doesn't affect me a bit.

But the fact that I have never seen you guys hating the terrorists like you do someone like Falwell is troubling to me. Anything the terrorists do is mostly ignored-treated factually and never emotionally. All the hatred is reserved to direct at people who have not done anything except speak things that are against certain "liberal" ideologies. And of course those certain "liberal" ideologies are very intolerant of opposing viewpoints. Intolerant to the point of wishing the people dead and rejoicing about it. Kind of extreme, don't you think?


I love these definitions of liberal- they really do represent what the Democratic party stands for- especially how tolerant they are to people with different points of view on issues.


lib·er·al /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

[JCPhoenix]

Originally posted by Lynn7
All the hatred is reserved to direct at people who have not done anything except speak things that are against certain "liberal" ideologies.

I'm not gonna get into this again but just this one thing I really had to point out - that's a really interesting way to whitewash Falwell's comments attacking probably half the population of the U.S. as causing 9/11.

What if Falwell had replaced "atheist" with "Christians"? Or "conservatives" instead of gays in his comments about 9/11?

Ie: "I really believe that the Christians and the conservatives, all of them who have tried to turn America into a theocracy. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

If you would take someone saying that to you as acceptable, then fine. If you would take someone telling you that you caused 9/11, fine.

[someguy]

I think that Lynn is still in a proper mindset here, giving some comparison to Falwell and terrorists :)

[AceD]

"Falwell was an American terrorist. People of his ilk have caused untold harm to Americans. But because they're gay, or whatever, it get's brushed aside."

I think the Falwell//Terrorist angle is a bit of a stretch seeing as how Falwell didn't kill anyone, didn't want to, and didn't tell people to.

And I don't know that he hurt America any more than any extremist who rails against one people group does, be it Robertson or Savage or Coulter, or Dawkins or Dennet or Harris. While he admits his support of segregation was wrong, a lot of the other stuff Falwell preached (like being opposed to the homosexual lifestyle) IS in the Bible, which was a book he clearly regarded as truth. Not to say that him believing something makes it okay to say everywhere, but it's not like he invented it (although he did come across as less loving that he should have, and too often gets lumped in with other people he didn't affliliate with). That being said, since maybe 5% of people in America who claim to be Christians actually read the Bible they say they believe, he probably did tell them what to think on some things (but that's more their fault than his).

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Originally posted by AceD
"Falwell was an American terrorist. People of his ilk have caused untold harm to Americans. But because they're gay, or whatever, it get's brushed aside."


And I don't know that he hurt America any more than any extremist who rails against one people group does, be it Robertson or Savage or Coulter, or Dawkins or Dennet or Harris.

Absolutely ridiculous comparison. Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are the result and the response to people like Falwell, Savage and Coulter.

Falwell and his ilk have done everything in their power to obstruct others' civil rights, fuck our Constitution and reduce people to second class status. Give me ONE, just ONE example of Dawkins, Dennett or Harris doing anything even remotely similar. Criticizing religion, especially the kind that Falwell spewed, is not the same as trying to prevent your right to practice it. Despite what intellectually dishonest people who have never read their books have to say, they're not trying to ban religion - they're simply raising awareness to prevent and combat the absolute lunacy that people like Falwell and Coulter create. Now they certainly don't pull any punches, but they're also not walking through the front doors to our homes, churches and government buildings to shove their views down our throats, or to alter our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. That is EXACTLY what Falwell spent his life doing.

Perhaps you should do a little research and find out just how powerful and influential and harmful Jerry Falwell actually was. And unfortunately, still is, because of the enormous army he has created. A man doesn't start a lawschool with the intention to take over our courts and government with good Christian soldiers just to maintain and protect civil rights. This is dangerous. This is harmful. This was a man with a direct connection to the highest office in the country. This in no way resembles powerless, free speech usin' scientists and philosophers like Dawkins, Dennett or Harris, even in the slightest.

And honestly, the fact that you lump Dawkins and Harris in with Falwell proves the very point they make in their books. Criticize my politics? Fine, fair game. Criticize my nutty conspiracy theory? Fine, fair game. Criticize my art, my music etc. Fair game. Criticize my religion, LOOK THE FUCK OUT!!! You are suddenly as intolerant and hateful, or as you said, just as harmful as the very people you criticize. It's bullshit, religion isn't immune to criticism, and it doesn't make you hateful or intolerant to criticize it, ESPECIALLY when the very thing you're criticizing is so destructive. Is it intolerant or hateful for a Libertarian to criticize the views of a Socialist, or vice versa? Of course not. So why the free pass and special treatment when it comes to religion? Sorry, it's ridiculous to even mention Dawkins or Harris in the same breath as Falwell.

[AceD]

"Despite what intellectually dishonest people who have never read their books have to say, they're not trying to ban religion - they're simply raising awareness to try and prevent the absolute lunacy that people like Falwell and Coulter create."

Maybe they don't say "I want to ban it" in those words exactly. But when Harris writes that people who are in charge of things and believe in God are "genuinely terrifying" and that people believing what the Bible teaches "should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency" and says that "atheism [is] a moral and intellectual necessity," then what he's doing is spewing hate and lumping together an entire people group and calling them all catergorically wrong. Isn't that what we're criticizing Falwell of doing? Of course it's a reaction, just like Falwell felt he was reacting to the culture.

"Perhaps you should do a little research and find out just how powerful and influential and harmful Jerry Falwell actually was. And unfortunately, still is, because of the enormous army he has created. "

Well, again, you can't say EVERYTHING he did was harmful, and I do know quite a bit about the man and his life. And you can't lump in everyone who is affiliated with him (through his school or his church) and call them his "enormous army" and act like each one of them doesn't think for themselves and agrees with everything Falwell tells them.

"A man doesn't start a lawschool with the intention to take over our courts and government with good Christian soldiers just to maintain and protect civil rights. This is dangerous. This is harmful. This is a man with a direct connection to the highest office in the country. This in no way resembles powerless, free speech usin' scientists and philosophers like Dawkins, Dennett or Harris, even in the slightest."

How is is not similar? Don't all of those people try very hard to influence the world in what the believe to be true? And don't you think people who oppose Falwell's views would use their power if they had it? I'm not saying I want Falwell to have power or I want his views to be followed and emulated. But in America, doesn't he have the right to compete and contend for what he believes in, however twisted it may be?

"
And honestly, the fact that you lump Dawkins and Harris in with Falwell proves the very point they make in their books. Criticize my politics? Fine, fair game. Criticize a nutty conspiracy theory? Fine, fair game. Criticize my art, my music etc. Fair game. Criticize my religion, LOOK THE FUCK OUT!!! You are suddenly as intolerant and hateful as the very people you criticize. It's bullshit, religion isn't immune to criticism and it's ridiculous to even mention them in the same breath as Falwell."

The comparasin was between people who believe that anyone who thinks differently than they do is wrong and dangerous, and that's a true comparasin.

And can you point out when I said, suggested, or implied that religion was immune to criticism?

And I don't know if you are talking about me specifically, but I certainly haven't become intolerant or hateful towards anyone, and I love how anyone who doesn't say "I'm so happy Falwell is dead" is lumped in as a follower of him. :rolleyes:

[Vong]

Every one of the three major religions has nutjobs that try to dictate the society they participate in.

For the Islamic fundamentalists, you had people like Sayyid Qutb.
For the Jewish fundamentalists, you had Meir Kahane.
For the Christian fundamentalists, you had people like Jerry Falwell.

Each with militant followers who will kill for their beliefs. Each with radical organizations meant on influencing state power.

Remember the old adage; "One man's terrorist is another man's hero"

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Originally posted by AceD
"Despite what intellectually dishonest people who have never read their books have to say, they're not trying to ban religion - they're simply raising awareness to try and prevent the absolute lunacy that people like Falwell and Coulter create."

Maybe they don't say "I want to ban it" in those words exactly. But when Harris writes that people who are in charge of things and believe in God are "genuinely terrifying" and that people believing what the Bible teaches "should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency" and says that "atheism [is] a moral and intellectual necessity," then what he's doing is spewing hate and lumping together an entire people group and calling them all catergorically wrong. Isn't that what we're criticizing Falwell of doing? Of course it's a reaction, just like Falwell felt he was reacting to the culture.

Right, as I said, they certainly don't pull any punches. An Evengelical president who literally believes in the Rapture is absolutely fuckin' terrifying to many of us. And any intellectually honest person who hasn't selectively read the bible has to admit that it is indeed quite grim. It's an opinion and a point of view. It's not an obstruction of civil rights. He's not out there trying to prevent anyone the right to believe in it. Jerry Falwell was out there actually trying to punish those with an opposing point of view, and that's what I mainly criticize him for.

Sam Harris is only responding to the very things Falwell preaches and exercises. Sam Harris wouldn't exist if it weren't for people like Falwell. And just to please the oh so singled out and persecuted Lynn7, let me also mention those blood thirsty Islamic facists. Sam Harris clearly has no love for them, either.

Harris and Falwell are both entitled to their opinions, and entiled to get out there and express them, no matter how hateful or bigoted. But once you cross the line and start to trample other peoples' liberties, as Falwell constantly tried to do, then you're on a whole new level. Sam Harris and the others are no where near that level. You said they are just as harmful. No. they aren't.

"Perhaps you should do a little research and find out just how powerful and influential and harmful Jerry Falwell actually was. And unfortunately, still is, because of the enormous army he has created. "

Well, again, you can't say EVERYTHING he did was harmful, and I do know quite a bit about the man and his life. And you can't lump in everyone who is affiliated with him (through his school or his church) and call them his "enormous army" and act like each one of them doesn't think for themselves and agrees with everything Falwell tells them.

I didn't say "EVERYTHING" he did was harmful. But if a convicted rapist saves a child from a burning building, that doesn't erase the fact that he's a convicted rapist. The man had a shitload of power, and he exercised that power for hateful, bigoted, discriminatory, unconstitutional shit, which just happens to affect actual peoples' lives. A few bucks handed over to charity doesn't erase that.

Nor did I say "EVERYONE" affiliated with him thinks the same. But the fact is, his goal was to have Evengelical Christians take over our courts and our government. Why, to impose Christianity on everyone and destroy the "Imaginary" Separation of Church and State. The man literally said this very thing, and I heard it with my own ears numerous times. Again, harmful and unAmerican as fuck. Can't recall Dawkins or Harris using their powerful connections for something so destructive.


"A man doesn't start a lawschool with the intention to take over our courts and government with good Christian soldiers just to maintain and protect civil rights. This is dangerous. This is harmful. This is a man with a direct connection to the highest office in the country. This in no way resembles powerless, free speech usin' scientists and philosophers like Dawkins, Dennett or Harris, even in the slightest."

How is is not similar? Don't all of those people try very hard to influence the world in what the believe to be true?

See above.

And don't you think people who oppose Falwell's views would use their power if they had it? I'm not saying I want Falwell to have power or I want his views to be followed and emulated. But in America, doesn't he have the right to compete and contend for what he believes in, however twisted it may be?

Again, see above. He has every right to get out there and express his views and try to influence people. But again, and I emphasize CIVIL RIGHTS. If someone wants to take a dong up the pooper, that's their right. If someone wants to tell you it's wrong to take a dong up the pooper, that's their right. Altering the Constitution and Bill of Rights to prevent either one, that's a no-no. That's Falwell.

And yes, if those who oppose Falwell had his kind of power, they most certainly would use it. They'd use it to defend the constitution. After reading Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Sagan, Bertrand Russell, George H. Smith, and even Madalyn Murray O'hair, I have no reason to believe otherwise. Despite how strident some of them are.

"And honestly, the fact that you lump Dawkins and Harris in with Falwell proves the very point they make in their books. Criticize my politics? Fine, fair game. Criticize a nutty conspiracy theory? Fine, fair game. Criticize my art, my music etc. Fair game. Criticize my religion, LOOK THE FUCK OUT!!! You are suddenly as intolerant and hateful as the very people you criticize. It's bullshit, religion isn't immune to criticism and it's ridiculous to even mention them in the same breath as Falwell."

The comparasin was between people who believe that anyone who thinks differently than they do is wrong and dangerous, and that's a true comparasin.

No, you straight out said that Falwell wasn't anymore harmful than Dawkins, Dennett or Harris. Considering how powerful Falwell was, it needed to be pointed out that it was a ridiculous analogy. Falwell's power and actions made him EXTREMELY harmful. Mere opinions of Dawkins and Harris don't.

And can you point out when I said, suggested, or implied that religion was immune to criticism?

You automatically reduced Dawkins and Harris to the level of Falwall. All they do is criticze religion... the very hateful, destructive religion Falwell happened to spew. That is all, end of story. By saying they're just as bad and harmful for merely criticizing it, it seems to me you are putting religion on a pedastal.

And I don't know if you are talking about me specifically, but I certainly haven't become intolerant or hateful towards anyone, and I love how anyone who doesn't say "I'm so happy Falwell is dead" is lumped in as a follower of him. :rolleyes:

No, I certainly wasn't calling you hateful or intolerant. Nor did I say anyone who isn't cheering his death is a sheepish follower of his. Honestly, I don't know where you got any of that.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Reading all of your posts I find it amazing the level of venomous hatred that you guys direct at this man that you do NOT direct at the terrorists who cut off people's heads and blow kids to smithereens. It's funny to me.

Falwell said things that disturbed you guys but the terrorists DO heinous things. Save your extreme hatred for the ones who really deserve it.


I'm so sick of hearing this shit. The reason we're not constantly talking shit about the terrorists is because it should be ASSUMED that we have enough knowledge of the world around us to know that terrorism is an awful, awful thing. We have no need to talk about our hatred of terrorists because there is no need to. I mean, it's not like we watch movies like Schindler's List and say to ourselves "Grrr....Hitler sure was an asshole. I hate that guy." You only think we pamper terrorists because most of us, myself included, tilt more to the left. What you seem to be saying is that terrorists are the only ones who need to be hated, which seems odd....considering the fact that Falwell was an avid supporter of the South American death squads, the apartheid, and segregation. Why should we hold a grudge against that guy? After all, his influence over MILLIONS of people led many to believe that segregation was good, apartheid was good, and the genocide in South America was good.

[AceD]

"You automatically reduced Dawkins and Harris to the level of Falwall. All they do is criticze religion... the very hateful, destructive religion Falwell happened to spew. That is all, end of story. By saying they're just as bad and harmful for merely criticizing it, it seems to me you are putting religion on a pedastal."

Okay, I can see how you thought that, and I apologize if I was unclear. I wasn't putting religion on a pedestal, I could care less about religion. I was comparing others who call people who think differently than them wrong and dangerous.

"No, I certainly wasn't calling you hateful or intolerant. Nor did I say anyone who isn't cheering his death is a sheepish follower of his. Honestly, I don't know where you got any of that."

I didn't think you were talking about me, and your edit made it make more sense. So no biggie.

Honestly, I don't think we disagre too harshly, because if we are talking strictly on the basis of civil rights being limited than yes, Falwell played that way to hard and wrongly and in a way that isn't even supported by the Bible. But some people (not you) seem to be railing just against what Falwell said, which he had every right to say, however hateful it was.

And for the sake of not slandering the dead, let's be clear: Falwell didn't SUPPORT the Apartheid. He was opposed to it, actually, but was critical of sanctions against it because he felt it would result in worse problems. A wrongheaded view, yeah, but people are running around like he was cheering the thing, which he wasn't.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Reading all of your posts I find it amazing the level of venomous hatred that you guys direct at this man that you do NOT direct at the terrorists who cut off people's heads and blow kids to smithereens. It's funny to me.

Falwell said things that disturbed you guys but the terrorists DO heinous things. Save your extreme hatred for the ones who really deserve it.

Lynn, I know you like to believe that atheists only single out and pick on Christianity, but since Sam Harris was brought up in this thread, please go check out his book called "The End of Faith". He has no love for fanatical Muslims and shows them absolutely no mercy what so ever.

You'll find that atheists are quite consistent when it comes to religion. Harris, Dawkins, Salman Rushdie and pretty much every other atheist on the planet heavily criticize Islam. I mean, you do know Rushdie's history, right?

[Vong]

Harris is a "savior" (for lack of a better word, nothing theistic about it!) for atheists in the world. He's easier to digest than Dawkins and his rants....

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Originally posted by Vong
Harris is a "savior" (for lack of a better word, nothing theistic about it!) for atheists in the world. He's easier to digest than Dawkins and his rants....

Think so? I don't know, I'm a bit of a Dawkins fanboy. I guess it's because when I read I hear his extremely calm, soothing, charming British accent.

But really, it's "The Blind Watchmaker", and the very Sagan-esque "Unweaving the Rainbow" that made me the fanboy. But I do love Harris, as well.

But for any atheist stuck in the Bible Belt, I believe both of them are considered "Saviors".

[Vong]

I watched a documentary that Dawkins created before his book, The God Delusion. He was detailed in his analysis on religion, especially Christianity, but I found him to be far too confrontational. He badgered the people in his interviews and got angry in certain parts.

The book is awesome and well layed out, but in person the dude is alittle too much for me.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by JCPhoenix
I'm not gonna get into this again but just this one thing I really had to point out - that's a really interesting way to whitewash Falwell's comments attacking probably half the population of the U.S. as causing 9/11.

What if Falwell had replaced "atheist" with "Christians"? Or "conservatives" instead of gays in his comments about 9/11?

Ie: "I really believe that the Christians and the conservatives, all of them who have tried to turn America into a theocracy. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

If you would take someone saying that to you as acceptable, then fine. If you would take someone telling you that you caused 9/11, fine.

Perfect example- Christians have these kinds of things said about them all the time. Just look around here on the BB. Look at the things that have been said about Falwell who is a Christian. People have the right to say those things and we have the right to respond. Words are free in this country. But to wish death on people who have oppsoing viewpoints is a little harsh, no?

People say he wanted to oppose gay rights cause he was a Christian and that is hateful to the point where we should be GLAD he died. So I guess people who speak against Christians could be wished death too? What a great country. Free speech, yes, but at risk of a death-wishing culture and eventually, over time, the actions will begin to reflect the sentiments. Desensitization, you know? We can all start killing each other like they do in other countries. We have finally evolved to that higher plane!

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Originally posted by Vong
I watched a documentary that Dawkins created before his book, The God Delusion. He was detailed in his analysis on religion, especially Christianity, but I found him to be far too confrontational. He badgered the people in his interviews and got angry in certain parts.

The book is awesome and well layed out, but in person the dude is alittle too much for me.

I think that's why I like him so much. Even when he's confrontational and angry, he still seems to come off as calm and charming. It's almost adorable. It's like he's from a period piece who took a time machine into the future.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Dr Martin Luther Loomis
I think that's why I like him so much. Even when he's confrontational and angry, he still seems to come off as calm and charming. It's almost adorable. It's like he's from a period piece who took a time machine into the future.

LOL, yeah...he has an awesome accent that has the power of persuasion....reminds me of that Family Guy episode....:D

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Vong
I watched a documentary that Dawkins created before his book, The God Delusion. He was detailed in his analysis on religion, especially Christianity, but I found him to be far too confrontational. He badgered the people in his interviews and got angry in certain parts.


Yea Dawkins really isnt the right person to try and persuade people. I remember one confrontation when Ted Haggert yelled at Dawkins "you're calling my children monkeys!" and dawkins responded "well, yes". Stuff like that sets back the acceptance of evolution a long way.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Yea Dawkins really isnt the right person to try and persuade people. I remember one confrontation when Ted Haggert yelled at Dawkins "you're calling my children monkeys!" and dawkins responded "well, yes". Stuff like that sets back the acceptance of evolution a long way.

Haha! That was a pretty good response if you ask me. It was straight to the point.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Dr Martin Luther Loomis
Lynn, I know you like to believe that atheists only single out and pick on Christianity, but since Sam Harris was brought up in this thread, please go check out his book called "The End of Faith". He has no love for fanatical Muslims and shows them absolutely no mercy what so ever.

You'll find that atheists are quite consistent when it comes to religion. Harris, Dawkins, Salman Rushdie and pretty much every other atheist on the planet heavily criticize Islam. I mean, you do know Rushdie's history, right?

I think it's fair to say everyone on this board who has a problem with dangerous religious extremism is just as if not more opposed to radical Islam as they are radical Christianity. You can throw in radical Zionists in the mix too. They're all extremely dangerous, crazy, and scary as fuck. The only difference is, no one working for Mossad posts here, and no radical fascistic Muslims post here, but we do have at least one radical fascistic Christian.

If there was someone on the forum raving about the grace of Allah and the return of the 12th Imam, I guarantee we'd all argue with him constantly too, but we can only counter points made by people here, so there are less opportunities for it. And that's a microcosm of our daily lives. Most of us are American, Canadian, or from Europe, so we are surrounded by Christians not Muslims. So Christians who are radical, hateful, and actively seeking to end the secularity of the Western world effect us more on a daily basis than Muslims who do the same with bombs rather than interest groups and voting blocks.

Also, as Brando pointed out, it's beyond redundant to condemn terrorists. Of course what they do is bad, it goes without saying. It's retarded to complain when the ACLU attacks the Bush administration instead of Al Qaeda for instance, because what good would it possibly do to try and go after radical foreign groups like that? I don't need to repeat every day that Osama Bin Laden is an asshole, it's pretty obvious. That doesn't mean I reserve my anger for people like Falwell, but I'm never going to have to counter some ignorant cunt's praise of Bin Laden, so it isn't necessary for me to point out that he's really a hate-mongering asshole too.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
I think it's fair to say everyone on this board who has a problem with dangerous religious extremism is just as if not more opposed to radical Islam as they are radical Christianity. You can throw in radical Zionists in the mix too. They're all extremely dangerous, crazy, and scary as fuck. The only difference is, no one working for Mossad posts here, and no radical fascistic Muslims post here, but we do have at least one radical fascistic Christian.

If there was someone on the forum raving about the grace of Allah and the return of the 12th Imam, I guarantee we'd all argue with him constantly too, but we can only counter points made by people here, so there are less opportunities for it. And that's a microcosm of our daily lives. Most of us are American, Canadian, or from Europe, so we are surrounded by Christians not Muslims. So Christians who are radical, hateful, and actively seeking to end the secularity of the Western world effect us more on a daily basis than Muslims who do the same with bombs rather than interest groups and voting blocks.

Also, as Brando pointed out, it's beyond redundant to condemn terrorists. Of course what they do is bad, it goes without saying. It's retarded to complain when the ACLU attacks the Bush administration instead of Al Qaeda for instance, because what good would it possibly do to try and go after radical foreign groups like that? I don't need to repeat every day that Osama Bin Laden is an asshole, it's pretty obvious. That doesn't mean I reserve my anger for people like Falwell, but I'm never going to have to counter some ignorant cunt's praise of Bin Laden, so it isn't necessary for me to point out that he's really a hate-mongering asshole too.

I'm 100% with you on that. I didn't mean to imply that it was only atheists who were consistently critical. Since I borught up Sam Harris, I just happened to throw the atheists' names in there, as well.

Infact, here's my initial, more annoyed response to the very same post by Lynn from the first page, incase you missed it:

Originally posted by Lynn7
Reading all of your posts I find it amazing the level of venomous hatred that you guys direct at this man that you do NOT direct at the terrorists who cut off people's heads and blow kids to smithereens. It's funny to me.

Falwell said things that disturbed you guys but the terrorists DO heinous things. Save your extreme hatred for the ones who really deserve it.


Oh, for crying out loud. These posts are funny to you, well your post is dishonest to me. This whole sympathy for the terrorists, while singling out the poor Christian bullshit is really getting old and it just makes you look ridiculous.

Both are scum, and not a single person here would, or has hesitated to criticize either one. And you fucking know it.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Perfect example- Christians have these kinds of things said about them all the time. Just look around here on the BB. Look at the things that have been said about Falwell who is a Christian. People have the right to say those things and we have the right to respond. Words are free in this country. But to wish death on people who have oppsoing viewpoints is a little harsh, no?

People say he wanted to oppose gay rights cause he was a Christian and that is hateful to the point where we should be GLAD he died. So I guess people who speak against Christians could be wished death too? What a great country. Free speech, yes, but at risk of a death-wishing culture and eventually, over time, the actions will begin to reflect the sentiments. Desensitization, you know? We can all start killing each other like they do in other countries. We have finally evolved to that higher plane!

You would have us believe you never wished bad things on anyone that you hated or disagreed with? Never wished death on terrorists then huh?

Oh, but of course that's different isn't it?

You need to study more about what makes our culture different from other cultures and why, despite the fact that we have radical fundamentalist Christians they don't kill on the same level as radical fundamentalist Muslims.

Part of the benefits of not having a Theocratic government, or being a dirt poor nation is my guess.

I never wished death on Jerry Falwell, just an incurable case of muteness.

I will say I shed no tears for a man who used the bodies of over 3,000 murdered Americans as an opportunistic platform to attack other living Americans, all in the name of God no less!

Its this kind of "Christianity" and those that defend it, that causes others to attack it so fiercely.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Dr Martin Luther Loomis
I'm 100% with you on that. I didn't mean to imply that it was only atheists who were consistently critical. Since I borught up Sam Harris, I just happened to throw the atheists' names in there, as well.



Yeah, I read what you said and didn't think you just meant atheists. I was quoting you to kind of piggy back on what you were saying since I agreed and am annoyed by the frequent, stupid accusations that we're not angry enough at terrorists, not to point out a distinction between atheists and others. We're on the same page I think.

[Lynn7]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by QUENTIN
[B]I think it's fair to say everyone on this board who has a problem with dangerous religious extremism is just as if not more opposed to radical Islam as they are radical Christianity. You can throw in radical Zionists in the mix too. They're all extremely dangerous, crazy, and scary as fuck. The only difference is, no one working for Mossad posts here, and no radical fascistic Muslims post here, but we do have at least one radical fascistic Christian.

If there was someone on the forum raving about the grace of Allah and the return of the 12th Imam, I guarantee we'd all argue with him constantly too, but we can only counter points made by people here, so there are less opportunities for it. And that's a microcosm of our daily lives. Most of us are American, Canadian, or from Europe, so we are surrounded by Christians not Muslims. So Christians who are radical, hateful, and actively seeking to end the secularity of the Western world effect us more on a daily basis than Muslims who do the same with bombs rather than interest groups and voting blocks.

Also, as Brando pointed out, it's beyond redundant to condemn terrorists. Of course what they do is bad, it goes without saying. It's retarded to complain when the ACLU attacks the Bush administration instead of Al Qaeda for instance, because what good would it possibly do to try and go after radical foreign groups like that? I don't need to repeat every day that Osama Bin Laden is an asshole, it's pretty obvious. That doesn't mean I reserve my anger for people like Falwell, but I'm never going to have to counter some ignorant cunt's praise of Bin Laden, so it isn't necessary for me to point out that [B]
__________________________________________________ _____


I'm assuming i am the "radical fascistic Christian" who posts here.

Christians are so scary! The things they stand for- waiting until marriage for sex, carrying babies to term in pregnancy and then talking care of them afterwards and then of course taking care of the old, sick and dying and not euthanizing them. Hey- these Christains are hateful for wanting marriage to remain as it has since the beginning of the world in every culture? Christians are hateful for being against abortion?

The things you guys cry out against are pretty wild sometimes.
These Christian teachings have been around for thousands of years and were the foundation of many European countries and of course our own. That is why we prospered for so long and now, the rejection of Judeo-Christian values is the reason why we have 1,000,000 abortions a year, drive by murders in every city, robberies where they kill people for $50, sky high drug use and alcoholism, toxic levels of rape, child molestation, and murder, and of course now we have porn available on our internet and cable tv 24/7. It's the wonderful world of anti-Christ!

[KcMsterpce]

Originally posted by Lynn7

Christians are so scary! The things they stand for- waiting until marriage for sex, carrying babies to term in pregnancy and then talking care of them afterwards and then of course taking care of the old, sick and dying and not euthanizing them. Hey- these Christains are hateful for wanting marriage to remain as it has since the beginning of the world in every culture? Christians are hateful for being against abortion?

The things you guys cry out against are pretty wild sometimes.
These Christian teachings have been around for thousands of years and were the foundation of many European countries and of course our own. That is why we prospered for so long and now, the rejection of Judeo-Christian values is the reason why we have 1,000,000 abortions a year, drive by murders in every city, robberies where they kill people for $50, sky high drug use and alcoholism, toxic levels of rape, child molestation, and murder, and of course now we have porn available on our internet and cable tv 24/7. It's the wonderful world of anti-Christ!

Christian teachings - as far as I know - don't condone the death of thousands, let alone ANYONE. The Christian faith that I was raised with preaches pacifism and tolerance to everyone.
Christians aren't "scary". Muslims aren't scary, either. What's scary is the way people can twist and pervert the word of their God and turn it into a translation of their own liking.
There are numerous historical accounts where massive atrocities were done to people in the name of God - the Christian God as well - I'd even say they're being done now, but of course there are also those who follow those despicable actions in the name of God with their lives.

You say "These Christian teachings have been around for thousands of years..." Like I said, Christian teachings aren't about hating people, and they aren't about praising the death of thousands by those very people you hate (the terrorists) as a sign from God. It's a perversion of the truth. In my eyes.

Obviously others seeing things differently.

That's the beauty about religion. You can believe the "same thing" and have a completely different perspective on it. In your opinion, if anything is done in the name of God, it's ok. All is forgiven. I don't agree with that. I can't just follow someone's decisions based on faith in God's truth. I have to look at the logic of the scenario first. If my heart tells me that the actions aren't Christian, then I won't agree with the Christian that advises it.

[Lynn7]

Are you saying Falwell condoned the death of thousands? i'm not following you there.

Oh, I think I know what you are saying. His comments about 9-11. He was talking about how in the Bible when the Jews would fall away from God's teachings and would begin to please their "flesh" then God would remove His protection from them and they would suffer. They would be attacked by other tribes, nations etc and would not be successful in their attempts to defend themselves. This is something that God will do to allow some pain to draw people back into God's protection. People stray from God's way, bad things happen and then people see that God is good and they return to Him. Same as with a kid. Kid puts hand in flame and gets burned and kid does not put hand in flame again. Falwell was not saying he wanted all those people dead- as a Christian, Falwell knew that he was just as much a sinner in God's eyes as a man who does late term abortions or a gay man or a straight man who has sex with a thousand partners. We are all equally sinners in God's eyes- Falwell knew that cause that is basic to Christianity.



And so here are his comments again- the people he named are the ones who move against God's teachings in the bible and so that is why he is saying God is removing His protection from our nation as he removed his protection from Israel from time to time: (Also notice that he says WE deserve this and Robertson also says WE have caused this to happen- I capitalized those words WE, etc).....

.


Partial transcript of comments from the Thursday, September 13, 2001 edition of the '700 Club.'

JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters - the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats--what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact--if, in fact--God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what WE deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when WE destroy 40 million little innocent babies, WE make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you HELPED this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is WE have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

JERRY FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU, and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged"? In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time--calling upon God.

PAT ROBERTSON: Amen

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
And so here are his comments again- the people he named are the ones who move against God's teachings in the bible and so that is why he is saying God is removing His protection from our nation as he removed his protection from Israel from time to time: (Also notice that he says WE deserve this and Robertson also says WE have caused this to happen- I capitalized those words WE, etc).....


Ah so why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor again? I forget, was it the jews or the gays.....? Or maybe they hated the ACLU? I didnt realize complex geo-political, cultural and economic relationships boiled down to not being Christian enough for God's protection.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by Lynn7

I'm assuming i am the "radical fascistic Christian" who posts here.

Actually, I was refering to Vong.

Originally posted by Lynn7

Christians are so scary! The things they stand for- waiting until marriage for sex, carrying babies to term in pregnancy and then talking care of them afterwards and then of course taking care of the old, sick and dying and not euthanizing them. Hey- these Christains are hateful for wanting marriage to remain as it has since the beginning of the world in every culture? Christians are hateful for being against abortion?

And acting like imperialists, bombing and invading other sovereign countries because we feel like it or its good for our economy in the short-term, endless war to spread a belief system (in other words MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE all over the globe), minimizing the secularity of this country, persecuting those different than yourselves, scary totalitarianism, unchecked surveillance, tyranny...etc. etc.

Originally posted by Lynn7


The things you guys cry out against are pretty wild sometimes.
These Christian teachings have been around for thousands of years and were the foundation of many European countries and of course our own. That is why we prospered for so long and now, the rejection of Judeo-Christian values is the reason why we have 1,000,000 abortions a year, drive by murders in every city, robberies where they kill people for $50, sky high drug use and alcoholism, toxic levels of rape, child molestation, and murder, and of course now we have porn available on our internet and cable tv 24/7. It's the wonderful world of anti-Christ!

Wrong. Sorry, America is not founded on Christian teachings. More than half of America's founding fathers were not Christian and did not believe in God. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and many of the first presidents, supreme court justices, and people who set the foundation for this country were atheists. Our most celebrated president, Abraham Lincoln, was not a Christian and as recently as 100 years ago the U.S. President (Taft) freely said he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ or the tenets of Christian dogma.

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." -Thomas Jefferson

Does that sound like the sentiments of people who founded the nation based on Christian principles? The U.S. was founded to protect people from religion, not to follow one or another. Read the constitution some time. If anything, to use your argument, the country must have prospered when we rejected Judeo-Christian values and now that a president can't get elected without professing their faith and the so-called "moral majority" is emboldened, we deal with all the modern things you're complaining about.

[Lynn7]

The principles this country was founded on can be traced directly to the Bible. The people that populated the country were majority Christian- HUGE majority Christian.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Ah so why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor again? I forget, was it the jews or the gays.....? Or maybe they hated the ACLU? I didnt realize complex geo-political, cultural and economic relationships boiled down to not being Christian enough for God's protection.

Our being bombed in Pearl Harbor mobilized us in such a way that we were able to free the Jews and many other countries that were in the process of being taken over. We were the winners in that exchange- decisive. God was with us on that one. God used our country to save many others.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Actually, I was refering to Vong.



And acting like imperialists, bombing and invading other sovereign countries because we feel like it or its good for our economy in the short-term, endless war to spread a belief system (in other words MURDERING INNOCENT PEOPLE all over the globe), minimizing the secularity of this country, persecuting those different than yourselves, scary totalitarianism, unchecked surveillance, tyranny...etc. etc.



Wrong. Sorry, America is not founded on Christian teachings. More than half of America's founding fathers were not Christian and did not believe in God. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and many of the first presidents, supreme court justices, and people who set the foundation for this country were atheists. Our most celebrated president, Abraham Lincoln, was not a Christian and as recently as 100 years ago the U.S. President (Taft) freely said he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ or the tenets of Christian dogma.

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -John Adams

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." -Thomas Jefferson

Does that sound like the sentiments of people who founded the nation based on Christian principles? The U.S. was founded to protect people from religion, not to follow one or another. Read the constitution some time. If anything, to use your argument, the country must have prospered when we rejected Judeo-Christian values and now that a president can't get elected without professing their faith and the so-called "moral majority" is emboldened, we deal with all the modern things you're complaining about.

Early Years
The First Charter of Virginia (granted by King James I, on April 10, 1606)
• We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God…
Instructions for the Virginia Colony (1606)
Lastly and chiefly the way to prosper and achieve good success is to make yourselves all of one mind for the good of your country and your own, and to serve and fear God the Giver of all Goodness, for every plantation which our Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted out.

William Bradford
• wrote that they [the Pilgrims] were seeking:
• 1) "a better, and easier place of living”; and that “the children of the group were being drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses [in Holland]“
• 2) “The great hope, and for the propagating and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world"
The Mayflower Compact (authored by William Bradford) 1620 | Signing of the Mayflower painting | Picture of Compact
“Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together…”
__________________________________________________ ____________________

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
.......click here to see this quote in its context and to see John Adams' quotes taken OUT of context!


Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]

John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Elias Boudinot: | Portrait of Elias Boudinot
“ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

Samuel Johnston:
• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government
See also: pp.241-242 in Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History: The Principle approach by Rosalie Slater]

James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.



Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Our being bombed in Pearl Harbor mobilized us in such a way that we were able to free the Jews and many other countries that were in the process of being taken over. We were the winners in that exchange- decisive. God was with us on that one. God used our country to save many others.

That's insane because god doesnt exist. if god did exist maybe god shouldve told the Vatican to not stand idely by as the holocaust happened right in front of them?

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
That's insane because god doesnt exist. if god did exist maybe god shouldve told the Vatican to not stand idely by as the holocaust happened right in front of them?

Yeah it's not like the Vatican is smack dab in the center of an axis power or anything.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
That's insane because god doesnt exist. if god did exist maybe god shouldve told the Vatican to not stand idely by as the holocaust happened right in front of them?

Yes, because it's not like the Vatican is full of shit and just says that God told them to as an excuse for everything.

[Badbird]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The principles this country was founded on can be traced directly to the Bible. The people that populated the country were majority Christian- HUGE majority Christian.

No. Not really. But god forbid (no pun intended) people know their history.

I guess that whole Greek Democracy that was around a few thousand years before the Bible had no influence what so ever. Nooo. None at all.

I guess you never took Western Civ in college either, because a ton of the liturature predates the Bible.

And I always love how someone tries to use the excuse that because we are a "Christian Nation" or hava "majority of Chirstians" - then that makes it okay to persecute any non christian, or at least blow them off as worthless.

Here you go:

http://opendoors.no-ip.org/usr/kookus/oppressed.gif

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Yeah it's not like the Vatican is smack dab in the center of an axis power or anything.

With huge influence over the populations of those countries....but yea, they can't do the right thing if it risks their fortune.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Badbird
No. Not really. But god forbid (no pun intended) people know their history.

I guess that whole Greek Democracy that was around a few thousand years before the Bible had no influence what so ever. Nooo. None at all.

I guess you never took Western Civ in college either, because a ton of the liturature predates the Bible.

And I always love how someone tries to use the excuse that because we are a "Christian Nation" or hava "majority of Chirstians" - then that makes it okay to persecute any non christian, or at least blow them off as worthless.

Here you go:

http://opendoors.no-ip.org/usr/kookus/oppressed.gif

__________________________________________________ _____
THE RISE OF THE GREEK EMPIRE

The origins of Greece are shrouded in mystery and date back to the time of Abraham, 18th century BCE, or perhaps even earlier. Historians disagree as to where the Greeks came from - they could have been people migrating down from Asia down through Europe and settling in the Greek Isles, or they could have been seafaring people who settled along the coast.


The earliest inhabitants of mainland Greece, the Mycenaeans, developed an advanced culture.

Whoever they were, the earliest inhabitants of mainland Greece (called Mycenaeans after excavations found at Mycenae) developed an advanced culture. But, around 1100 BCE, the Mycenaeans were invaded by barbarians called Dorians and all their advances disappeared. Greece went into a black period to re-emerge hundreds of years later.

The classical Greek period begins as early as 7th century BCE, though we tend to be more familiar with its history in the 5th century when Greece consists of a group of constantly warring city-states, the most famous being Athens and Sparta. They are strong enough to spurn the Persians despite fighting among themselves, but they succumb in the 4th century to Phillip II of Macedon, who paves way for his son, Alexander the Great, to spread the Greek civilization across the world.

The 4th century is as eventful for the Greeks as it has for the Jews. This is the golden age of classical Greek culture - the birth of democracy, the time of Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato.

GREEK INHUMANITY

It is easy, while admiring the Greek contributions to civilization - its politics and philosophy - to forget what Greek society was really like.

For example, we've heard of the "Spartan lifestyle," but what did that mean in practice? Well, for starters, at an early age, like first grade, Spartan boys and girls were separated from their parents; they lived in military barracks where they were beaten, and not even given food so that they would learn to steal it. To be Spartan meant to be tough.

The Athenians, not as tough as the Spartans, were not what you'd describe as "soft" either. For example, they thought nothing of killing infants (a common practice in all ancient civilizations even the "elevated" ones). One of the most influential thinkers in Western intellectual history - none other than Aristotle - argued in his Politics (VII.16) that killing children was essential to the functioning of society. He wrote:


"There must be a law that no imperfect or maimed child shall be brought up. And to avoid an excess in population, some children must be exposed [i.e. exposed on the trash heap to die]. For a limit must be fixed to the population of the state."

Note the tone of his statement. Aristotle isn't saying "I like killing babies," but he is making a cold, rational calculation: over-population is dangerous, this is the most expedient way to keep it in check.

In warfare, the Greeks invented the "pitched battle" - with thousands of foot soldiers colliding with the enemy, slaughtering and being slaughtered as they advanced. While we tend to think today of the Greeks as cultured and noble, it is shocking to learn how they behaved when bent on conquest.

The one who took the Greek conquests to new heights was, of course, Alexander the Great.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Trained by Aristotle, and heavily influenced by Homer, Alexander comes to power young, at age 20, and goes off to war.

He embarks on what is considered the greatest feat in military history. With a force of 45,000 men he fights non-stop for a dozen years and takes over most of the known world. He leads the Greek army, himself charging in the front lines.


Alexander is a military genius, winning battles where he is often outnumbered 10 to 1.

He is a military genius, winning battles where he is often outnumbered 10 to 1. His chief tactic is to aim for the strongest (rather than the weakest) point of the enemy line. When he fights the Persians, for example, he goes for the most heavily protected point of the Persian force, aiming to destroy the leadership. When the Persian emperor Darius flees at the battle of Gaulgamela, the Persian army collapses.

Before dying at age 33 of a fever, Alexander conquers most of Asia, Middle East and parts of North Africa, disassembling the entire Persian Empire and spreading Hellenism - the Greek lifestyle and culture - wherever he goes.

HELLENISM

What was Hellenism exactly? In a nutshell, it was an approach to life which focused totally on the human being.

The Greeks showcased all human talents - literature, drama, poetry, architecture, sculpture, etc. They glorified the beauty of the human body, displaying athletic prowess in the Olympics. Nothing regarding the human body was considered embarrassing, in need of hiding, or private for that matter.

(Running around naked was considered a normal thing in Greece. Public toilets often consisted of a bench on main street with holes in it; people sat there and did their business as others walked by.)

Naturally, human passions were venerated and this meant there were few sexual taboos - even pedophilia and pederasty. Indeed, the sexual initiation of a young boy by an older man was considered the highest form of love. Plato wrote of this in his Symposium (178C):


"I, for my part, am at a loss to say what greater blessing a man can have in earliest youth than an honorable [older] lover ..."

Even Greek gods were described in human terms and were often bested by human beings in Greek mythology; with time, it became the style of intellectual Greeks to denigrate their gods and speak of them with biting cynicism and disrespect.

In short, the Greeks introduced into human consciousness an idea which is going to come into play as one of the most powerful intellectual forces in modern history - humanism. The human being is the center of all things. The human mind and its ability to understand and observe and comprehend things rationally is the be-all-and-end-all. That's an idea which comes from the Greeks.

Above all, the Greeks thought that this was enlightenment, the highest level of civilization. They had a strong sense of destiny and believed that their culture was ordained to become the universal culture of humanity.

Of course, the Jews had a different vision. The Jews believed that a world united in the belief in one God and ascribing to one absolute standard of moral values - including respect for life, peace, justice, and social responsibility for the weak and poor - was the ultimate future of the human race.


Jewish ideology was wedded to an extreme, uncompromising exclusivity of worship - One God and no other.

This Jewish ideology was wedded to an extreme, uncompromising exclusivity of worship (as demanded by the belief in one God) and a complete intolerance of polytheistic religious beliefs or practices. There was only one God and so only one God could be worshipped, end of story.

To the Jews, human beings were created in the image of God. To the Greeks, gods were made in the image of human beings. To the Jews, the physical world was something to be perfected and elevated spiritually. To the Greeks the physical world was perfect. As Dennis Prager once put it, "To Greeks, what was beautiful was holy; to the Jews what was holy was beautiful."

Such disparate views were bound to clash, sooner or later.
____________________________________________



There are different aspects about our government that can be focused on. I think that our country aspired to live by Godly principles- doensn't mean we were always successful. The Greeks were driven by different motivations.

And I have never known any Christians who think we should persecute non-Christians. Hey let's go persecute some non Christians!


And that chart is so old. That used to describe our country but even many who call themselves Christians disagree with the principles of Christainity People who say they are Christian and are pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-premarital sex, pro-pornography, strip clubs, playboy magazine etc are just deluding themselves- they don't believe in principles that are taught in the Bible. So, most people might not even describe themselves as Christians anymore and the ones that do might not understand what being a Christian calls on you to believe. I think a new pie chart may show very different results in the next few years.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
And that chart is so old. That used to describe our country but even many who call themselves Christians disagree with the principles of Christainity People who say they are Christian and are pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, pro-premarital sex, pro-pornography, strip clubs, playboy magazine etc are just deluding themselves- they don't believe in principles that are taught in the Bible. So, most people might not even describe themselves as Christians anymore and the ones that do might not understand what being a Christian calls on you to believe. I think a new pie chart may show very different results in the next few years.

So because they share different views from you, they are not Christian...

Maybe these people who are pro-choice and the like are adapting to a changing society, but keeping their basic Christian beliefs intact. Maybe they realize that devoting yourself entirely to an ancient and ignorarnt faith isn't helpful to a society that is changing every day. This is what we call Moderate Christians.

Saying that these people are not Christian is exactly how the sects of Christianity and other faiths were formed...if a group of people viewed religion a certain way, and believed everyone else was wrong, they broke off from that faith and created a new one that fit their arbitary needs.

So bravo for keeping the segregate spirit alive!

BTW, where did you copy/paste that info from?

[Badbird]

Regardless of how old the chart was - it was a joke.

And, no, you don't get to define who is Christian. I know three friends in particular who have very strong convictions in their faith, and they resemble nothing like you.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

What I find interesting is how the issues that are considered "Christian" issues in today's society are the ones that the Bible NEVER mentions. Gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school.....the Bible never mentions any of these. However, when it comes to helping out the poor, protecting the Earth that God gave us, and so on, things that the Bible actually mentions, where do guys like Dobson stand on the issue? "Oh, there are more important issues to deal with," is basically their philosophy.

[AceD]

"What I find interesting is how the issues that are considered "Christian" issues in today's society are the ones that the Bible NEVER mentions. Gay marriage, abortion, prayer in school.....the Bible never mentions any of these. "

You're right that it doesn't specifically address prayer in school (and come on, how can anyone actually stop you from praying anyway?), and while the Bible does condemn homosexuality it doesn't mention marriage. However, while abortion as a term is not mentioned, I think you realize that many Christians would believe it to be murder (there is Scripture Christians believe support this notion), which I'm pretty sure it covered quite a bit.

"However, when it comes to helping out the poor, protecting the Earth that God gave us, and so on, things that the Bible actually mentions, where do guys like Dobson stand on the issue? "Oh, there are more important issues to deal with," is basically their philosophy."

That's very misinformed and I think you know it. Yes, Dobson and others seem do say "there are more important things" in regards to Global Warming and the issues surrounding that, but they don't say that about the poor, and they do preach and teach quite a bit on what the Bible does teach.

"Maybe these people who are pro-choice and the like are adapting to a changing society, but keeping their basic Christian beliefs intact. Maybe they realize that devoting yourself entirely to an ancient and ignorarnt faith isn't helpful to a society that is changing every day. This is what we call Moderate Christians. "

Come on. At least Lynn has conviction about what she says she believes and isn't wavering with society (something Jesus warned against). Again, if Christians believe abortion is wrong because its murder, then are they supposed to say "well, a lot of years have passed, I doubt God cares about this anymore." What sense does that make? Sure, if you want to call yourself a "Christian" because you think it's a neat thing to do then fine, but people who shift their beliefs all the time becase they think society demands it are pretty ignorant themselves of what they say they believe. Jesus himself claimed exclusiveness, claimed the road was narrow and not easy, etc. The Bible teaches repeatedly that walking in accordance to the Scripture will cause men to hate you, and to be on alert for those who would try to "pervert" the gospel by changing it to their liking. So maybe some people ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY THEY BELIEVE and are interested in spreading truth to save people's souls and are not interested in helping or being liked by "a society that is changing every day." I know some will say "don't shove stuff down my throat"...but IF you really believed that there was only one way to heaven (again, that's what Jesus himself taught) and that hell was the only other option, wouldn't you try to get people to see your side of things?

"So because they share different views from you, they are not Christian..."

"And, no, you don't get to define who is Christian. I know three friends in particular who have very strong convictions in their faith, and they resemble nothing like you."

Well, you're right in that Lynn doesn't get to decide who is a Christian, and neither do I or you or anyone else. If Jesus was/is who he said he was, then I'm pretty sure he lays out in the Bible how one becomes a Christian, and I'm pretty sure he gets to decide that.

[Badbird]

Do you not know how to use the "quote" button? Those posts are hard to read.

And let's be honest: the Bible condemns homosexuality in the same breath that it condemns eating shrimp.

As for the whole "Christian Nation" - what I meant in not knowing your history has nothing to do with your knoledge of cutting and paisting a bunch of Greek wikipedia - it has to do with our founding fathers, most of whom were not Christian. They were mostly diests and skeptical agnostics. Thomas Jefferson in particular dispised organized religion.

Those guys were pretty smart. It they wanted Christianity in the constitution, they would have made it very clear. Instead they wrote that whole First Amendment thingy.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by AceD
That's very misinformed and I think you know it. Yes, Dobson and others seem do say "there are more important things" in regards to Global Warming and the issues surrounding that, but they don't say that about the poor, and they do preach and teach quite a bit on what the Bible does teach.

I love it how whenever you say something you act like you know what's going on in our heads. Your arguments are good enough without the fucking know-it-all attitude.

I also love it how you completely twisted my words around. I never said they didn't care about the poor, but they certainly care more about gay marriage and abortion (note I'm mainly talking about Dobson). In fact, here's a quote from Dobson:

"We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children."

I'm not saying Christians don't have a right to be against gay marriage and abortion, in fact, if I were a Christian I probably would be too. My problem here is though that they ONLY want to focus on those issues. Let's face it: Dobson and company are a bunch of partisan hacks. Period. They only care about the political beliefs of their party and not those of the Bible.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Badbird
Do you not know how to use the "quote" button? Those posts are hard to read.

And let's be honest: the Bible condemns homosexuality in the same breath that it condemns eating shrimp.

As for the whole "Christian Nation" - what I meant in not knowing your history has nothing to do with your knoledge of cutting and paisting a bunch of Greek wikipedia - it has to do with our founding fathers, most of whom were not Christian. They were mostly diests and skeptical agnostics. Thomas Jefferson in particular dispised organized religion.

Those guys were pretty smart. It they wanted Christianity in the constitution, they would have made it very clear. Instead they wrote that whole First Amendment thingy.


Yeah, of course the argument will always be that this is a nation founded on traditional Christian values. Let's look at the Christian history of this great nation:

1690's: a shitload of people die because one little twat decided to accuse someone she didn't like of being a witch. As a result, they did the moral thing: killed everyone that seemed suspicious.

1770's-1780's: a bunch of rich Northeastern merchants and landowners decided that they would start a war because they didn't like how high their taxes were. Yes, a shitload of people died.

The same people who wanted freedom themselves decided to keep their slaves, for it was for the best.

1860's: Civil War is fought. 600,000 people died.

1860's-1960's: thousands of African Americans are lynched and tortured (mostly in Mississippi ;) )

1920's: the first major Red scare occurs. Many people suspected of being Communists are lynched.

1980's: the moral majority unites to elect Ronald Reagan for two terms in two of the biggest landslides in American electoral history. Some of the wonderfully moral things Reagan's Administration did included supporting murderous dictatorships/rebel groups in South America, selling weapons to Iraq, and making ketchup a vegetable. Not to mention, over 100 members of his cabinet eventually received criminal indictment for their actions.

[AceD]

"I love it how whenever you say something you act like you know what's going on in our heads."

I'd love for you to explain that. When I said "I think you know it" I did mean I THINK, and I was saying that because you were so quick to lump caring for the poor and concern for global warming together. Much like you yourself said about expressing hate for terrorists, it seems to me that caring for the poor is pretty widely accepted by people who claim to follow Jesus' teachings and doesn't need to be said.

And you instantly turn around and act like you know exactly what's going on in Dobson's head by saying he only cares "about the political beliefs of their party and not those of the Bible." I'm not going to defend everything Dobson says or does, but just like you said we can't be in other people's heads and know what they are thinking. Can we infer and guess? Sure, which is what I thought I did above. In all seriousness, I wasn't trying to act like I know anything about your thoughts beyond what you've said here, and I am sorry if I offended you.

"I also love it how you completely twisted my words around. I never said they didn't care about the poor, but they certainly care more about gay marriage and abortion (note I'm mainly talking about Dobson)."

I don't think I twisted your words at all. I never said that you said they don't care about the poor. You lumped their thoughts on that in with their thoughts on global warming and I tried to make the distinction.

"Your arguments are good enough without the fucking know-it-all attitude."

Again, please explain. Seriouslly, no sarcasm. If we are going to get into arguments about people's attitudes, seems that we would never get anywhere. As I said, if I offended or misrepresented you I'm sorry. Let's not let our disagreements on the core issues here cloud everything we say to each other. I'm not going to apologize for having an opinion or knowing the things I do know, and I don't think you'd want me to.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by AceD
"I love it how whenever you say something you act like you know what's going on in our heads."

I'd love for you to explain that. When I said "I think you know it" I did mean I THINK, and I was saying that because you were so quick to lump caring for the poor and concern for global warming together. Much like you yourself said about expressing hate for terrorists, it seems to me that caring for the poor is pretty widely accepted by people who claim to follow Jesus' teachings and doesn't need to be said.

And you instantly turn around and act like you know exactly what's going on in Dobson's head by saying he only cares "about the political beliefs of their party and not those of the Bible." I'm not going to defend everything Dobson says or does, but just like you said we can't be in other people's heads and know what they are thinking. Can we infer and guess? Sure, which is what I thought I did above. In all seriousness, I wasn't trying to act like I know anything about your thoughts beyond what you've said here, and I am sorry if I offended you.

"I also love it how you completely twisted my words around. I never said they didn't care about the poor, but they certainly care more about gay marriage and abortion (note I'm mainly talking about Dobson)."

I don't think I twisted your words at all. I never said that you said they don't care about the poor. You lumped their thoughts on that in with their thoughts on global warming and I tried to make the distinction.

"Your arguments are good enough without the fucking know-it-all attitude."

Again, please explain. Seriouslly, no sarcasm. If we are going to get into arguments about people's attitudes, seems that we would never get anywhere. As I said, if I offended or misrepresented you I'm sorry. Let's not let our disagreements on the core issues here cloud everything we say to each other. I'm not going to apologize for having an opinion or knowing the things I do know, and I don't think you'd want me to.

I probably did take your comments way out of context, and I do apologize if I offended you personally, but it was irritating because you didn't interpret my argument the way I meant it to be. If it got too personal, then I do apologize.

I used Dobson's quote on global warming because I think it proves my point. I could have easily taken out the first part of that quote and only mentioned the part when he says ".....shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children." See, I'm not saying that I didn't think he cared about the poor, but this quote obviously demonstrates that he believes THESE are the core issues that Christians need to concern themselves with. All I was saying is that it's unusual how he didn't mention helping out the poor, though Jesus talks about that more than anything else (yes, I've read the Bible, I'm not making up facts) in the Bible as opposed to abortion and gay marriage which are left up to debate. This can only prove that Dobson is MAINLY concerned with promoting his party's ideologues rather than Jesus's idelogues.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Yeah, of course the argument will always be that this is a nation founded on traditional Christian values. Let's look at the Christian history of this great nation:

1690's: a shitload of people die because one little twat decided to accuse someone she didn't like of being a witch. As a result, they did the moral thing: killed everyone that seemed suspicious.

1770's-1780's: a bunch of rich Northeastern merchants and landowners decided that they would start a war because they didn't like how high their taxes were. Yes, a shitload of people died.

The same people who wanted freedom themselves decided to keep their slaves, for it was for the best.

1860's: Civil War is fought. 600,000 people died.

1860's-1960's: thousands of African Americans are lynched and tortured (mostly in Mississippi ;) )

1920's: the first major Red scare occurs. Many people suspected of being Communists are lynched.

1980's: the moral majority unites to elect Ronald Reagan for two terms in two of the biggest landslides in American electoral history. Some of the wonderfully moral things Reagan's Administration did included supporting murderous dictatorships/rebel groups in South America, selling weapons to Iraq, and making ketchup a vegetable. Not to mention, over 100 members of his cabinet eventually received criminal indictment for their actions.


Being founded on Christian values is not the same as living them. We do have a wonderful form of government with great aspirations for goodness but in practice we often fall short. We look forward to heaven for the good life but while we are here the US is the greatest country- or it has been at least.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Badbird
Regardless of how old the chart was - it was a joke.

And, no, you don't get to define who is Christian. I know three friends in particular who have very strong convictions in their faith, and they resemble nothing like you.

I knew it was a joke but it made a point.

What do your friends convictions resemble? I would like to see what they beleive in as Christians that differs from what I believe in.

[Badbird]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I knew it was a joke but it made a point.

What do your friends convictions resemble? I would like to see what they beleive in as Christians that differs from what I believe in.

Gays deserve equal rights and should be allowed to marry. A woman's right to chose. Things like that.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
So because they share different views from you, they are not Christian...

Maybe these people who are pro-choice and the like are adapting to a changing society, but keeping their basic Christian beliefs intact. Maybe they realize that devoting yourself entirely to an ancient and ignorarnt faith isn't helpful to a society that is changing every day. This is what we call Moderate Christians.

Saying that these people are not Christian is exactly how the sects of Christianity and other faiths were formed...if a group of people viewed religion a certain way, and believed everyone else was wrong, they broke off from that faith and created a new one that fit their arbitary needs.

So bravo for keeping the segregate spirit alive!

BTW, where did you copy/paste that info from?

Judaism and Christianity are not supposed to change with the times. The teachings are timeless and as Solomon says there is nothing new under the sun. Every thing is the same as far as humans go. That is why the Bible is timeless.

The site I got the info from was :

http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_27_-_The_Greek_Empire.asp

It had to do with the Greeks and the Jews since that was what the discussion had been about (Greek history without God's influence). God of course always has influence on all nations but he chose to reveal Himself through the Jewish people (the people that came from Abraham- a man no better or worse than anyone else at the time of his choosing since everyone was in the dark at that time).

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Judaism and Christianity are not supposed to change with the times. The teachings are timeless and as Solomon says there is nothing new under the sun. Every thing is the same as far as humans go. That is why the Bible is timeless.

If this is true Lynn, then why aren't you killing the sodomites, adulterers, non-Christians and those who work on the Sabbath just like the good ol' bible tells you to?

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 1: 27-32


And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Acts 3: 23

Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

Deuteronomy 12: 30

[Lynn7]

We see the Bible as a complete and full work. The Old Testament Laws were put in place to show how incapable we were to successfully follow God's ways without God's help. We all have the opportunity to turn to God and ask forgivness for any and all sins including the worst things imaginable. God will even forgive murderers. There is no sin that is unpardonable except for the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That is what the Bible says.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We see the Bible as a complete and full work. The Old Testament Laws were put in place to show how incapable we were to successfully follow God's ways without God's help. We all have the opportunity to turn to God and ask forgivness for any and all sins including the worst things imaginable. God will even forgive murderers. There is no sin that is unpardonable except for the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. That is what the Bible says.


Still doesn't answer why you don't kill people who don't follow God's way, like the Bible instructs.

[Cyclonus]

I don't suppose someone could explain why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is "unpardonable." If you take this particular part of the Bible at face value, an ill-advised curse or drunken joke will seal your eternal fate, no matter how genuinely repentant you are, no matter how much you pray to Christ for forgiveness. That just seems cruel to me, though the whole concept of an eternal hell was cruel to begin with, but this just adds another nasty layer to the whole business.

Besides, what constitues "blasphemy" against the Holy Spirit, anyway? Are we talking about something as simple as an off-color joke, or something much worse that isn't made clear in the context of that particular verse?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
Still doesn't answer why you don't kill people who don't follow God's way, like the Bible instructs.

I did say it but didn't explain it- the bible is a full work. In the Old Testament the people (Jews) were instructed to kill those people who disobeyed. They were God's chosen people and were held to an exceedingly high standard. People were even killed who touched the ark of the covenant. Fines were pretty stiff during that time. That part of the Bible laid down the law of God- the law that we were proved incapable of living by. Then came Jesus who brought us the grace of forgiveness. He was the completion of God's plan. He actually went and spent time and gave love and mercy to sinners who were spit upon by others. He showed that God would extend grace and love to all who recieved him- the fulfillment of God's plan.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
I don't suppose someone could explain why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is "unpardonable." If you take this particular part of the Bible at face value, an ill-advised curse or drunken joke will seal your eternal fate, no matter how genuinely repentant you are, no matter how much you pray to Christ for forgiveness. That just seems cruel to me, though the whole concept of an eternal hell was cruel to begin with, but this just adds another nasty layer to the whole business.

Besides, what constitues "blasphemy" against the Holy Spirit, anyway? Are we talking about something as simple as an off-color joke, or something much worse that isn't made clear in the context of that particular verse?

This is one of those things in the bible that is not explained and we are left to try to figure out what it means. I know that it does mean that everything else is forgiveable so that is good. And also, when you read the Bible and get to really know who God is, you realize that he is very fair and kind and loving. He does not play tricks on people. He loves every person and wants every person to choose to come to him.

So what is the blashemy of the Holy Spirit? One explanation that I read that I think may be right is that during each person's life God calls to them to come to Him (via the work of the Holy Spirit) to accept Jesus as savior. If a person rejects that call then he is rejecting Jesus who is God's only way to forgiveness and salvation. This makes the most sense to me in the context of the entire Bible.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I did say it but didn't explain it- the bible is a full work. In the Old Testament the people (Jews) were instructed to kill those people who disobeyed. They were God's chosen people and were held to an exceedingly high standard. People were even killed who touched the ark of the covenant. Fines were pretty stiff during that time. That part of the Bible laid down the law of God- the law that we were proved incapable of living by. Then came Jesus who brought us the grace of forgiveness. He was the completion of God's plan. He actually went and spent time and gave love and mercy to sinners who were spit upon by others. He showed that God would extend grace and love to all who recieved him- the fulfillment of God's plan.

Hmm, the last time I checked Lynn, Acts and Romans were a part of the New Testament.

And if you think that Jesus is all lovey-dovey, think again sister.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 10: 34-37


And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death

Mark 7: 9-10


If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

John 15: 6


But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2 Peter 3: 10


And btw Lynn, where in the bible does it say to ignore the New Testament? Because as far as I know, the bible was created for Christians to follow everything, including the Old Testament...otherwise, why would they include it in the first place? Because any answer that you give that's outside of the bible, is dogma outside of the Christian canon.

[EVILxxx]

Can't say that I saw this coming.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/246082/fred_phelps_of_god_hates_america_to.html

Fred Phelps, the head of the Westboro Baptist Church, plans to picket and protest at the funeral of televangelist and Liberty University founder Jerry Falwell, who died Tuesday at age 73. Falwell, the leader of the political organization the Moral Majority and frequent political spokesperson for the religious right on political matters, was found unconscious in his office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia this morning. He was pronounced dead after transport to a local hospital according to the Associated Press.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Vong
Hmm, the last time I checked Lynn, Acts and Romans were a part of the New Testament.

And if you think that Jesus is all lovey-dovey, think again sister.









And btw Lynn, where in the bible does it say to ignore the New Testament? Because as far as I know, the bible was created for Christians to follow everything, including the Old Testament...otherwise, why would they include it in the first place? Because any answer that you give that's outside of the bible, is dogma outside of the Christian canon.

I know all those verses-and I understand them as do all Christians. If you have a specific question you want answered I will try but I don't know what you are getting at.

Jesus' coming was predicted inthe Old Testament and his wrath was also predicted in the Old Testament- the end times info is in both Old and New. We take the entire bible as one- we don't discount the Old Testament but we understand it as it is written- not the way atheists pick out verses from all over the place and think they are making any sense. It does not work like that. In any book, actually.

I know who Jesus is. He is kind, merciful and long suffering but he is also very strong and stands for real righteousness. Atheists think he should be loving and accepting of everyone no matter what. That is not true. He is loving and accepting of everyone who repents as a sinner and turns to Jesus in committment. And he is loving of everybody until the timewhen the door is closed, so to speak.

We need to put Jesus before even our mother, father, kids, etc. He is the most important one. And why wouldn't that be? Without him we have nothing. If I have a family and everyone but me dies. then I have the knowledge that he is caring for my loved ones until I see them again but I also know that he is with me every moment of each day and when I die I will live with him forever. A God who loves and cares for me as an individual- He made me!

Anyway, his first coming was in love, his second coming will be different as he stands against the evil in this world which is pretty gruesome.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Can't say that I saw this coming.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/246082/fred_phelps_of_god_hates_america_to.html

I am glad he is protesting against people who can handle his hate and not picketing against people who are very tender.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Can't say that I saw this coming.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/246082/fred_phelps_of_god_hates_america_to.html


OMG, I sooooo thought of that not 20 minutes after I heard he had died!

I can imagine the experience of watching the footage will be on par with viewing a mobius strip.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/246082/fred_phelps_of_god_hates_america_to.html



Holy shit...how far to the right do you have to be to think that Jerry Falwell wasn't far enough to the right?

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Holy shit...how far to the right do you have to be to think that Jerry Falwell wasn't far enough to the right?


Phelps is just fucking insane, he'll make up any way to excuse his reasons for protesting at funerals, which is really about using high profile funerals as an easy way to get the media to broadcast his ass-backwardness to the rest of the nation and the world.

Somedays I fantasize about the scorching, white-hot, iron chair in hell waiting for Phelps' pasty white ass.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Holy shit...how far to the right do you have to be to think that Jerry Falwell wasn't far enough to the right?


Told ya! Just like mobius strip!!!

[Thrizzle]

Liberty University students are trying to put a halt to the protests.....by bombing them:

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service.

"There were indications that there were others involved in the manufacturing of these devices and we are still investigating these individuals with the assistance of ATF [Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms], Virginia State Police and FBI.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
Liberty University students are trying to put a halt to the protests.....by bombing them:

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service.

"There were indications that there were others involved in the manufacturing of these devices and we are still investigating these individuals with the assistance of ATF [Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms], Virginia State Police and FBI.


Extreme right wing wackos having an all-out war with a bunch of even wackier right wing wackos......it's like either way, America benefits!

[Cyclonus]

If I ever have the misfortune of meeting Fred Phelps, I've already decided what I'm gonna do. I shall accuse him of being a closet homo, because perhaps that's what's behind his particular brand of homophobia. It's not "nice," but he's a sick man who's repeatedly flouted all notions of common courtesty by protesting soldiers' funerals.

Is everyone with me?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Can't say that I saw this coming.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/246082/fred_phelps_of_god_hates_america_to.html

Un-fucking-believable. I hope when his time comes, this son of a bitch dies around cattle with a bad case of diarrhea. That way when he ends up in Hell, he'll aways remember the bullshit he heaped on the world to get him there. If there were anyone on this planet who wanted to convince me that organized religion is wrong, then just show me this idiot and his followers.


People can say what they want about Jerry Falwwell. From my perspective, at his very worst he said stupid things on television. At his best, he practiced his beliefs, opened colleges, helped the poor and built a ministry based on faith. I know a lot of people don't agree with his opinions, but he's dead. Celebrating death is rude and mean spirited. Picketing a funeral for anyone is not only a sign of mental illness, it's a sign of cult leadership.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by jeo4
Picketing a funeral for anyone is not only a sign of mental illness, it's a sign of cult leadership.

The funny thing about that is the history of the Phelps family definitely indicates that may be the case. There has been abuse in that family going back generations, and I'm not talking a slap in the face every now and then, but brutal abuse that's nothing short of torture. Plus, it is widely believed that there may be inbreeding in the Phelps family. Out of the 100 members of the Westboro Baptist Church, 80 of them are closely related. 'Nuff said.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Jesus' coming was predicted inthe Old Testament and his wrath was also predicted in the Old Testament- the end times info is in both Old and New. We take the entire bible as one- we don't discount the Old Testament but we understand it as it is written- not the way atheists pick out verses from all over the place and think they are making any sense. It does not work like that. In any book, actually.

I know who Jesus is. He is kind, merciful and long suffering but he is also very strong and stands for real righteousness. Atheists think he should be loving and accepting of everyone no matter what. That is not true. He is loving and accepting of everyone who repents as a sinner and turns to Jesus in committment. And he is loving of everybody until the timewhen the door is closed, so to speak.

Lynn, you can assume anything you want from what you've read in the bible. Just as I will asume anything I have read. You were raised to believe in a certain interpretation of the bible that is guiding you to believe what you just said here. It's interesting to note that another Christian (of another sect) is reading the same book and coming up with different conclusions as yours. While you are saying this-and-that about Jesus being this, others are saying such-and-such about him that differs from your understandings.

From where I'm standing, it doesn't take interpretations to see the words and sentences for what they are. And that is: blatant cruelty, malice and hatred by your god and Jesus towards other people. Shroud the bible in pink fluff all you want, it's still barbaric and hate filled. It just amazes me really how you can base your life and followe something so evil....
....
...then again, you do support Bush...:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Lynn7
We need to put Jesus before even our mother, father, kids, etc. He is the most important one. And why wouldn't that be? Without him we have nothing. If I have a family and everyone but me dies. then I have the knowledge that he is caring for my loved ones until I see them again but I also know that he is with me every moment of each day and when I die I will live with him forever. A God who loves and cares for me as an individual- He made me!

To put faith and love in someone you have never met before or seen in person before your living, breathing children and parents is not a good sign.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Vong
From where I'm standing, it doesn't take interpretations to see the words and sentences for what they are. And that is: blatant cruelty, malice and hatred by your god and Jesus towards other people. Shroud the bible in pink fluff all you want, it's still barbaric and hate filled. It just amazes me really how you can base your life and followe something so evil....




It's amazing that in a thread that discusses Jerry Falwell the most bigoted comment didn't come from a religious nut.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
It's amazing that in a thread that discusses Jerry Falwell the most bigoted comment didn't come from a religious nut.

Had to be said.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Vong
Had to be said.


Maybe so, but there are so many better ways to go about saying it. I'm just saying it does no good when you sink to their level.

[Vong]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Maybe so, but there are so many better ways to go about saying it. I'm just saying it does no good when you sink to their level.

I may not have tact when it comes to arguing with a theist, but sometimes sinking "to their level" and giving them a taste of their own medicine is a needed splash of reality.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Vong
I may not have tact when it comes to arguing with a theist, but sometimes sinking "to their level" and giving them a taste of their own medicine is a needed splash of reality.

I can feel your anger... it gives you focus, it makes you stronger!

[jeo4]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I can feel your anger... it gives you focus, it makes you stronger!

Funny...when I was reading this...


Originally posted by Vong
From where I'm standing, it doesn't take interpretations to see the words and sentences for what they are. And that is: blatant cruelty, malice and hatred by your god and Jesus towards other people. Shroud the bible in pink fluff all you want, it's still barbaric and hate filled. It just amazes me really how you can base your life and followe something so evil....

...I thought of another line from Revenge Of The Sith...

http://uk.gizmodo.com/anakin-thumb.jpg

"From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!"

:eek: :D

[Vong]

LOL, I never thought about it like that...although I'm sure I'll never be able to argue with my theist friends again without thinking about Star Wars references :D

[Lynn7]

Lynn, you can assume anything you want from what you've read in the bible. Just as I will asume anything I have read.

Of course!

You were raised to believe in a certain interpretation of the bible that is guiding you to believe what you just said here.

I was raised by parents who were Christian but who followed the faith blindly because their parents did. They had great faith but no understanding of the bible. I have studied the bible for many years and have faith AND and understanding of the bible. People may have some different interpretations about certain things in the Bible but I do know the message of the Bible and I have the ability to recognize when someone is severely off track. But if someone is off track it is up to God and that person to iron out the problems. If a person is sincere in his or her faith God will guide them the way he wants. I dont' select who gets into heaven.God knows the inner person's heart- no one else does.


When I stand in church on Sundays and sing together with fellow worshippers, the beautiful lyrics and songs, I am lifted up from the ordinary world. Sorry. I feel bad for people who do not get to experience that feeling. And the feeling of seeing such goodness in action as neighbor helps neighbor. A mother of 4 who has cancer and people from the church are making meals, driving her kids places and donating money to the family and cleaning her house. All done by people who reach out to her and her family in love. You just don't get that from welfare. That is only one example of what goes on in my church all the time.


To put faith and love in someone you have never met before or seen in person before your living, breathing children and parents is not a good sign.

You won't understand this but I have met him and I do know him- he has been with me every moment of my life and makes himself evident to me. He loves me more than anyone. He made me and he knows the inner secrets of my heart. I can't hide anything from him.