Escape from Elba

National => Religion and Politics => Topic started by: Admin on May 16, 2007, 09:11:12 AM



Title: Religion and Politics
Post by: Admin on May 16, 2007, 09:11:12 AM
How will the passing of Jerry Falwell impact political discussion? Will it?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:12:13 AM
Jerry Falwell died - somewhere some people cried, can't say I was one of them.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on May 16, 2007, 09:42:13 AM
It seems that over the last few years Falwell's star had been eclipsed by Pat Robertson. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:45:36 AM
A year ago, I watched Robertson on one of his infomercials actually claim that if you sent him money for the prayer cloth and prayed on it -- the first thing that you prayed for using it would be granted. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 16, 2007, 10:34:49 AM
It is troubling what some of these "super-star" evangelists have done to Christianity.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: law120b on May 16, 2007, 10:35:06 AM
hey jerry, have a great afterlife.  oh, wait, there isn't any.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 10:45:23 AM
hey jerry, have a great afterlife.  oh, wait, there isn't any.
Enjoy Hell!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 12:33:35 PM
Good riddence.  He was an evil, gluttonous old fool.


Title: Tonight: A Very Special GOP Tribute To Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 12:35:29 PM
http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-heartfelt-tributes/tonight-a-very-special-gop-tribute-to-jerry-falwell-260651.php


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 12:41:33 PM
That's great.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 01:49:32 PM
Say what you want about Jerry Falwell, but he did put his words into action---and he made sure that he found a way to mobilize those who felt as he said he did.

You could learn a thing or two from a guy like that--

I find his work to be instructive in terms of showing how you can tap into a large number of people and get them to open their wallets for you.

Kind of like Elvis did.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 16, 2007, 02:29:03 PM
MrUtley...Fallwell called himself a Christian, i.e. a Disciple of Christ.  In what way would you characterize his behavior as Christlike?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 16, 2007, 02:58:56 PM
Charlatan? Ummmm, I don't know.

More likely he really believed in his brand of religion.

No matter what, he was one of the best at making the bizzare believable.

Think about this:

More people today are willing to believe in angels than in evolution and believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schools.


Interesting polls:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm






Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 03:47:35 PM
MrUtley...Fallwell called himself a Christian, i.e. a Disciple of Christ.  In what way would you characterize his behavior as Christlike?

Like Christ, he was able to get a lot of people to follow him.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 03:54:30 PM
MrUtley...Fallwell called himself a Christian, i.e. a Disciple of Christ.  In what way would you characterize his behavior as Christlike?

Like Christ, he was able to get a lot of people to follow him.

That's about the only way he was like Christ.  I think he was more of a self-serving slimeball.  We wonder how many people died because of his preaching hate and bigotry.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 05:36:42 PM
MrUtley...Fallwell called himself a Christian, i.e. a Disciple of Christ.  In what way would you characterize his behavior as Christlike?

Like Christ, he was able to get a lot of people to follow him.

That's about the only way he was like Christ.  I think he was more of a self-serving slimeball.  We wonder how many people died because of his preaching hate and bigotry.

Wonder how many died thinking it was what Christ wanted??? Bet that number is far greater.

Falwell understood his flock.

You don't seem to be willing to concede that.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Kam on May 16, 2007, 05:58:35 PM
Interesting to me he was the son of an atheist.
I remember him pandering to his flock when he blamed 9/11 on the gays.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 06:29:15 PM
Interesting to me he was the son of an atheist.
I remember him pandering to his flock when he blamed 9/11 on the gays.

He did years of pandering that put tons of money in his pockets.  He was an evil person with very bloody hands, IMHO.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 07:49:58 PM
Interesting to me he was the son of an atheist.
I remember him pandering to his flock when he blamed 9/11 on the gays.

He did years of pandering that put tons of money in his pockets.  He was an evil person with very bloody hands, IMHO.

Pandering for money makes him evil??

Hope you put Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in that category, too.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 07:50:50 PM
EXCUSE ME>>>>

REVERANDS Jackson and Sharpton.

Mea Culpa.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 16, 2007, 07:52:53 PM
Quote
Falwell understood his flock.

You don't seem to be willing to concede that.

Christ may have understood his flock, but not in the manipulative way that Falwell did.  I've thought that people were first interested in the historical Christ because he spoke out against corruption in government and organized religion.  

Also, he was fairly anti-elitist.  He seemed to be comfortable when surrounded by the "lowest" elements of society (tax collectors, smelly fisherman), probably not too many from that crowd filling the pews in Va.   And I would assume he had a far better sense of humor than Falwell...look at the story of the Gadarene pigs....very ironic, very witty...and why would a bunch of nice Jewish farmers be raising pigs anyway?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 16, 2007, 08:04:15 PM
MrUtley...I'm not big on Sharpton and Jackson, either.  It's not that they are hypocrites.  It's that their humanity gets in the way of doing the things they know are right....a problem most humans face.  What I dislike about them is their blatant mixing of politics with religion. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 08:07:48 PM
Quote
Falwell understood his flock.

You don't seem to be willing to concede that.

Christ may have understood his flock, but not in the manipulative way that Falwell did.  I've thought that people were first interested in the historical Christ because he spoke out against corruption in government and organized religion.  

Also, he was fairly anti-elitist.  He seemed to be comfortable when surrounded by the "lowest" elements of society (tax collectors, smelly fisherman), probably not too many from that crowd filling the pews in Va.   And I would assume he had a far better sense of humor than Falwell...look at the story of the Gadarene pigs....very ironic, very witty...and why would a bunch of nice Jewish farmers be raising pigs anyway?

I disagree. Passing yourself off as the son of God is a pretty blatant manipulation of a populace ripe for a Messiah.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 08:09:54 PM
MrUtley...I'm not big on Sharpton and Jackson, either.  It's not that they are hypocrites.  It's that their humanity gets in the way of doing the things they know are right....a problem most humans face.  What I dislike about them is their blatant mixing of politics with religion. 

And this makes them different than Falwell or Pat Robertson, how?

All of these 'reverands" and Popes and what-have-you who wish to enter politics or comment politically, then hide behind the cloth, to me, are the worst kind of phoneys.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 16, 2007, 08:17:57 PM
MrUtley...not different at all.  That's why I don't put much stock in organized religion.   If I ever find a church that follows the ideals in Micah (And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?),  then I'm there.  Otherwise, I worship on my own.

As far as Christ passing himself off as God's son, there are people who have believed in Christ as Saviour for 2000 years, and there are those who haven't.  It's not an argument I involve myself in.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 08:21:15 PM
MrUtley...not different at all.  That's why I don't put much stock in organized religion.   If I ever find a church that follows the ideals in Micah (And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?),  then I'm there.  Otherwise, I worship on my own.

As far as Christ passing himself off as God's son, there are people who have believed in Christ as Saviour for 2000 years, and there are those who haven't.  It's not an argument I involve myself in.

Oh, it's not an argument. It's a fact.

The people running around telling you "The Way" to heaven is only through Christ have a lot of blood on their hands.

It's not stigmata, either.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 16, 2007, 08:29:40 PM
Quote
The people running around telling you "The Way" to heaven is only through Christ have a lot of blood on their hands.

Inarguably true of some, but certainly not all. 

The topic of religion often brings out the very worst of people, I think for two reasons.  First, religious values are usually very deeply held.  Comments perceived to be negative often trigger a sort of fight or flight response.  Second, there are a lot of people who have been seriously wounded by the church.  When religious issues are brought up, old pain has a way of rising to the surface. 

You might be surprised to know that many believers share your negative perception of the church.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 08:55:25 PM
All of these 'reverands" and Popes and what-have-you who wish to enter politics or comment politically, then hide behind the cloth, to me, are the worst kind of phoneys.


Is it possible for a religious leader not to be political?  Or are such self-described persons deluding themselves?

What about Dr. King?  What about Jim Wallis, the liberal Christian Evangelist who speaks of a "moral budget"?  They were/are involved in politics.

Re Falwell.  It would be nice if his passing also signified the passing of an era.  Maybe when looking back ...


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 08:58:01 PM
Quote
The people running around telling you "The Way" to heaven is only through Christ have a lot of blood on their hands.

Inarguably true of some, but certainly not all. 

The topic of religion often brings out the very worst of people, I think for two reasons.  First, religious values are usually very deeply held.  Comments perceived to be negative often trigger a sort of fight or flight response.  Second, there are a lot of people who have been seriously wounded by the church.  When religious issues are brought up, old pain has a way of rising to the surface. 

You might be surprised to know that many believers share your negative perception of the church.

I'm not surprised about many believers sharing negative views of the Church.

And you're right, it's not "all" the people who have blood on their hands. Just most of the preachers. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 09:00:28 PM
All of these 'reverands" and Popes and what-have-you who wish to enter politics or comment politically, then hide behind the cloth, to me, are the worst kind of phoneys.


Is it possible for a religious leader not to be political?  Or are such self-described persons deluding themselves?

What about Dr. King?  What about Jim Wallis, the liberal Christian Evangelist who speaks of a "moral budget"?  They were/are involved in politics.

Re Falwell.  It would be nice if his passing also signified the passing of an era.  Maybe when looking back ...

I don't have a problem with religious people being political. I have a problem when their politics is foisting their religious views on the rest of the populace. That's theocracy, not democracy, IMO.

 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:30:55 PM
All of these 'reverands" and Popes and what-have-you who wish to enter politics or comment politically, then hide behind the cloth, to me, are the worst kind of phoneys.


Is it possible for a religious leader not to be political?  Or are such self-described persons deluding themselves?

What about Dr. King?  What about Jim Wallis, the liberal Christian Evangelist who speaks of a "moral budget"?  They were/are involved in politics.

Re Falwell.  It would be nice if his passing also signified the passing of an era.  Maybe when looking back ...

Was not Jesus political?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 09:42:41 PM
Jesus said to render unto caesar that which was caesars (taxes, etc), and render unto God that which is God's (worship). He also said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said the meek will inherit the earth. And, that a rich man could get into heaven as easily as a camel through the eye of  a needle. He did NOT say that the gays, jews, blacks, or muslims were an abomination, sinful, etc. Instead he asked those trying to cast the first stone to look in their own heart at their own sins and asked who could cast the first stone. If Christians followed the teachings of Christ they would never become a problem. Alas, they do not.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 09:45:29 PM
I don't have a problem with religious people being political. I have a problem when their politics is foisting their religious views on the rest of the populace. That's theocracy, not democracy, IMO.

 

Agreed.

But where would that put Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for you then?  For I wouldn't see them as foisting religion.  Foisting their politics perhaps.

But what leaders (in politics) don't?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 09:46:56 PM
Considering that many of his teachings were an attack on the Sadducees and Pharisees that held political power in Jerusalem, I would think that you could argue that he was a political figure.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 09:48:12 PM
All of these 'reverands" and Popes and what-have-you who wish to enter politics or comment politically, then hide behind the cloth, to me, are the worst kind of phoneys.


Is it possible for a religious leader not to be political?  Or are such self-described persons deluding themselves?

What about Dr. King?  What about Jim Wallis, the liberal Christian Evangelist who speaks of a "moral budget"?  They were/are involved in politics.

Re Falwell.  It would be nice if his passing also signified the passing of an era.  Maybe when looking back ...

Was not Jesus political?

I’d agree with that too.   I’d also argue that historical Jesus was political.

There are church figures who’d say this is not correct though because (guessing their position here) there was only a spiritual Jesus beyond all that worldly stuff in His perspective.  I think this is one of the approaches of the RCC hierarchy right now in going at the liberation theologians in Latin America.  But I stand to be corrected on all of that.

Still, even (or perhaps, especially) in the RCC perspective, is there not a Jesus of Nazareth – the man of the world – as well as that which is more unworldly?



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 16, 2007, 09:55:49 PM
Jesus said to render unto caesar that which was caesars (taxes, etc), and render unto God that which is God's (worship).


And I think some consider this an argument for the seperation of church and state.

He also said to love thy neighbor as thyself. He said the meek will inherit the earth. And, that a rich man could get into heaven as easily as a camel through the eye of  a needle. He did NOT say that the gays, jews, blacks, or muslims were an abomination, sinful, etc. Instead he asked those trying to cast the first stone to look in their own heart at their own sins and asked who could cast the first stone. If Christians followed the teachings of Christ they would never become a problem. Alas, they do not.


Agreed.

Some also quote his words on divorce to propose a different - yet still - political Jesus (though I think they'd say otherwise - that this is a literal, absolute, word of God coming down), yet I think, in the context of that debate, it rather showed Jesus as a moral relativist.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 05:45:44 AM
I must say that my feelings about religion mirror in most parts MrUtley's, FWIW.  The church is an evil institution created by men to control other men.  Historically, it has been a very political and bloody iinstitution. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 17, 2007, 07:52:46 AM
I must say that my feelings about religion mirror in most parts MrUtley's, FWIW.  The church is an evil institution created by men to control other men.  Historically, it has been a very political and bloody iinstitution. 

What church is that?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: prairiepop on May 17, 2007, 08:54:24 AM
Here's an excerpt from a piece by Joyce Marcel--published today in CommonDreams.org.  I believe she reflects some of the realities about the deceased...perhaps we needn't parse too much about Falwell's standing in the roster of reverends.  Marcel ID'd what he really was....check it out!

"Falwell took his prejudices to such an extreme that at times you wondered if the man was sane. Take this quote about the American Civil Liberties Union: “The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.” All those ACLU concentration camps, with their poison showers and crematoriums? How have they managed to hide them so well?

And speaking of his stupidity, “The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America’s free enterprise system and our economic stability.”

Falwell was not, as he claimed, a theologian. When you examine his belief system, it becomes evident that his god wasn’t God, or Jesus. It was only the status quo. He supported patriarchy; it gave him his power. He supported capitalism as though God had a preferred economic policy. He supported the death penalty because revenge is easier than turning the other cheek. He supported the destruction of the environment because he couldn’t even think so far out of the box as to treasure the Garden of Eden and be concerned about its fouling.

Anti-Semitism? “The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior,” Falwell said. Another time, he announced that the Antichrist is alive and living as a Jewish male.

No, Falwell was not a man of God. Falwell was a snake oil salesman, a hustler of the first water.

It must feel so good to be able to hate like that. To be so self-righteous. So egotistical. So proud. So sure of your own damned, small-minded prejudices that you feel no shame in attributing them to God himself.

Bullies, hustlers, hypocrites, fanatics and the rest of the rats who hide behind the Bible must be called out. Falwell is only one of a pack. Pat Robertson is another. George W. Bush is one, too. There may be too many to name. And don’t forget their followers.

All hiding behind Christianity in the pursuit of power. All interested only in their own self-aggrandizement. All ignorant. All uncreative. All lacking in empathy. All happy to pick on those they perceive as weaker than themselves. All indifferent to the pain of others.

There are many moral Christians in this world, as there are many moral Jews, moral Muslims and moral atheists. People like Jerry Falwell give religion a bad name."

 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 17, 2007, 09:52:26 AM
Sharpton and Jackson may well be full of themselves, but they do not represent the bitter intolerance Falwell and his ilk have had.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 10:00:31 AM
They have both been pretty bigoted over the years. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on May 17, 2007, 10:35:40 AM
To use an old adage, I don't think there's a nickle's difference among the lot of them.  All first-rate bigots.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 10:37:36 AM
Yearbook picture?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on May 17, 2007, 10:47:04 AM
Not mine, certainly.  I find that old yearbook photos make the best user pics.  Look for more in the coming days!!!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 17, 2007, 12:13:33 PM
Considering that many of his teachings were an attack on the Sadducees and Pharisees that held political power in Jerusalem, I would think that you could argue that he was a political figure.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were two different sects of Judaism.  The Pharisees were concerned about the law...not of the land, but of the Torah.  The problem Jesus had with them is that they followed the letter of the law, but ignored the spirit of it.

The Sadducees were concerned with righteousness.  They were descendents of the Zaduk, a priest in King David and Solomon's times.  Since they had been priests related to royalty, the Sadducees were also very wealthy, and so were able to exert some power over the government in regards to tax collectors and corrupt officials. 

The representative of the Government in all of this was Herod.  When Herod came into power, one of his main objectives was to discredit the Pharisees.  He and Rome thought they had far too much power over the people.  He also wanted to take power from the Sadducees.  It seems that Herod could have viewed Jesus as a powerful ally in his battle with these two sects; that may be why he was hesitant to have him put to death. 

In essence, Jesus found far more criticize in the religious structure of the day than in the government. 

I would characterize Jesus as more a radical than a politico.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 12:41:39 PM
I must say that my feelings about religion mirror in most parts MrUtley's, FWIW.  The church is an evil institution created by men to control other men.  Historically, it has been a very political and bloody iinstitution. 

What church is that?

Why the church of Rome and all its parts.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 01:57:34 PM
Sharpton and Jackson may well be full of themselves, but they do not represent the bitter intolerance Falwell and his ilk have had.

I don't see the comparison either.  And apart from personality characteristics, both have been involved in working towards important civil rights gains in this country.

Not fighting against them.

Not to mention that, considering the nature of the beast they face, a little personal obnoxiousness can be a good thing at times.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 17, 2007, 02:04:32 PM
Both have been very anti-semitic


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 02:17:54 PM
Sharpton and Jackson may well be full of themselves, but they do not represent the bitter intolerance Falwell and his ilk have had.

LMAO!!! Don't bogart that joint, my friend.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 02:22:50 PM
In essence, Jesus found far more criticize in the religious structure of the day than in the government. 

I would characterize Jesus as more a radical than a politico.

Don't agree.  Consider that the religious structure was essentially the government, and hence, Herod's own apprehension about the Pharisees being political in nature, it seems as though Jesus was more radical politico. And Rome concurred.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Chakotay on May 17, 2007, 02:37:07 PM
Excellent article. Falwell never got any respect from me, and none of his like-minded cohorts will either. It always seemed to me that too many evangelicals and other fundamentalists put all the emphasis on worshiping Jesus and very little on actually trying to live by his teachings. I'm an agnostic, myself, so I can't really get into the religious angle too deeply, but in order to accept the ideas of Falwell & Co. you'd have to make yourself believe that every word in the Bible was literally true (in spite of the evidence to the contrary) and that the people who have proclaimed themselves leaders of the churches have some mysterious insight, handed especially to them by God, that we lesser mortals are denied. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are taken in by the Falwells and Robertsons.

Here's an excerpt from a piece by Joyce Marcel--published today in CommonDreams.org.  I believe she reflects some of the realities about the deceased...perhaps we needn't parse too much about Falwell's standing in the roster of reverends.  Marcel ID'd what he really was....check it out!



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 03:37:55 PM
From time to time during my adulthood, someone has come to my door to "save" me ... I fell for it a few times, but it seems that if you were raised Catholic, one preacher never recognizes that you have been "saved" from your catholicism, and he has to do it so it's done right. (Sorta like the apologists for phonics instruction - when it doesn't work, which it never will some 15-20% of the time - it's always because it wasn't done "right".)

As I matured, I learned a neat trick. When the person at the door asserts that all the facts in the bible are literally true, I ask them, then, which is the true version of creation, the one in the first chapter of genesis, or the totally different one in the second chapter of genesis. Whatever their answer, I can point out that as a result, you simply cannot take the bible literally. Curiously, I read a link recently that suggests another problem with the creation story in Genesis. Seems that if you go back to the original language of the bible, the word for "god" is not singular, but a plural word. There are a few other problems in the original languages. Check it out at: http://www.stochasticism.org/creation.htm



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 03:45:06 PM
No one is allowed to solicit in my neighborhood.

I did have a Jehovah Witness as a student teacher in my class one year, who wanted to hand out "literature" to the students. I reminded her it was a public school, and as an extension of the government, the policy of "separation of church and state" had a special meaning here.

She ignored this and put the literature in the kid's mailboxes anyway.

After I successfully intercepted it, I called her supervisor and told her not to send here back to the school.

Never saw the gal again.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Kam on May 17, 2007, 04:05:21 PM
No one is allowed to solicit in my neighborhood.

I did have a Jehovah Witness as a student teacher in my class one year, who wanted to hand out "literature" to the students. I reminded her it was a public school, and as an extension of the government, the policy of "separation of church and state" had a special meaning here.

She ignored this and put the literature in the kid's mailboxes anyway.

After I successfully intercepted it, I called her supervisor and told her not to send here back to the school.

Never saw the gal again.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 17, 2007, 04:17:39 PM
Quote
Don't agree.  Consider that the religious structure was essentially the government, and hence, Herod's own apprehension about the Pharisees being political in nature, it seems as though Jesus was more radical politico. And Rome concurred.

You are correct in that the Sanhedrin was a form of government.  It was similar to  the Supreme court.  They heard cases of law.  Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin of blasphemy.  Under the Law of Moses, blasphemy was considered a capital crime.  But the Romans didn't consider blasphemy a crime, and since the Sanhedrin was obligated to follow the law i.e. Roman Law, they didn't have the authority to put Jesus to death.  Caiaphas, who was a head of the Sanherin at this time understood that this body had no real power...thus the reported manipulation in this case.

I'm not sure that Rome, in the persons of Herod and Pilate, concurred, so much as really didn't care and were perhaps afraid of rioting and violence....and with Rome's history of conquest, what's one more body held up against the headache of civil disobediance?  Or, it's possible that Herod associated Jesus with a zealot movement that was rising up at the time whose intent was to remove Rome from Israel.  Jesus, who was apparently quite charasmatic, was attracting quite a following and if the Romans suspected him of zealotry, it would have been politically expedient to do away with him.  

That the citizens of Judea had to pay taxes to Rome instead of to the synagogue says a great deal about their true governance.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 04:18:19 PM
The JWs showed up at our door this winter one day and my partner answered the door wearing a t-shirt that reads, "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is."  They didn't stay long.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 17, 2007, 04:27:30 PM
Good article, Anne, thank you.  But I can tell you from experience that the people who are willing to read this article already know about the problems in Genesis.  I've never understood Christians who will profess their utter devotion to God and Christianity, but are unwilling to learn exactly what it is they are professing.  I like what Spinoza said about this.  His idea was that if you want to truly understand the Bible and teach or or use it to correct other people's perception of religion, that you ought to learn to read it in the original.  Learn Hebrew, learn Greek.  Of course the problem with this is that even in Spinoza's time, the form of Hebrew used in the Old Testament was so archaic that no one could read it.  Even if you can read it, there is much to decipher regarding intent; the Semite language contain quite a bit more subtlety than does Western.


If all else fails, get yourself a Hebrew or Greek Bible and bring it out when your "visitors" drop by.   ;)


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 04:27:49 PM
Quote
Don't agree.  Consider that the religious structure was essentially the government, and hence, Herod's own apprehension about the Pharisees being political in nature, it seems as though Jesus was more radical politico. And Rome concurred.

You are correct in that the Sanhedrin was a form of government.  It was similar to  the Supreme court.  They heard cases of law.  Jesus was condemned by the Sanhedrin of blasphemy.  Under the Law of Moses, blasphemy was considered a capital crime.  But the Romans didn't consider blasphemy a crime, and since the Sanhedrin was obligated to follow the law i.e. Roman Law, they didn't have the authority to put Jesus to death.  Caiaphas, who was a head of the Sanherin at this time understood that this body had no real power...thus the reported manipulation in this case.

I'm not sure that Rome, in the persons of Herod and Pilate, concurred, so much as really didn't care and were perhaps afraid of rioting and violence....and with Rome's history of conquest, what's one more body held up against the headache of civil disobediance?  Or, it's possible that Herod associated Jesus with a zealot movement that was rising up at the time whose intent was to remove Rome from Israel.  Jesus, who was apparently quite charasmatic, was attracting quite a following and if the Romans suspected him of zealotry, it would have been politically expedient to do away with him.  

That the citizens of Judea had to pay taxes to Rome instead of to the synagogue says a great deal about their true governance.

In some places here in Jersey, we pay the government taxes, but the neighborhood has a different sort of governance, if you know what I mean.  Politics isn't always about governments, and even Jesus knew that one.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 04:29:20 PM
The joys of "Fresh Air" on NPR

Earlier in the week, I heard an old interview with Falwell in which he revealed his father was an atheist. 

Now I'm listening to Alice Cooper, whose father was a pastor.

Gotta love it.



If you want to get laid, date the preacher's daughter.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 17, 2007, 04:29:33 PM
Quote
The joys of "Fresh Air" on NPR

Earlier in the week, I heard an old interview with Falwell in which he revealed his father was an atheist.  

Now I'm listening to Alice Cooper, whose father was a pastor.

Gotta love it.


Yes!  And his father, the preacher, loved his music.  Would have liked to pop into his church.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Chakotay on May 17, 2007, 04:44:31 PM
There is an interesting book, "Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions" by T.W. (Thomas William) Doane. It has been through several editions and numerous reprintings since it was published in the 1880s. It points out many such disparities in the Old and New Testaments and compares the stories to even more ancient texts and religions. It has been reprinted as recently as 2006, so it is probably available to purchase or borrow from libraries. Gives one a good historical perspective.


As I matured, I learned a neat trick. When the person at the door asserts that all the facts in the bible are literally true, I ask them, then, which is the true version of creation, the one in the first chapter of genesis, or the totally different one in the second chapter of genesis. Whatever their answer, I can point out that as a result, you simply cannot take the bible literally. Curiously, I read a link recently that suggests another problem with the creation story in Genesis. Seems that if you go back to the original language of the bible, the word for "god" is not singular, but a plural word. There are a few other problems in the original languages. Check it out at: http://www.stochasticism.org/creation.htm




Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 04:54:39 PM
Both have been very anti-semitic

I remember that Jackson once made an antisemitic remark ('hymietown"??), and then, apologized for it.

But I'd hardly call that making a career out of anti-semitism, the way Falwell has made a career out of homophobia. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 17, 2007, 06:21:59 PM
Both have been very anti-semitic

I remember that Jackson once made an antisemitic remark ('hymietown"??), and then, apologized for it.
out of anti-semitism, the way Falwell has made a career out of homophobia. 

All that tells us is that once Jackson made an antisemitic remark within earshot of someone in the press and apololgized.  People who make antisemitic remarks in public, generally also make them in private, among friends of like minds where no apologies are necessary.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 06:37:46 PM
Both have been very anti-semitic

I remember that Jackson once made an antisemitic remark ('hymietown"??), and then, apologized for it.
But I'd hardly call that making a career out of anti-semitism, the way Falwell has made a career out of homophobia.

All that tells us is that once Jackson made an antisemitic remark within earshot of someone in the press and apololgized.  People who make antisemitic remarks in public, generally also make them in private, among friends of like minds where no apologies are necessary.

It's been so many years, I don't remember the context.  But I think he made this statement publicly, not as an overheard thing.

I tend to agree with the inference.  And I think the remark reflected sadly on how deeply anti-semitism can run in our culture.  However, I would stand by my position - on this information alone - that Jackson hardly compares to a Falwell - who made their career on appealing to the worst in people.

Though I haven't followed his career that closely since his democratic ticket run many years ago, I think of Jackson mostly for his lifetime work on behalf of equal rights and bettering life for American minorities.  I haven't agreed with all of his issue-specific positions (for example, Terri Shiavo), but I think he has represented my views on many matters.





Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 07:10:52 PM
Thomas Road Baptist Church 1 Mountain View Rd. This is for the funeral of the lying, false prophet Jerry Falwell. He was not a hero, nor was he honorable. He was nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing, and he has made those that follow in his folly to be twice as evil as he is. Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. BANG! 15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

The Westboro Baptist Church will be protesting at the Falwell Funeral.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 08:50:03 PM
Sam,

Is the Westboro Baptist Church located in Lynchburg? If so, I'll have to watch the news tomorrow and see if it gets reported. There are many in Virginia who wish Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson had been located elsewhere. I live on the road that connects Lynchburg to Virginia Beach, about halfway between Falwell and Robertson. That's about as far away as you can get from either here in The Old Dominion.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 09:08:39 PM
Quote
The Westboro Baptist Church will be protesting at the Falwell Funeral.
You know, I think you are joking... but it seems plausible.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 17, 2007, 09:34:50 PM
Whiskey...

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 10:11:00 PM
Whiskey...

http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
Damn you for making me click on that!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 10:16:33 PM
Geez! and I thought Falwell and Robertson were bad. This Westboro Baptist church have both of them beat hands down!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 10:31:00 PM
The site looks like a take-off on Falwell to me.  Like they are saying, "This was Falwell's True Face."

Shows how deeply he hurt people, and how many.

Please feel free to substantiate the assertion, not at all substantiated, that Jackson or Sharpton, no matter your personal opinion of the individuals, or your disagreements with their liberal politics, were anything like that man.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 10:41:20 PM
The site looks like a take-off on Falwell to me.  Like they are saying, "This was Falwell's True Face."

Shows how deeply he hurt people, and how many.

Please feel free to substantiate the assertion, not at all substantiated, that Jackson or Sharpton, no matter your personal opinion of the individuals, or your disagreements with their liberal politics, were anything like that man.
No, it's real.  The Westboro Baptist Church are the people who have been protesting at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, carrying "God Hates F**s" signs.  Truly hateful people.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 10:43:13 PM
Have a good time answering to Jesus, Jerry Falwell.  May the King appear to you in the form of the least of us, that is, to you - maybe, Matthew of Laramie.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 10:52:29 PM
No, it's real.  The Westboro Baptist Church are the people who have been protesting at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, carrying "God Hates F**s" signs.  Truly hateful people.

What can I say.  I'm speechless.  I live a sheltered life.

I wish we all did.  I wish this were shocking for everyone.  (and did you see their song page?)

Yet, if they are speaking at his funeral, the inference can clearly be drawn that what I said they reflect about Falwell's "true face," and all that he hurt, is correct.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 17, 2007, 10:58:11 PM
I love pushing a point as I get older.

Does anyone here think that, at Jackson or Sharpton's funeral, people will be standing around with signs that say, "God hates whites" or "God hates Jews"?

All things are not equal.  And Falwell WAS on the conservative side of the fence, whether you like it or not.

Keep looking though.  There are some hate mongers on the other side, just not those.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 11:41:40 PM
Inca,

I agree with you. I was in proximity to Jerry Falwell, and for four years, one of my students was his nephew, son of Falwell's brother who had been dispossessed. I have seen nothing about Jesse Jackson that equals the hate that Falwell spewed. I can't say I know much about Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson was not the only well-known person to express anti-semitic sentiments for which an apology was due. It wasn't too long ago that an angy Mel Gibson who had played Jesus Christ in a movie, spewed the same sentiments at a policeman who caught him breaking the law. And, I will add, that I have known non-famous Jewish persons who expressed anti-black sentiments when in groups they thought would be sympathetic. We really need to put an end to ALL expression of racism, public and private.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 12:13:08 AM
Weezo,

Well said.  I'm more familiar with Jackson too, except for Sharpton's position on some issues, and remembrances of him on the news at demonstrations for causes that I would have generally supported too. 

I remember the Mel Gibson story.  From what I read of his film, that too was rather anti-semitic, though I did not see it because I heard it was so violent, and I didn't want sit through twenty minutes of watching Jesus of Nazareth being graphically beaten.

But I heard that there were persons who even took their children to the film.

Strange how we get used to notions we shouldn't.  At the time, that took me back - but now, as I share it, it doesn't.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 12:15:06 AM
Quote
Damn you for making me click on that.

I did think about giving warning...guess I should have done more than think.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 12:25:41 AM
Falwell and Gibson do it, and since Sharpton and Jackson aren't as bad, they must be okay....I can't buy that.  Being better than people who are bad doesn't make you good.  Men of God have a higher example to follow. 



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 18, 2007, 06:11:49 AM
Falwell and Gibson do it, and since Sharpton and Jackson aren't as bad, they must be okay....I can't buy that.  Being better than people who are bad doesn't make you good.  Men of God have a higher example to follow. 



But these are not men of god.  These are snake-oil salesmen.  Their purpose is to line their pockets.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 18, 2007, 07:51:43 AM
Laurie,

One thing I have noticed during my lifetime is that preachers are rarely "men of god". And, if you look back at the writing and actions of earlier preachers, they weren't much better. Colonial preachers failed to see the good in the Indians worship methods, and labeled them "heathens" and "devil worshipers" and called for the murder of their religious leaders. And, then there is the story of the Scarlet Letter. I remember my students watching the silent version of that story (they were not good enough readers to read it for themselve), and being aghast at the hypocracy of the "man of god" who made a baby, then led the persecution of the woman he had inseminated. I remember knowing a preacher who was supposedly on his death bed, and promised me a place in heaven if I would perform a Monica Lewinski for him right there in the hospital. And, then there is the outrage in the Catholic church of the cover-up of priests who make victims out of young boys. Hubby was treated thusly when he was in school, so I see the psychological effects up close.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 18, 2007, 09:08:48 AM
I wouldn't say the religious leaders of the Native Americans were necessarily any better.  They too often took advantage of their flock. 

Religion is power.  Always has been.  You may not control the natural resources of a land, be the richest man, the largest landowner, but if you control the souls and the afterlife - you can have more power.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 09:33:28 AM
I should have written that since they present themselves as Men of God, they have a higher example to follow. 

It's a problem faced by Christians in general.  People, being human, fail to live up to their ideals.  Christians recognize this flaw and look for help from a higher power.  But they still fail.  Non-Christians see this and interpret it as hypocracy when really it's just humanity.  But I do think that ministers should be examples of good character, and judged more harshly than lay persons.  They are given a higher standard biblically because they exert influnce over their congregations.  Maybe not fair, but it's a choice they make when they enter the ministry.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: prairiepop on May 18, 2007, 09:39:04 AM
Any lingering doubts about Rev. Falwell's true nature should be put to rest--just finished reading a riveting description of just whose money was used to bail out some bad debts on Falwell's "Liberty University".  No, it wasn't the Easter Bunny or a consortium of faithful grannies...it was the Rev. Moon.  Right...I was gobsmacked too when I read the particulars, but you can check out the trail leading from the Evangelical Zionists thru Moon into Falwell's enterprises--and some of the players will be familiar, some not.  I found the piece today in the website titled SmirkingChimp.com - which acts as a kind of Snopes.com to offset what is being fed to us thru MSM and called "news"..  The close connections between the extremists of the Zionists, the Moonies and the crazier wing of the fundamentalist Christian brigade are something to behold...and piece by piece are being documented by alert journalists and think-tanks who know how to investigate what's going on in the shadows.  Even discounting 50% as over-the-top or exaggeration, it's quite a bucket of worms.  Check it out!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 12:43:41 PM
Falwell and Gibson do it, and since Sharpton and Jackson aren't as bad, they must be okay....I can't buy that.  Being better than people who are bad doesn't make you good.  Men of God have a higher example to follow. 



Did I say that?  Please show me where ... I cannot believe that you, a teacher, keep missing the distinction I am making.

Isn't there a difference between a one time repugnant remark, and an entire career devoted to civil rights .. vs.  an entire career devoted to the cause of fighting against civil rights, along with many remarks to further those goals?

Or, a repugnant remark -- and multi-million dollar flick that reflects similar views?

As for Sharpton, I don't what we're disagreeing about since not one person here who dislikes him has given a real life example of why he is so "bad."  In a school paper, don't students have to back up what they say?

And all I've said is that I share certain positions he's taken in politics.

Maybe that's all the issue is for you.  Their political positions.  Otherwise, you'd be able to defend the argument. beyond vague character smearing and rumor mongering, that there is actually a legitimate comparison to Falwell.

There are Republicans whose political positions are repugnant to me, but I wouldn't judge the state of their soul on the basis of one remark either.

Sorry, I just can't jump on your bandwagon here.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 12:49:16 PM
Maybe the real problem for some people about Jackson and New York Northeast Coast Sharpton is that they're just a bit too uppity for their liking.

Not necessarily anyone here... but maybe some soul searching is in order.

Unless they care to share, again, how they are anything like a Falwell.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 12:52:37 PM
lhoffman

or is this going to be like your global warning argument on the Times?  Your husband said so, and the person you were talking to was just a lowly thing who couldn't understand such high matters.

That was a logical one!  Interesting reading it though, epsecially considering your demostratrated better abilities at other times.  Clearly you do know the rules of reasoned argument.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Chakotay on May 18, 2007, 12:59:45 PM
We don't have recorded history on this, of course, but it seems likely that human beings began to create religions when they were confronted by the forces of nature that they couldn't control. Perhaps alone among the species of the planet, humans know that they have to die at some point, and the prospect of a nice, cosy afterlife would make the thought easier to bear. Small wonder that every civilization great or small has had some form of religious belief.

Very conveniently, the class of people who claim to have all the answers about the "afterlife" find it easy to manipulate their fellow beings into following their dictates. I've read a number of books that point out where the Bible has been mistranslated, so even if we had the original books, the same errors in translation might have crept in. And of course, we don't have the original books.

I'm an agnostic, rather than an atheist, because I simply don't consider it possible for us, with our limited knowledge, to really know what is fact and what is supposition. Maybe the Hindus and Buddhists are right, and we reincarnate over and over again: sort of spiritual recycling. I guess we'll find out some day. Until then, we have to do the best we can with what we have. And know it alls like Falwell may have much to answer for...or not. 

I wouldn't say the religious leaders of the Native Americans were necessarily any better.  They too often took advantage of their flock. 

Religion is power.  Always has been.  You may not control the natural resources of a land, be the richest man, the largest landowner, but if you control the souls and the afterlife - you can have more power.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 01:02:50 PM
Actually Incadove, the comment you quoted wasn't directed to you.  I was commenting on something Weezo said.  I haven't defended any position.  I've said that as ministers, Falwell, Sharpton and Jackson  have fallen short of the mark; and as ministers, Falwell, Sharpton and Jackson have to answer to God's standards rather than to man's.  If you disagree, so be it. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 01:06:28 PM
 
Quote
And know it alls like Falwell may have much to answer for...or not.


There is something very reasoned in the whole God as X where X is unknowable.  The Joseph Campbell books on mythology are very enlightening. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 01:10:53 PM
Stupid me.  Why didn't I see that?  I guess your response here is another version of the high-above-so-I-don't-have-to-subsantiate one you made on the Times right before you limped out of the room on the arm of the delusional fast food king.

My comments stand on yours, whoever you deigned to address.

For however you dodge around the point, the implications and points you make are clear, and still clearly unsubstantiated.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 01:15:50 PM
There are two conservative bloggers I like.  They, along with you, lhoffman, had given me hope.

You are quickly leaving my "keep hope alive" list.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 01:22:29 PM
Incadove, I don't understand exactly what it is you are disagreeing with.  Poor behavior is poor behavior no matter whose it is compared to.  All of us are a mixture of good and bad; it's human.  There are times when we all fall short of the ideals we admire.  Frankly, I wish I hadn't lost my temper on the Global Warming posts, but the past is done, and until someone invents a way-back machine, it will be unchangeable.  

I've never been a defender of Falwell, or of Robertson for that matter.  I think both have done serious damage to the church.  But, other Christians and non-Christians have taken offense at Jackson and Sharpton, and so from their viewpoint, these two have also damaged the church.  Pastors who put themselves in the public eye have to tread very carefully.    


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 01:23:29 PM
And I would very much like to read those two conservative bloggers you like.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 01:34:30 PM
Incadove, I don't understand exactly what it is you are disagreeing with.


The earlier direct comparison to Falwell, and the lack of substantiation for such.  Indeed, I was the only poster who provided any substantiation;  my recollection of one comment made by Jackson years ago.  But that is hardly making a living as a hate monge, especially given an entire career in civil rights - not fighting against civil rights.


 Poor behavior is poor behavior no matter whose it is compared to.  All of us are a mixture of good and bad; it's human.  There are times when we all fall short of the ideals we admire.  

Agreed.


Frankly, I wish I hadn't lost my temper on the Global Warming posts, but the past is done, and until someone invents a way-back machine, it will be unchangeable.  

You had no legitimate argument, period.  I was disappointed, lhoffman, and am disappointed you are unwilling to conced as much.  You are usually a beacon of calm reason.  However, we are indeed all human and subject to these moments.

The conservative bloggers I like are Andrew Sullivan and a not-as-well-known Illinois retired editor, Joe Irwin.  He gets an interesting assortment of articles.

Maybe I will keep you on my conservatives who "keep hope alive" list...





Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 01:48:57 PM
Sorry off topic, but....The problem with the global warming issue is that none of us are experts.  I didn't really feel out of line mentioning my husband because he knows far more about the science than I do.  If you will notice, I have never claimed any experience beyond the basic in Science or Mathematics.  My real problem with that poster was that she had previously posted something with the sole purpose of humiliating another poster.  She claimed expertise  that she clearly didn't possess.  But, as I said, I shouldn't have lost my temper.

My philosophy on on Global Warming is to live as if it will make a difference.  If all of us do that, it doesn't really matter whether it affects the climate or not, the earth will be a far better place to live.  And if our behaviour truly does effect the climate, and we can make a difference, so much the better.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 01:50:56 PM
Jesse Jackson: "Hymietown", his own special description of New York. His special trips to meet with Hamas, and Yassir Arafat underscoring his Mel Gibson view of Jews.

Sharpton: Tawana Brawley incident, in which he accused police of physically abusing a young girl....the story turned out to be false, as did all the things Sharpton accused individual policemen in the faux incident of being. He was sued for defamation of character and lost and has yet to pay a dime for his lies.

Sharpton and Jackson have been known to cheat on their wives, their taxes, and to take money that didn't belong to them, among other things.

While we're on the subject, Dr. King, as some like to call him, also was a womanizer, and alledged to have plagiarized at BU (or was it BC?) in order to get his doctorate.


I'm always wary when "men [or women] of the cloth" wish to lecture others on issues of morality, when their own moral behavior comes so readily into play.





Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 01:53:19 PM
lhoffman

Here is the Irvin web link;  I see he is hard to google.  Sullivan, I'm sure, you're familiar with.

http://joeirvin.blogspot.com/


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 01:58:14 PM
Thank you Incadove.  That looks like an enjoyable blog.  I've seen the Sullivan.  It's one of my (Liberal...see I'm not too hopeless) son's favorites. 

MrUtley,  One of the reasons I didn't post of a list of "transgressions" is this is all a matter of record, and it seems unfair to post them unless you also post the good things these men have done. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 18, 2007, 02:00:12 PM
If I recall correctly, there was also an incident where there was some tensions between blacks and Jews in NYC and Sharpton made some "diamond vender" reference, and told said something about the Jews pinning back their yarmulkes and bringing it on.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 02:04:11 PM
Jesse Jackson: "Hymietown", his own special description of New York. His special trips to meet with Hamas, and Yassir Arafat underscoring his Mel Gibson view of Jews.

Sharpton: Tawana Brawley incident, in which he accused police of physically abusing a young girl....the story turned out to be false, as did all the things Sharpton accused individual policemen in the faux incident of being. He was sued for defamation of character and lost and has yet to pay a dime for his lies.

Sharpton and Jackson have been known to cheat on their wives, their taxes, and to take money that didn't belong to them, among other things.

While we're on the subject, Dr. King, as some like to call him, also was a womanizer, and alledged to have plagiarized at BU (or was it BC?) in order to get his doctorate.


I'm always wary when "men [or women] of the cloth" wish to lecture others on issues of morality, when their own moral behavior comes so readily into play.


I agree with you about the nature of the examples you use.

I break with you on the matter of Jackson meeting with Palestinian leaders.  I think there is a tremendous need for Middle East bridgebuilders, even if we don't agree with all of the bridgebuilder's views.  I didn't like Nixon - disagreed with almost everything he represented - but I was glad he went to China.  And I agree with the statement that only Nixon could go - likewise - IMO - in that case, it appeared that only someone like Jackson could go.  

Both negotiations being the kind that I am grateful for.  As I see them taking the world closer to world peace.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 02:04:53 PM
YOU recall very well, whisk!

Al sharpton: Man of the Cloth: http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200312030840.asp


And as for listing transgressions vs good deeds...I'll let you know, when I find the good deeds.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 02:07:03 PM
I think these men do speak for the poor and downtrodden....This has been an integral part of their calling.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 02:12:36 PM
MrUtley

I'll take a look at that article at some point.  But again, although I agree with you about the nature of such behavior, what you say is nothing new in politics.  People in power everywhere are doing all sorts of things behind closed doors.  So are many Americans, according to the stats on extra martial affairs, for example.

Bottomline, though, I think we are too concerned with people's bedroom secrets.  It says little about a person's public positions, except that, when people have little to argue about the substance of what someone stands for (civil rights, equality), they try to tear them down personally, hunt for demons in their closets.

Sometimes this is seems worthwhile, IF the demon shows that their position on a public issue is hypocritical.  Say, a man publicly opposed to contraceptives, but using them to visit prostitutes.  

But as far J.F. goes - Falwell's work is what people attack.  His public hate for others because they were different, his fight to defeat their rights.

Not, as far as I know, because he had this mistress or that one.

Though, not being an expert on Falwell, I suppose he had those too.  I just don't care.  It's the work they do.

So I still say the comparison doesn't stand.

Falwell spent a lifetime hurting people.  King, may he rest in peace, spent a lifetime improving this nation.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 18, 2007, 02:16:24 PM
The biggest problem with Sharpton and Jackson is that they give right wing racists an out.  Every time they speak out on a racial issue, as in, say, Don Imus, the Anne Coulters of the world who want to avoid the real issue of race in American attack them as a cover for ignoring what is really wrong with society.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 18, 2007, 03:23:04 PM
I've seen the Sullivan.  It's one of my (Liberal...see I'm not too hopeless) son's favorites. 

Ha, that's a fun one, lhoffman, thank you.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 03:33:54 PM
I think these men do speak for the poor and downtrodden....This has been an integral part of their calling.

I think they exploit the ignorant and the needy for their own purposes.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 03:34:30 PM
The biggest problem with Sharpton and Jackson is that they give right wing racists an out.  Every time they speak out on a racial issue, as in, say, Don Imus, the Anne Coulters of the world who want to avoid the real issue of race in American attack them as a cover for ignoring what is really wrong with society.

I don't disagree.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 03:39:16 PM
The other problem is the convenience with which the Reverands Al and Jesse and Jerry and Pat, and the Minister Farrakhans, and the Imams and the Popes (almost sounds like "The Mamas and the Papas", doesn't it?) and the rest hide behind the MEANS of their Scriptures, Quaran, bibles, etc.. in order to justify their POLITICAL ends.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 03:45:11 PM
Ultimately, I gotta say that the only "man of the cloth" I ever found myself interested in was Father Guido Sarducci.

He I could understand.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 05:32:34 PM
Quote
The biggest problem with Sharpton and Jackson is that they give right wing racists an out.  Every time they speak out on a racial issue, as in, say, Don Imus, the Anne Coulters of the world who want to avoid the real issue of race in American attack them as a cover for ignoring what is really wrong with society.

Excuse me, dear whiskey and Lhoffman, as well as Mr. Utley, but this seems very much like holding Sharpton & Jackson responsible for what "the Anne Coulters of the world" might say.  Much as I enjoy the mental image of Ms. Coulter expressing herself Flip Wilson style ("the devil made me do it"), I think the responsiblity is misplaced, somewhat  like the belief that provocatively dressed women are responsible if they are sexually assaulted. 

Well the truth is that we don't hear from Jackson and Sharpton about black on black crime, about the Code of Silence and witnesses to crimes getting whacked in their own community by their own people, and we don't hear from them when blacks stray from the script and launch their own racist views. I can't remember hearing Sharpton or Jackson condemn the comments of Louis Farrakhan, can you?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 18, 2007, 06:39:04 PM
Nytemps...Anorexia does some serious damage to brain cells, and I'm thinking Coulter is seriously deranged.  I really can't see any other answer for her bizarre behaviour.  Of course, I suppose if one's whole life is a hideous morass of hatred, that might do some serious mental damage, too.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 18, 2007, 08:41:23 PM
Quote
The biggest problem with Sharpton and Jackson is that they give right wing racists an out.  Every time they speak out on a racial issue, as in, say, Don Imus, the Anne Coulters of the world who want to avoid the real issue of race in American attack them as a cover for ignoring what is really wrong with society.

Excuse me, dear whiskey and Lhoffman, as well as Mr. Utley, but this seems very much like holding Sharpton & Jackson responsible for what "the Anne Coulters of the world" might say.  Much as I enjoy the mental image of Ms. Coulter expressing herself Flip Wilson style ("the devil made me do it"), I think the responsiblity is misplaced, somewhat  like the belief that provocatively dressed women are responsible if they are sexually assaulted. 

Well the truth is that we don't hear from Jackson and Sharpton about black on black crime, about the Code of Silence and witnesses to crimes getting whacked in their own community by their own people, and we don't hear from them when blacks stray from the script and launch their own racist views. I can't remember hearing Sharpton or Jackson condemn the comments of Louis Farrakhan, can you?

What did Frrakan say that you found offensive?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 18, 2007, 10:11:40 PM
Remember when Bill Cosby said all the things that the conservatives want to hear? His words made a great stir for just a little time?

Remember when the Million Man March asked black men to shoulder their responsibilties and become active parents to their children, and the march received short-lived time in the media?

Why is it some have such long memories about an incidental remark, and such short memories of truly impressive events?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 11:34:14 PM
Who said this?

"Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community."

"Qaddafi is hated because he is the leader of a small country that is rich, but he uses his money to finance liberation struggles."
 
 "The die is set and Malcolm will not escape for the foolish talk he spoke against his benefactor, such a man, is worthy of death, and it would have been so, were it not for Muhammad's confidence that God would give him the victory over the enemies."
   
  "The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man."
 
 
" They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters."
 
 
 Louis Farrakhan 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 19, 2007, 07:07:31 AM
Quote
Well the truth is that we don't hear from Jackson and Sharpton about black on black crime, about the Code of Silence and witnesses to crimes getting whacked in their own community by their own people
Actually, Jackson has.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 07:35:04 AM
Who said this?

"Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community."

"Qaddafi is hated because he is the leader of a small country that is rich, but he uses his money to finance liberation struggles."
 
 "The die is set and Malcolm will not escape for the foolish talk he spoke against his benefactor, such a man, is worthy of death, and it would have been so, were it not for Muhammad's confidence that God would give him the victory over the enemies."
   
  "The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man."
 
 
" They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters."
 
 
 Louis Farrakhan 

Thanks, I haven't followed the life of this man and I too would find these statements offensive.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 06:37:16 PM
Quote
the Code of Silence and witnesses to crimes getting whacked in their own community by their own people

Huh?  How did omerta and The Sopranos come into it?

As far as what "we" hear from the Reverends, I have to confess I hear nothing from them, but I may be heeding the wrong media.    

ON the Code of Silence that I referenced...just an example to explain:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/annette_john-hall/20070406_Annette_John-Hall___Silence_is_the_enemy_of_justice.html

While that situation is in Philly, the fact is that if you hate African-Americans just have them live together and they'll kill each other better than any domestic terrorist group you might design whose purpose is to target African-Americans.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 07:18:31 PM
Utley,

I remember when the Code of Silence applied to the Italian "mobsters", and I have heard there is a Code of Silence among Russian Immigrants in Brooklyn. It is not just a black thing - it is an inner city thing. And, it is as much about corruption and failure on the part of the police force (perhaps for good reason - they may be spread too thin), as a cultural thing. In any event, it is a common manifestation of peope who are without hope and respect no matter what race or culture.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 08:36:23 PM
Utley,

I remember when the Code of Silence applied to the Italian "mobsters", and I have heard there is a Code of Silence among Russian Immigrants in Brooklyn. It is not just a black thing - it is an inner city thing. And, it is as much about corruption and failure on the part of the police force (perhaps for good reason - they may be spread too thin), as a cultural thing. In any event, it is a common manifestation of peope who are without hope and respect no matter what race or culture.


and therefore, "excusable", by your reasoning.

Bottom line, where are the Reverands when it's time to clean up their own neighborhood????

M-I-A, and spending time blaming the white man.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 08:50:27 PM
 
The Right (wing)Reverend Newtie:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Liberty University's graduating class Saturday to honor the spirit of school founder Jerry Falwell by confronting "the growing culture of radical secularism" with Christian ideals.

Gingrich, who is considering a 2008 presidential run, quoted Bible passages to a mournful crowd of about 17,000 packed into the university's football stadium four days after Falwell's death.

Despite the somber tone of the day, graduates who covered the football field chanted "Jerry! Jerry!" in tribute to Falwell.

"A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded," Gingrich said. "We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights .

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2007-05-19_D8P7PJP01&show_article=1&cat=breaking


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 09:00:20 PM
Utley,

Would I be correct in assuming that you have a low opinion of the whole of African-Americans? Am I correct in assuming that you judge the whole of a race on the behavior of some? Am I correct in assuming that you think the white man is best to determine what the black man can say, think, do and feel?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 20, 2007, 07:59:02 AM
Utley,

Would I be correct in assuming that you have a low opinion of the whole of African-Americans? Am I correct in assuming that you judge the whole of a race on the behavior of some? Am I correct in assuming that you think the white man is best to determine what the black man can say, think, do and feel?


 Why would you wish to make that assumption? Because you are ignorant of the topic and of me.

You tend to assume too much about everything...the hallmark of the truly ignorant.

You think because you read something in a book that makes it so.

You think because someone questions your view of the world it makes them racist or biased.

You should assume that you know far less about the black community than I do, but to presume that I have a low opinion of ANY American based on their race or based on the behavior of "some" or because they identify themselves as a Democrat or a Republican or gay or straight or moral or immoral is another pathetic attempt by you to redirect the conversation or reframe it in a manner that makes it fitting for YOU to understand it.

From now on, ASSUME that simply because you don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't mean that others don't.

...and btw, how long have you been poisoning your spouse's food?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 20, 2007, 08:26:40 AM
Utley,

I am truly sorry that you fail to read what you write and understand the assumptions your comments lead others to.

Your characterization of those who don't bow to your supposed expertise as ignorant shows your own ignorance. Your comment that blacks will self-destruct because of a Code of Silence was dismissive of the great majority of self-respecting and upwardly mobile black folks in this country. I seriously doubt that you have sufficient evidence to assert that you know for a fact that either Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton do not address the faults of the black community, to make a judgement.

If you want people to believe that you have superior knowledge of the black community, provide your credentials or whatever you base your judgements on. Otherwise you are just one more dude with an opinion.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 09:46:40 AM
Utley,

I am truly sorry that you fail to read what you write and understand the assumptions your comments lead others to.

Your characterization of those who don't bow to your supposed expertise as ignorant shows your own ignorance. Your comment that blacks will self-destruct because of a Code of Silence was dismissive of the great majority of self-respecting and upwardly mobile black folks in this country. I seriously doubt that you have sufficient evidence to assert that you know for a fact that either Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton do not address the faults of the black community, to make a judgement.

If you want people to believe that you have superior knowledge of the black community, provide your credentials or whatever you base your judgements on. Otherwise you are just one more dude with an opinion.



Utley does sound hung over this morning, and still bitter and nasty.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: papabear on May 20, 2007, 11:20:32 PM
Papabear Says

Jerry Fallwell was a teacher of Christ unfortantly Fallwell did not follow Jesus preachings, in my opinion. Fallwell beleived in first strick with nuculier weapons. Fallwell beleived in capical punishment. None of these things Jesus would approve of . I also beleive that Fallwell did not have a forgiving heart. Now this is just my opinion. I could be wrong. I wish no ill feelings on Reverend Fallwell. But these hardline preachers don't have forgiving hearts. It's all about getting the money. God Bless you and forgive you rev Fallwell.

Papabear


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: papabear on May 20, 2007, 11:29:44 PM
Papabear Says excuse the mispelled words above

Jerry Fallwell was a teacher of Christ unfortunately Fallwell did not follow Jesus preachings, in my opinion. Fallwell believed in first strick with nuclear weapons. Fallwell beleived in capital punishment. None of these things Jesus would approve of . I also beleive that Fallwell did not have a forgiving heart. Now this is just my opinion. I could be wrong. I wish no ill feelings on Reverend Fallwell. But these hardline preachers don't have forgiving hearts. It's all about getting the money. God Bless you and forgive you rev Fallwell.

Papabear


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 21, 2007, 07:02:48 AM
Quote
Fallwell beleived in capital punishment. None of these things Jesus would approve of .
Oh. I don't know; without capital punishment, Falwell wouldn't even have a religion.

By the way, you can edit posts.









Note joke stolen from Stephen Colbert.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 07:37:03 AM
I read that attending this evil man's funeral is not a top priority for most repukes.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 21, 2007, 08:29:59 AM
Utley,

I am truly sorry that you fail to read what you write and understand the assumptions your comments lead others to.

Your characterization of those who don't bow to your supposed expertise as ignorant shows your own ignorance. Your comment that blacks will self-destruct because of a Code of Silence was dismissive of the great majority of self-respecting and upwardly mobile black folks in this country. I seriously doubt that you have sufficient evidence to assert that you know for a fact that either Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton do not address the faults of the black community, to make a judgement.

If you want people to believe that you have superior knowledge of the black community, provide your credentials or whatever you base your judgements on. Otherwise you are just one more dude with an opinion.



He's a Phillies Phan -- what more do you need to know?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 10:57:22 AM
Utley,

I am truly sorry that you fail to read what you write and understand the assumptions your comments lead others to.

Your characterization of those who don't bow to your supposed expertise as ignorant shows your own ignorance. Your comment that blacks will self-destruct because of a Code of Silence was dismissive of the great majority of self-respecting and upwardly mobile black folks in this country. I seriously doubt that you have sufficient evidence to assert that you know for a fact that either Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton do not address the faults of the black community, to make a judgement.

If you want people to believe that you have superior knowledge of the black community, provide your credentials or whatever you base your judgements on. Otherwise you are just one more dude with an opinion.



What you should be sorry about is too long to list here. Bottom line is that I did't just throw the opinion on the board as to what is happening in the black community, I backed it up. Apparently, you failed to read the article. So, I guess I'll have to get more for you so you can understand the nature of the situation.

I hope. Stay tuned. Research department is a little slow.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 10:58:23 AM
He's a Phillies Phan -- what more do you need to know?
 ;D 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 21, 2007, 11:57:42 AM
Besides the post I put up the other day about Philadelphia black community killing itself, here are some more examples.

Way too many, as you will see. And where is the Jackson-Sharpton outrage?

 Cincinnatti: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/07/02/loc_41_shootings_in_10.html

Black opinion on the matter, from Kansas: “In this century, Black-on-Black crime has been the most insidious killer of Black people, especially the Black male. This disease has taken years to manifest itself and it will take years to eliminate.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3628/is_199403/ai_n8723273
Blacks overrepresented in crime stats in UK: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2449974.ece
Blacks killing their own in Pittsburgh: http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/local_story_019182120.html
Black on black crime and opinion in Seattle: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/272382_robert01x.html
Excusing Black Crime in the Black Community: http://www.blackcommentator.com/165/165_radio_bc/01_05_06_radio_bc_black_on_black_crime.html

Black on black crime in Memphis, Tennessee: “I hate to hear breaking news cause I always think who got killed this time,” said Hickory Hill homeowner Freddie Askew.
What angers Freddie Askew even more is that the number of African American victims keeps piling up.
“Jim Crow didn’t destroy us, racism didn’t destroy us, it is us destroying us,” said Askew.
http://card.wordpress.com/2006/07/29/black-on-black-crime-growing-in-memphis/
Gainsville, Florida Task Force on Black-on-black crime:
http://www.gainesvillepd.org/crime_task_force.htm

“Perhaps it is time we begin to think of black-on-black crime the way we think of international terrorism and ethnic cleansing: as an epidemic of historical proportions, one whose demise liberals have an obligation to seek.”
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050808&s=herf081005

Black on black crime characterized as a “hate crime”: http://www.blackprof.com/archives/2006/07/black_on_black_violence_as_a_h.html
Death on the streets of Indianapolis and black-on-black crime: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2006/02/indianapolis_sy.html
What did Sharpton and Jackson do, when this heinous act was committed?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDRlMGY4ZDE0MjBhYjhhODJlZjVhYmYyYzcyODgxZGY=
Cleveland, Black on Black, an organization targeting reducing crime within the black community: http://www.cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/23926.php
Criticizing Jesse Jackson for doing little about “self-inflicted victimization” in his hometown of Chicago:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32658
Black community doesn’t respect itself:
http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/time-for-jackson-sharpton-to-step-down/20070411111509990001

Black on black crime is a nation-wide problem, and yet, when I checked for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton’s quotes on speaking out against it, I could find none.

If anyone else can find them, please post them here.

And before you go putting me into the Rush Limbaugh category as some of you will knee-jerkingly want to do, I raise this issue as an example of how Jackson and Sharpton are more concerned about themselves then they are about their own communities.

Black on black crime may have its roots in poverty and inopportunity, but that is becoming less and less a rationalization for it, as time marches on and the self-loathing and self-destructive black genocide continues.

 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on May 21, 2007, 12:03:58 PM
Jackson did fairly famously make a commentary on black on black crime several years ago when he said this:  “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

For the most part, though I agree with the sentiments you've expressed.   

I think it's fair to refer to both Jackson and Sharpton as poverty pimps.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 21, 2007, 12:13:07 PM
Yank,

I think your quote from Jackson indicate he is aware and has spoken out on the problem. I suspect he is like many of us, unable to think of any solution to the problem other than lifting them out of poverty, but I think that they have to lift themselves out of poverty. What the majority (sic) community need to do is make sure that the opportunity exists for these out-of-touch young men.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: law120b on May 21, 2007, 12:48:17 PM
there's so much opportunity to escape poverty in rap, sports, and drugs that the problem is how little motivation there is to study hard to become a teacher, a doctor or similar occupations offering hard work and non-superstar compensation.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on May 21, 2007, 01:16:44 PM
Pimping is a good fence straddler between those two lofty goals.....


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 02:19:46 PM
Would you call people like Jerry Falwell, pimps?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on May 21, 2007, 02:24:16 PM
I didn't call Jackson and Sharpton pimps.  I called them "poverty pimps."  For lack of a better term, I'd call Falwell a religious pimp or any other number of characterizations (charlatan, etc.) that Christopher Hitchens called him.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 02:26:24 PM
I didn't call Jackson and Sharpton pimps.  I called them "poverty pimps."  For lack of a better term, I'd call Falwell a religious pimp or any other number of characterizations (charlatan, etc.) that Christopher Hitchens called him.

Did you see the Hitchens interview with Anderson Cooper?  It was great.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on May 21, 2007, 02:28:18 PM
Didn't see the Cooper one, but I saw him on Hannity/Colmes.  Hitchens destroyed Hannity, destroyed Ralph Reed and would have destroyed anybody that got in his way.  He hates everybody. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 02:31:02 PM
Didn't see the Cooper one, but I saw him on Hannity/Colmes.  Hitchens destroyed Hannity, destroyed Ralph Reed and would have destroyed anybody that got in his way.  He hates everybody. 

Those guys are worth hating.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 21, 2007, 02:59:13 PM
Didn't see the Cooper one, but I saw him on Hannity/Colmes.  Hitchens destroyed Hannity, destroyed Ralph Reed and would have destroyed anybody that got in his way.  He hates everybody. 
No kidding.  He hated Mother Theresa.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 07:21:09 AM
Some think she kept people in poverty, rather than helping them move out of poverty, for her own sake. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 10:46:01 AM
Like many of his ilk, Falwell played the religious card to poltiical advantage and often misused the Bible to further his agenda. He racism, homophobia and intolerance contrasted sharply with the religious faith he claimed to embrace. He was a religious con-man, nothing more.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 12:32:33 PM
Some think she kept people in poverty, rather than helping them move out of poverty, for her own sake. 

I've never heard that before. Maybe you can back that one up.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on May 22, 2007, 12:36:24 PM
Hitchens set out that position in his many articles and TV appearances discussing Mother Teresa. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 12:47:25 PM
Mommie DearestThe pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 12:52:42 PM
Ahhh...Feet of clay...and all that.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 22, 2007, 12:58:41 PM
Some think she kept people in poverty, rather than helping them move out of poverty, for her own sake. 

I've never heard that before. Maybe you can back that one up.
You should read Hitchens's The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa in Theory and Practice.  That's essentially the argument he makes - her own sake being sort of spiritual self-aggrandizement.  On par with the line for Graham Greene's A Burnt Out Case, where a doctor quotes a nun serving in a leper colony as decrying new drugs to treat leprosy, "It's horrible.  Soon we'll have no lepers at all!"  The danger in that sort of work is you view your sacrifice as being more important than solving the underlying problem of human misery.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on May 22, 2007, 01:03:13 PM
In the same vein, it was said of William Douglas (possibly the most liberal justice ever and meanest SOB to ever sit on the Supreme Court) that he loved humanity and hated people.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: law120b on May 22, 2007, 01:54:05 PM
some would say that loving humanity while hating people is a core characteristic of many liberals.  take mr. ugly.......please.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 03:08:43 PM
some would say that loving humanity while hating people is a core characteristic of many liberals.  take mr. ugly.......please.

Careful now, calling me a liberal. You'll confuse all the folks calling me right-winger.

And I don't hate anyone.

Just you.

And Billy Wagner.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 22, 2007, 03:25:24 PM
I'M SO CONFUUUUSED!!!

(But you are right about Ron Paul.)

<:-)


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 22, 2007, 04:00:07 PM
Well, perhaps a gripe with the whole Catholic church, but the birth control thing is a limited part of the critique.   


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 22, 2007, 04:02:21 PM
I wonder why Mother Theresa didn't instruct those women to "just say no"!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 22, 2007, 04:49:04 PM
I wonder why Mother Theresa didn't instruct those women to "just say no"!
She did; that was the problem.  Abstinence is a limited remedy that ignores the fact that, from her perspective and mine, we are all poor sinners grubling our way on earth, and but for only a few of us, we are doomed to incessant failure to achieve our highest goals.

Well, that's depressing.  Off to shoot myself now.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 06:30:59 PM
Shooting oneself can be messy.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 23, 2007, 08:26:22 AM
Shooting oneself can be messy.
Not my problem now is it?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 09:36:18 AM
Shooting oneself can be messy.
Not my problem now is it?

I suppose not.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 01:01:15 PM
I wonder why Mother Theresa didn't instruct those women to "just say no"!
She did; that was the problem.  Abstinence is a limited remedy that ignores the fact that, from her perspective and mine, we are all poor sinners grubling our way on earth, and but for only a few of us, we are doomed to incessant failure to achieve our highest goals.

Well, that's depressing.  Off to shoot myself now.

You'll probably screw that up, too, Gulliver.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 01:53:50 PM
I wonder why Mother Theresa didn't instruct those women to "just say no"!
She did; that was the problem.  Abstinence is a limited remedy that ignores the fact that, from her perspective and mine, we are all poor sinners grubling our way on earth, and but for only a few of us, we are doomed to incessant failure to achieve our highest goals.

Well, that's depressing.  Off to shoot myself now.

You'll probably screw that up, too, Gulliver.

A Falwell supporter brought bombs to the funeral.  Great guys, those christianists.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 23, 2007, 03:56:21 PM
Falwell was a fan of blowing stuff up as a means to an end.

His buddy Robertson advocated assasinations.

Do as we say not as we do.

Or is it:

Do as we preach not as we say... errr, do as we do, but don't do....

Er,  how many commandments do you know???





Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Chakotay on May 23, 2007, 04:15:06 PM
I first heard of Mother Teresa's group back in the days (1971) when Pakistan invaded what is now Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) to keep it from becoming independent. Many thousands of women were raped, and many of them became pregnant. The government authorized late-term abortions for women who had been raped, and Mother T.'s nuns were standing by to baptize the aborted fetuses. Any that were born alive were taken by the nuns to become good Catholics, one presumes.

Quote
You should read Hitchens's The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa in Theory and Practice.  That's essentially the argument he makes - her own sake being sort of spiritual self-aggrandizement.

Maybe I was reading in or misinterpreting, but I also thought his gripe with her was basically a gripe with the whole Catholic Church's stand against birth control, which led to the poverty and misery in which she did her work and which she perpetuated by way of being the wrong kind of inspiration.  But,  then, I didn't/don't do the reading in Hitchens's case, I just listen to him when he's on those BookTV panels.  It's a weird form of entertainment, watching bookish people's BP shoot up, as gadfly Hitchens can certainly make happen.  It's not like the guy's making policy or anything.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 04:23:14 PM
Any that were born alive were taken by the nuns to become good Catholics, one presumes.

Or slaves.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Chakotay on May 23, 2007, 04:52:47 PM
I like your slogan on the side:

 So many right wing Christians; so few LIONS.

But why would you advocate cruelty to innocent lions? Talk about getting acid reflux!


Any that were born alive were taken by the nuns to become good Catholics, one presumes.

Or slaves.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 07:14:05 PM
I like your slogan on the side:

 So many right wing Christians; so few LIONS.

But why would you advocate cruelty to innocent lions? Talk about getting acid reflux!


Any that were born alive were taken by the nuns to become good Catholics, one presumes.

Or slaves.


I saw it on a tee shirt yesterday and thought it was perfect.  Yes, I do feel for the lions.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 24, 2007, 07:25:49 AM
Any that were born alive were taken by the nuns to become good Catholics, one presumes.

Or slaves.

Slaves precisely how?

Not that the issues of religion or abortion are big ones for anyone seeing the other side's point, but if you believe that a fetus is alive and deserving of protection, what difference does it make who the father was?  If you are a Catholic and believe as the nuns do, isn't it an act of mercy to give what they consider to be possible eternal life?  And isn't it better for the nuns to raise the unwanted child than to have it live on the street or a typical government orphanage in India?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 08:18:08 AM
Any that were born alive were taken by the nuns to become good Catholics, one presumes.

Or slaves.

Slaves precisely how?

Not that the issues of religion or abortion are big ones for anyone seeing the other side's point, but if you believe that a fetus is alive and deserving of protection, what difference does it make who the father was?  If you are a Catholic and believe as the nuns do, isn't it an act of mercy to give what they consider to be possible eternal life?  And isn't it better for the nuns to raise the unwanted child than to have it live on the street or a typical government orphanage in India?

If you ever have an opportunity, watch to movie "Magdelene Laundries" and you'll understand where I was coming from.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 24, 2007, 10:04:55 AM
I suppose just telling me would be too much of a burden.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: prairiepop on May 24, 2007, 11:13:53 AM
Talk about biting the bullet...this morning's news coverage included a nice photograph of Grandpa Cheney and Grandma Lynn [who was holding the new infant] revealing en clair the riveting realities of having a turkey-baster for a son-in-law.  Falwell to the contrary notwithstanding, ain't it a pearl?

As to the infant baptisms as noted above, those of us who are Seriously Ancient may remember that in the pre-Vatican II days [PBUT] there were priests on stand-by at Catholic hospitals to perform in-utero baptisms [speaking of turkey-basters here] of preemies & dying fetuses who would never draw breath in this world.  Now that Limbo has been decommissioned and God has been allowed to take unto Him these little ones without Father Somesuch's intervention...gee whiz, trust God?  What a dangerous concept!  [So to speak]

Well, guess I'll go back to wondering how many angels can dance sur le point d'epingle...can't help but wonder what Jonathan Swift would have made of our current socio-psycho-religious climate.  In the world of the Little Endist, a Big Endist has to find SOME kinda hobby, no?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 24, 2007, 02:40:56 PM
Quote
Slaves precisely how?

Not that the issues of religion or abortion are big ones for anyone seeing the other side's point, but if you believe that a fetus is alive and deserving of protection, what difference does it make who the father was?  If you are a Catholic and believe as the nuns do, isn't it an act of mercy to give what they consider to be possible eternal life?  And isn't it better for the nuns to raise the unwanted child than to have it live on the street or a typical government orphanage in India?

1- Yes, I do believe the baptisms are merciful as are any acts of kindness.

2- Yes again, if the raped woman decides that she can live the next 9 months bringing the rapist criminal's spawn to term, then yes, it is better for the "child" for the nuns to raise them.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 24, 2007, 02:47:13 PM
BTW, please do not "judge" all Christians by the crazy and bitter few.

You can tell the True Christians... they are seldom heard, and never heeded.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 02:51:30 PM
BTW, please do not "judge" all Christians by the crazy and bitter few.

You can tell the True Christians... they are seldom heard, and never heeded.



ahhhh. So the true Christians are Bhuddist monks! Interesting.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 03:02:46 PM
Too bad Ms. Cheney and family have no rights in Falwell country.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 24, 2007, 03:25:19 PM
It seems that nearly all western religions and sects insist upon applying the name of Christ to their own ideas, teachings and practices. In ancient times, the pagans at least openly and honestly acknowledged their worship of the various "gods" and spirits.

Good ol' Billy Graham was quoted one time saying that, while many Americans believe there is a God, most "have not accepted true Christianity or Judaism or Islam. They believe the Bible, but they don’t read it or obey it."

America is a nation of biblical illiterates… most Americans don’t know what they believe or why.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 04:43:30 PM
It seems that nearly all western religions and sects insist upon applying the name of Christ to their own ideas, teachings and practices. In ancient times, the pagans at least openly and honestly acknowledged their worship of the various "gods" and spirits.

Good ol' Billy Graham was quoted one time saying that, while many Americans believe there is a God, most "have not accepted true Christianity or Judaism or Islam. They believe the Bible, but they don’t read it or obey it."

America is a nation of biblical illiterates… most Americans don’t know what they believe or why.


I hope you included yourself in that category.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 05:09:46 PM

America is a nation of biblical illiterates… most Americans don’t know what they believe or why. Or they believe what the preacher tells them to believe.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 05:58:46 PM

America is a nation of biblical illiterates… most Americans don’t know what they believe or why. Or they believe what the preacher tells them to believe.

don Henley sang, "We are like sheep without a shepard..."


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 07:23:31 PM

America is a nation of biblical illiterates… most Americans don’t know what they believe or why. Or they believe what the preacher tells them to believe.

don Henley sang, "We are like sheep without a shepard..."

He was "right on."


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: prairiepop on May 24, 2007, 09:15:08 PM
As long as riveting eloquence, catch-phraseology, promises of redemption and sheer personality govern a pulpit, so will the sheep be fleeced and the shepherd gather in the gold.  For every authentic charismatic leader [which has to include Billy Graham and his predecessor, Billy Sunday among the Prots, and that grand old mountebank Fulton J. Sheen pitching Rome] there are a hundred gimlet-eyed buffoons calling out to the fearful and the superstitious.  It is this type of flock whose checkbooks support the telereverends...and the courtship of this flock is still numero uno on the r/w agenda.  Out of the credulous cometh not just gold to build a christianist empire, but also votes to keep a plastic Texan's gang in power. 

Once upon a time, I believed an ordination meant a vocation---a calling to serve rather than to be served.  In the church of Mammon, however, serving up the shorn lambs is more likely.  Mint sauce, anyone?

 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 09:23:32 PM
 

Learn to Be Still

The Eagles

It's just another day in paradise as you stumble to your bed.
You'd give anything to silence those voices ringing in your head.
You thought you could find happiness just over that green hill.
You thought you would be satisfied but you never will learn to be still, learn to be still.

We are like sheep without a shepherd, we don't know how to be alone.
So we wander 'round this desert and wind up following the wrong gods home.
But the flock cries out for another and they keep answering that bell.
And one more starry-eyed messiah meets a violent farewell. Learn to be still, learn to be still.

Now the flowers in your garden, they don't smell so sweet, so sweet.
Maybe you've forgotten the heaven lying at your feet.

There are so many contradictions in all these messages we send.
We keep asking how do I get out of here? Where do I fit in?
Though the world is torn and shaken, even if your heart is breaking,
it's waiting for you to awaken and someday you will learn to be still, learn to be still.
You just keep on running, keep on running…


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 25, 2007, 07:23:44 AM
As long as riveting eloquence, catch-phraseology, promises of redemption and sheer personality govern a pulpit, so will the sheep be fleeced and the shepherd gather in the gold.  For every authentic charismatic leader [which has to include Billy Graham and his predecessor, Billy Sunday among the Prots, and that grand old mountebank Fulton J. Sheen pitching Rome] there are a hundred gimlet-eyed buffoons calling out to the fearful and the superstitious.  It is this type of flock whose checkbooks support the telereverends...and the courtship of this flock is still numero uno on the r/w agenda.  Out of the credulous cometh not just gold to build a christianist empire, but also votes to keep a plastic Texan's gang in power. 

Once upon a time, I believed an ordination meant a vocation---a calling to serve rather than to be served.  In the church of Mammon, however, serving up the shorn lambs is more likely.  Mint sauce, anyone?

 

Very well said, Pop.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 09:42:22 AM
I hope you included yourself in that category.

No, I don't.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 25, 2007, 01:45:10 PM
So, what do you believe?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 03:09:08 PM
So, what do you believe

Look at my previous posts.


Your turn.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 25, 2007, 03:17:25 PM
So, what do you believe

Look at my previous posts.


Your turn.



Sorry, pal.  Just read em all - and you have stated NADA.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 03:33:23 PM
NADA is still volumes more than you have offered


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 25, 2007, 03:45:25 PM
I think people are so disappointed with religion because it means so much to them.  On the surface, we seem cavalier, and that's become acceptable in our society.  But underneath, we all want to believe that there is some way to make the world what it ought to be. 

This may also be why people are so passionate about politics.  In our society, politics seems to have taken the place of religion.

And in politics, as in religion, we seem to be looking for the one answer that will solve all our problems.  Very often, we look to others for hope and salvation rather than creating change in our own spheres. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 25, 2007, 04:19:10 PM
Romney: I am not anti-gay
Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney sought to clarify his stand on LGBT issues, saying he's against equal marriage rights but also opposes anti-gay discrimination. "I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that's not me," he said. Los Angeles Times/Associated Press (free registration) (5/24)

From a Falwell Wannabe.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 25, 2007, 07:02:32 PM
NADA is still volumes more than you have offered

Colonel Duck, Major Dodge, Captain Hyde.

Which one do you go by.

Asked to state your beliefs, you tell someone to ferret them out from your posts.

That's weak..and ineffectual, btw.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 25, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
I think people are so disappointed with religion because it means so much to them.  On the surface, we seem cavalier, and that's become acceptable in our society.  But underneath, we all want to believe that there is some way to make the world what it ought to be. 

This may also be why people are so passionate about politics.  In our society, politics seems to have taken the place of religion.

And in politics, as in religion, we seem to be looking for the one answer that will solve all our problems.  Very often, we look to others for hope and salvation rather than creating change in our own spheres. 

What we have in America today is tribalism. What tribe are you in? are you a lib? a con? etc...

We spend so much time trying to define each other by labels, and the reacting to those labels, we stop listening to anything new as we all race to categorize the comments...

It's very sad.

And not what we deserve.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 25, 2007, 08:08:37 PM
MrUtley...I think the tribe/herd mentality has existed from pre-history...part of the survival mechanism.  You would think, though, that as time passes, people would learn from history and try to understand other viewpoints. 

One thing I like about these forums, even though I sometimes manage to put my foot in my mouth, there is plenty of opportunity here to see where the other guy is coming from. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 25, 2007, 09:40:21 PM
MrUtley...I think the tribe/herd mentality has existed from pre-history...part of the survival mechanism.  You would think, though, that as time passes, people would learn from history and try to understand other viewpoints. 

One thing I like about these forums, even though I sometimes manage to put my foot in my mouth, there is plenty of opportunity here to see where the other guy is coming from. 
Opportunities are often not recognized, and frequently ignored, but I agree with you.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 07:15:16 AM
After tossing a generous number of political bricks, the religious right is in the midst of a crisis in confidence that will determine whether it will be remembered as a great movement or merely an ugly historical footnote. The death of Rev. Jerry Falwell, combined with the upcoming presidential election and the implosion of Bush’s legacy has left the right rudderless.

Much of the malaise comes from the embarrassing fact that evangelicals lined up behind Bush for years and spoke of him as if he were a prophet. Now that Bush has transformed from Baby Jesus to idiot child, social conservatives are deservedly getting most of the blame for the Bush debacle.

Things are so bad for Bush that Jimmy Carter – a man who knows a little something about failed presidencies – has said Bush is the “worst” in history. Finally Carter got something right, but Evangelicals were also reminded by his outburst that they backed Carter’s presidency because he was outspokenly Born Again.

Looking at the Bush/Carter messes they have made, some fundamentalists are disillusioned with politics. They also see that shifting public opinion has nixed aims at absolute dominion and their political domination is dangerously sliding into alienation. The once fearless now seems rather feckless and the Jesus Juggernaut is looking like the Little Engine that cannot.

The passing of Rev. Jerry Falwell must have been quite jarring. Instead of being lionized as a conqueror he was largely ridiculed as a cartoon, with his controversies outweighing his accomplishments. Only the groveling Republican presidential candidates seemed to have anything nice to say, and we all know most of them didn’t mean it.

As the right eulogized Falwell, geriatric televangelist D. James Kennedy was recovering from a heart attack. But his political sword, The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, could not recover from failure and recently closed its doors. The ultimate collapse of Kennedy’s sinister Center and Falwell’s Moral Majority – as well as Pat Robertson’s ailing Christian Coalition – suggests these groups may be little more than wildly successful cults of personality. Too, one wonders the fate of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, when the Lord finally calls him home?

While the religious right is down, they certainly are not out. Falwell, for example, built Liberty University and the Liberty Counsel, his legal arm, to train activists to carry on his shameful legacy. Surprisingly, Liberty has one of the top ranked debate teams in the nation, where students learn apologetics so they can effectively argue, rather than apologize, when they offend others.

The media is busy anointing new religious leaders to supposedly take the place of the outgoing Falwell-Robertson-Dobson-Kennedy Axis of Ignorance. They seem to think Rick Warren, the author of the bestseller, “The Purpose Driven Life” is the logical successor.

Warren, who gives sermons in tacky Hawaiian shirts, is portrayed as dripping with compassion because he and his wife minister to AIDS victims. While they deserve credit for helping the sick, they are far from moderate on social issues. In fact, Warren supports the “ex-gay” message, which heaps shame on gay men – leading to more HIV cases. I guess after he breaks down their self-esteem, leading to reckless sexual behavior, he’ll take care of them.

It is a measure of how far to the right Falwell and others of his ilk have moved society that troglodytes like Warren are considered “moderate.” This is hardly a record to be proud of, and in their hearts, many social conservatives know their movement has harmed this nation.

The truth is, the religious right’s power will only be waning if they keep whining and complaining. The GOP will put on a full court press to get social conservatives to the polls, but if they are thinking “air ball” – a Republican victory in the next election will be anything but a slam-dunk.


Wayne Besen http://www.365gay.com/opinion/besen/besen.htm


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 26, 2007, 11:07:45 AM
Quote
The Center for Reclaiming America for Christ
CRAC?  There's Christian right organization called Crack?  That's a little obvious isn't it?

"They're aware they have an acronym problem."

- Zadie Smith


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 03:13:18 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz5T1EEo8ws

If you haven't seen this, you really should take a look.  funny as the dickens.


Title: Re: Laws of Karma
Post by: incadove0 on May 27, 2007, 01:13:49 AM
I’ve never seen a death so mocked by America.  The man who had the most to say about who gets to go to heaven is certainly seeing his comeuppance on earth. 

What goes around comes around.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 27, 2007, 07:21:35 AM
I get a sense of relief, that America is glad he is out of the picture. Somewhat like the capture and death of Saddam Hussein. It would be hard to make a clear case that he advanced the cause of Christianity in any lasting way, and it seems like there is a lot of relief that he is no longer an issue in politics. So it is with those who label their opposition "evil" and advocate hate mongering. On the day of his funeral, local tv showed some from his congregation expressing thoughts that he had been a "good pastor", but considering the size of the church and my own understanding of what a "good pastor" should be, I do not see that as a likelihood. I suspect that his sermons were on the line of what his congregation wanted to hear, or what he wanted them to hear and they acquesced. I understand his son, Jerry Jr. is taking over the administration of the church and college, and the news said that he was a capable administrator. Nothing of his family, outside his own children, was shown on the news. I have been told that he was in disrepute with his sibling over the parents' estate.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 27, 2007, 11:28:15 AM
On the day of his funeral, local tv showed some from his congregation expressing thoughts that he had been a "good pastor", but considering the size of the church and my own understanding of what a "good pastor" should be, I do not see that as a likelihood.

That's probably the most intelligent comment I've seen about mega-churches.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 27, 2007, 02:37:34 PM
On the day of his funeral, local tv showed some from his congregation expressing thoughts that he had been a "good pastor", but considering the size of the church and my own understanding of what a "good pastor" should be, I do not see that as a likelihood.

That's probably the most intelligent comment I've seen about mega-churches.

I liked Christopher Hitchens take on Falwell.  Falwell was a charlaton, a snake oil salesmen.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 27, 2007, 02:40:36 PM
Samiinh....Not just related to Falwell.  Seems to me that this would be a problem in mega-churches in general.  How does one effectively "Pastor" a mega-church?  Anne/Weezo made a great point there and I don't think I've ever heard it put quite so succinctly.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on May 27, 2007, 05:18:10 PM
Lhoffman, Hi!  I've got to admit that although I didn't think that I'd like Christopher Hitchens take, after reviews of his book were rather piece-meal, when I actually saw the interviews on You-tube, from several places on the news' channels, I got with it and respected Hitchens 100% more than I had before Falwell dropped dead.

Megachurches, of which we have about five like a gigantic five-pointed star in my locale(which kind of gives you the creeps) are considered forts,starting with the suggestion of Onward Christian Soldiers, but they are actually run by various politicians who become members of these non-denominational congregations.  The congregation is happy to have such a famous guy as a member of their church, they all drive SUVs or mega automobile styles with a preference for red and the parking lot is as crowded as the shopping mall at Valley Forge- King of Prussia, and that puts the famous guy whether at the local state capital in the state legislature, or a senator or congressman in Washington,D.C., or a smaller official of municipal  or county administration who is a party member, in a profound position to lead campaign funding for the party from the passing of the collection plate or basket. A megachurch has thousands of members.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on May 27, 2007, 07:51:37 PM
Mega-cars for mega-churchgoers.  Pile on if you wish, but I'd say those particular churchgoers practice dominion of the earth rather then stewardship. 

These things seems to me to be nothing more than Pentecostal parodies. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 06:50:53 AM
They do like to do things up big.  One Christmas I attended a mega-church in Scottsdale, Az., for it's Christmas pagent.  They not only had angels flying from the ceiling, they had live camels and I think even an elephant on stage.  I don't remember what the parking lot looked like.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 28, 2007, 11:00:38 AM
Quote
I think even an elephant
You think?  Man those must have been some crappy seats.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 28, 2007, 02:57:51 PM
I was 20 odd years ago, and I just can't remember.  So fire me.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: prairiepop on May 28, 2007, 10:59:26 PM
Gee, I didn't know Falwell was Polish!!!  Check this one out, pilgrims...hot off the press:

WARSAW (AFP) - Poland's child rights ombudsman said on Monday she was investigating whether "The Teletubbies," the British television show for infants, promotes homosexuality.

"It would be good for a group of psychologists to talk to children about this. We need to examine this. If inappropriate attitudes have been promoted, we need to react," said Ewa Sowinska.

In an interview with the weekly news magazine Wprost, Sowinska said the character Tinky Winky was in the spotlight.

The plump purple creature is considered male due to his relative height, but carries a handbag.

"I have heard that this could be a hidden homosexual insinuation," said Sowinska.

---------------------YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP, RIGHT?----------------------------



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 28, 2007, 11:36:11 PM
Tinky's got a deep voice as well.

So, what IS with the handbag?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 12:58:49 AM
I guess since a generation of Americans are growing up gay because of the teletubbies, our nation shall be resorting more to alternative reproductive methods. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 01:11:03 AM
Tinky's got a deep voice as well.

So, what IS with the handbag?


Perhaps it is a subliminal plot by Coach, Chanel, Chloe, Louis Vuitton, or Kara Ross to sell fashions to men when they get older.  Advertisers are on all the television stations these days, even PBS.

And don't think they don't know what they are doing.

They plan far ahead.

Double the sales.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 01:13:40 AM
You didn't think those space suits are coincidental, did you?



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 01:34:27 AM
After all, did you ever think women would be carrying attaches?

Eh-oh!

Look what's coming down the run way!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 02:16:00 AM
But children will say it is a bag.

Little Vuitton fools that they are.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 29, 2007, 02:38:36 AM
Anything to get in the news!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Dzimas on May 29, 2007, 03:04:30 AM
Prairiepop, I noticed that headline as well.  Wasn't it Falwell who first questioned Tinky Winky's sexuality?  Ever since the Kaczynski twins came to power, it has been one regressive action after another, since both claim to be such devout Catholics.  I'm afraid this religious awakening is sweeping through Eastern Europe.  The Gay Pride rallies have met with fierce and often nasty protests, and it seems like folks like Kaczynski will seize almost anything to make into a platform for their moral superiority.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on May 29, 2007, 06:00:23 AM
I suppose anyone investigating with a predisposition to the notion that Tinky Winky was gay, may lead children on any questions on the subject.

But sometimes, as Freud once said, "A cigar is just a cigar."

And I think that is what this story is about.  "It's a bag."  And sometimes things get put in the bag, even the scooter, though that then gets too heavy to pick up.  But oh look, here come Tinky Winky's friends looking for their things, so he can take the ball, the hat, and the scooter out of the bag and give their items back to them.

If people have bigotry, fear, or hate, they will look for reasons, and in this complex tapestry of life we live in, they will surely find the information they need to create the patterns they were already convinced were there.

Fortunately, IME, it seems most parents disregard this silliness and continue to allow their children to watch and enjoy one of their favorite t.v. shows.  That parent community appears pretty diverse too, including those from various religious faiths.  They have more confidence in the rightness of their children's choices and development, and Jerry Falwell is but a passing note of bemusement.   


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 06:00:57 AM
I often wondered how much money Falwell had invested in the Tinky Winky production company.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Dzimas on May 29, 2007, 06:43:01 AM
Falwell struck me as a completely disingenuous fellow.  Like so many tele-evangelists he saw the power in the media and milked it for all it was worth.  The guy could say the most outrageous things knowing that just generated more interest in his religious shows, even from the left who would tune just to see what this crazy kook had to say.  Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern had nothing over Jerry Falwell, who rose to the height of being Reagan's "religious advisor."


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 29, 2007, 06:45:50 AM
Where's the Reverand Al Sharpton while his people slaughter each other on the streets of Newark, protected by a hip-hop culture that demands "no snitching" and protects a criminal class? Where's Jesse Jackson?


Too busy shaking down white folks for more money, instead of ministering to their own?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/nyregion/27precinct.html?pagewanted=1


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 29, 2007, 10:29:42 AM
I suspect that there are plenty of black dollars also in the coffers of Al Sharpton as well as white dollars. Just as I suspect there were a fair number of black dollars as well as white dollars the Falwell's coffers. For all we know, there were Jewish dollars and gay dollars donated to Falwell to keep issues stirred up and in the news.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 01:54:16 PM
I suspect that there are plenty of black dollars also in the coffers of Al Sharpton as well as white dollars. Just as I suspect there were a fair number of black dollars as well as white dollars the Falwell's coffers. For all we know, there were Jewish dollars and gay dollars donated to Falwell to keep issues stirred up and in the news.

Maybe from Log Cabin Republicans.


Title: Creation Museum
Post by: Dzimas on May 30, 2007, 07:55:33 AM
You knew it had to come sometime:

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

I'm just not sure how they can Biblically explain dinosaurs living along side Adam and Eve.  I don't remember reading anything about dinosaurs in Genesis.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on May 30, 2007, 01:31:15 PM
They don't have to explain anything. It's all a matter of faith. Kids like dinosaurs. Parents spend money at amusement parks that kids like. So, the dinosaurs had to be there, or the kids wouldn't come. Simple economics, donchaknow!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on May 30, 2007, 01:40:39 PM
Needless to say I just sent that link to somebody that I know is desperately looking for a vacation this summer.

Far be it for me to ever question anybody's faith or beliefs, but that place looks really, really creepy.


Title: Re: Creation Museum
Post by: Chakotay on May 30, 2007, 02:33:09 PM
Can you imagine trying to load those huge dinosaurs into "Noah's Ark"? (For those believe in that fairy tale, of course.)  :D

You knew it had to come sometime:

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

I'm just not sure how they can Biblically explain dinosaurs living along side Adam and Eve.  I don't remember reading anything about dinosaurs in Genesis.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 30, 2007, 02:39:47 PM
Quote
Over 4,000 people came through the doors of the Creation Museum on the first day the one-of-a-kind facility was open to the public. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, “The museum opened at 10 a.m. with about 500 people in line and with license plates from 31 states and two Canadian provinces.
Well thank God they weren't all from Ohio.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on May 30, 2007, 03:17:15 PM
It's amazing how sure they are of themselves.

Reactions:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/the_creation_museum.php

From the liberal NY Times:

http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html

LA Times got it:

The museum, a 60,000-square-foot menace to 21st century scientific advancement, is the handiwork of Answers in Genesis, a leader in the "young Earth" movement. Young Earthers believe the world is about 6,000 years old, as opposed to the 4.5 billion years estimated by the world's credible scientific community. This would be risible if anti-evolution forces were confined to a lunatic fringe, but they are not. Witness the recent revelation that three of the Republican candidates for president do not believe in evolution. Three men seeking to lead the last superpower on Earth reject the scientific consensus on cosmology, thermonuclear dynamics, geology and biology, believing instead that Bamm-Bamm and Dino played together.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-round24may24,1,4208428.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true

Yabba-Dabba-DOOOOOO!


Title: Re: Creation Museum
Post by: madupont on May 31, 2007, 12:44:36 PM
You knew it had to come sometime:

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

I'm just not sure how they can Biblically explain dinosaurs living along side Adam and Eve.  I don't remember reading anything about dinosaurs in Genesis.

I'll go along with Spielberg on this one. Much easier that way. I mean, I think he really hit upon something in this one, indicating a primal fear despite the dates being off to validate creative genius.


Title: Re: Creation Museum
Post by: Chakotay on May 31, 2007, 06:56:25 PM
If our ancestors had had to live alongside T. Rex and other carnivores, we most likely wouldn't be here. We did well to outrun the saber-toothed cat. T. Rex would have munched up Adam & Eve for lunch and then gone looking a real meal.  :D

You knew it had to come sometime:

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

I'm just not sure how they can Biblically explain dinosaurs living along side Adam and Eve.  I don't remember reading anything about dinosaurs in Genesis.

I'll go along with Spielberg on this one. Much easier that way. I mean, I think he really hit upon something in this one, indicating a primal fear despite the dates being off to validate creative genius.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on June 01, 2007, 10:09:29 AM
Some photos here:

http://www.demossnewspond.com/bgea/library/photos/index.htm


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 01, 2007, 06:04:39 PM
Mental illness is alive and well in the USA and the GOP.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thanatopsy on June 02, 2007, 08:59:18 AM
Falwell  in Hot Haven:

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/Image/070516beelertoon.jpg


I guess his fall wasn't so well ...


Title: Creation Museum
Post by: Dzimas on June 04, 2007, 09:38:36 AM
Chakotay, as I heard on BBC, the animals were all vegetarians until Eve took of the apple and the concept of sin was introduced.  I guess T. Rex didn't survive God's wrath.  The whole thing would be funny if nearly 50% of Americans didn't still hold onto the creation myth,

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm

So, it seems this damned museum will give further creedence to such myths.


Title: Flock of Dodos
Post by: Dzimas on June 04, 2007, 09:43:05 AM
I'm glad Flock of Dodos will soon be released on DVD,

http://www.flockofdodos.com/


Title: Recasting the ark
Post by: Dzimas on June 04, 2007, 09:50:13 AM
I found the previews to Evan Almighty to be quite funny,

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/evanalmighty/

But, it seems Greenpeace has a purpose behind such follies,

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/06/01/ark-greenpeace.html?ref=rss


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: luee on June 04, 2007, 03:29:28 PM
The problem is some believe that man evolved until about the 7th century when he reached highest perfection, becoming either a warrior leader or a martyr drone. In the case of the females a mindless exploited nonentity hidden on the moon as a reward for the males who sacrifice. Talking about the Mohos living in an obscure island off south africa. I guess that is what religion is about, stopping the time machine. The perfect being model
in the first or 7th centuries is going to be different from the being of the 21st century and beyond.

Than you have the Critnans who stopped the clock with a very likable and generous philosopher who spoke in riddles. He bacame the original Idol after being so nice while he was being tortured to death.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 06:25:15 AM
The problem is some believe that man evolved until about the 7th century when he reached highest perfection, becoming either a warrior leader or a martyr drone. In the case of the females a mindless exploited nonentity hidden on the moon as a reward for the males who sacrifice. Talking about the Mohos living in an obscure island off south africa. I guess that is what religion is about, stopping the time machine. The perfect being model
in the first or 7th centuries is going to be different from the being of the 21st century and beyond.

Than you have the Critnans who stopped the clock with a very likable and generous philosopher who spoke in riddles. He bacame the original Idol after being so nice while he was being tortured to death.

Not being a student of "generous philosophers" who spoke in riddles, perhaps you or someone could be more specific.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 10:15:18 AM
I do believe the "generous philosopher" was Jesus Christ, who did indeed teach with parables (riddles). To some non-christian religions, he was an interesting prophet. It was only the christians who took his claims to be a child of god to mean that he was god himself.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 12:26:54 PM
I see.  Well, I don't believe the man/god ever existed.  There is no evidence that he did.  IMHO, it is all one great hoax.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 12:43:23 PM
Quote
There is no evidence that he did.
There is plenty of evidence that he existed.  You may doubt its veracity, but there is plenty of evidence.   Don't confuse the two concepts.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 12:49:52 PM
I'm talking about historical evidence, not contrived evidence.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 12:52:38 PM
The problem with the whole man/god concept is that it is difficult to separate the two.  But there is no doubt about the existance of the historical Jesus.  Two very early secular historians....Flavius Josephus and Publius Florus.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Chakotay on June 05, 2007, 12:53:45 PM
Are you referring to Jesus of Nazareth? There is evidence that he existed--a reference in the history written by Josephus--but no real evidence about his theological status. Considering that the books of the New Testament weren't written until 30-60 years or more after Jesus died, I feel that a lot of "interpretation" was included in them. Unless Josephus was lying, however, Jesus did exist and was executed by the Romans. 

I see.  Well, I don't believe the man/god ever existed.  There is no evidence that he did.  IMHO, it is all one great hoax.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 01:00:44 PM
I'm talking about historical evidence, not contrived evidence.
So am I.  The type of evidence normally relied upon by historians.  Which is why the vast majority of historians - not merely Christians - accept the existence of Jesus.  The gospels and epistles themselves are the type of "evidence" of the sort historians examine to learn about that period of history.  As are the writings of Flavius Joseph - although one passage is considered doubtful, Jesus is mentioned in a problematic (for Catholics) passage that is not considered doubtful.  Thallus, who probably wrote in the latter part of the first century, wrote of him.  Pliny the Elder, the first century roman historian, mentions that Christians worshipped him.  Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) mentions him.  This is a second century document based upon oral history.  Are thes ethings open to question?  Sure they are.  But they are "evidence."


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:04:05 PM
I thought Flavius Josephus was born after Jesus was believed to have been crucified and didn't write Antiquities until long thereafter



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 01:07:17 PM
There are no roman records; Nazareth was a graveyard at the time he was supposedly born; there were many gospels, and there were many other groups who had a jesus in their mythology.  Hand written transcription were open to forgery and there was plenty of that.  Agendas needed to be fulfilled.  I do not see any evidence that the Jesus that christians worship ever existed. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 01:08:01 PM
I thought Flavius Josephus was born after Jesus was believed to have been crucified and didn't write Antiquities until long thereafter


Sure.  But that does not mean that it is not historical evidence.  Historians have long relied on writings which reflect earlier oral histories.  Josephus's life span is generally thought to be 37 - 100.  


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 01:08:13 PM
I think Josephus and Florus  wrote around 100AD.  Thallus is earlier, but his dates are all over the place.  


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:08:47 PM
Pliny the Elder, the first century roman historian, mentions that Christians worshipped him.

That's not true, it was Pliny the Younger that did so -- and he was born decades after Jesus


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 01:10:21 PM
Quote
I do not see any evidence that the Jesus that christians worship ever existed.  
Well, yes, because you do not want to believe he existed - it makes it easier for you if the whole thing is a myth - and as a result are confusing issues of veracity - i.e., are there problems with the credibility of the evidence - with the existence of evidence.  Just because you can question the evidence does not mean that it is not evidence.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 01:10:40 PM
Pliny the Elder, the first century roman historian, mentions that Christians worshipped him.

That's not true, it was Pliny the Younger that did so -- and he was born decades after Jesus
Yes, sorry.  My mistake.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 01:16:09 PM
 Josephus's life span is generally thought to be 37 - 100.  
[/quote]

Josephus must have been a bit later than 100.  His histories include an exchange of letters between Trajan and Pliny concerning the persecution and execution of Christians that took place in 112.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 01:18:09 PM
 Josephus's life span is generally thought to be 37 - 100.  


Josephus must have been a bit later than 100.  His histories include an exchange of letters between Trajan and Pliny concerning the persecution and execution of Christians that took place in 112.
Well, wikipedia lists his date of death as "sometime after" 100.  I went with the earlier date as a caution.  He was alive at the time of the sack of Jerusalem in 70.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 01:19:58 PM
As far as the reliability of Josephus, it's very likely we undervalue oral tradition in our culture. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:20:03 PM
Personally, I think that early Christians borrowed quite a lot of the story from Mithaism as well as the Old Testament. 

Whether Jesus was a historical figure or not, does it really matter?

I personally don't think the man is what is the important part - its the message.




Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:23:11 PM
Beyond which, when a billion or two have taken that leap of faith, what is really the purpose in trying to discount the historicity of Jesus? 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 01:25:16 PM
Personally, I think that early Christians borrowed quite a lot of the story from Mithaism as well as the Old Testament. 

Whether Jesus was a historical figure or not, does it really matter?

I personally don't think the man is what is the important part - its the message.




How can you have a personal relationship with someone who never existed?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 01:26:16 PM
Beyond which, when a billion or two have taken that leap of faith, what is really the purpose in trying to discount the historicity of Jesus? 
Well, denying that Jesus even existed makes it easier for those who have not leaped, no?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 01:27:47 PM
Liquid...That's one of the difficulties of religion....the recycling of mythologies.  I'm not very familiar with Mithraism, but other than the idea that Mithra was (is?) a (the?) mediator between man and god, what are the other similarities?  


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 01:28:31 PM
Beyond which, when a billion or two have taken that leap of faith, what is really the purpose in trying to discount the historicity of Jesus? 

A lot of people need a lot of snake oil.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 01:29:47 PM
Samiinh...if you don't believe that Jesus was God, why does it matter whether he existed as man?   


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 01:31:10 PM
Liquid...That's one of the difficulties of religion....the recycling of mythologies.  I'm not very familiar with Mithraism, but other than the idea that Mithra was (is?) a (the?) mediator between man and god, what are the other similarities?  
You're one up on me.  I thought Mithra lost to Godzilla, but was revenged by his (her) caterpillar offspring.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:32:30 PM
Liquid...That's one of the difficulties of religion....the recycling of myths.  I'm not very familiar with Mithraism, but other than the idea that Mithra was (is?) a (the?) mediator between man and god, what are the other similarities? 

  • Mithras was born from a virgin on December 25
  • Visited by shepherds and Magi
  • Performed miracles
  • He had twelve companions
  • Practiced the rite of baptism
  • He died for man's sins and was resurrected the following Sunday


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 01:33:06 PM
Samiinh...if you don't believe that Jesus was God, why does it matter whether he existed as man?   
For a lot of people, it is not enough that they believe what they believe, those who disagree have to not merely believe differently, but be stupid.  Hence, the snake oil crap.  Makes them more secure in their beliefs.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 01:33:56 PM
Samiinh...if you don't believe that Jesus was God, why does it matter whether he existed as man?   

Because I believe religion to be the cause of horrendous evil and death.  I do not believe there is a god either.  The evil will not dissipate until there is a death to religion as we know it.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 01:35:30 PM
Mithra...Godzilla...LOL...I could watch those for hours.  Old, new, doesn't matter one whit.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:36:28 PM
Samiinh...if you don't believe that Jesus was God, why does it matter whether he existed as man?   

Because I believe religion to be the cause of horrendous evil and death.  I do not believe there is a god either.  The evil will not dissipate until there is a death to religion as we know it.

Interesting that you employ the concept of evil as you try to dispute religion and God


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 01:39:02 PM
Samiinh...if you don't believe that Jesus was God, why does it matter whether he existed as man?   

Because I believe religion to be the cause of horrendous evil and death.  I do not believe there is a god either.  The evil will not dissipate until there is a death to religion as we know it.

Interesting that you employ the concept of evil as you try to dispute religion and God

There is plenty of evil in this world as we see each day in Iraq and Washington and elsewhere.  Organized religions are responsible for much of this evil, IMHO, beginning with the Church of Rome.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 01:40:52 PM
Mithra...Godzilla...LOL...I could watch those for hours.  Old, new, doesn't matter one whit.
I always liked those two midget Japanese women, whose size would vary depending on what they were superimposed over, like the animals in Mark Trail.

Anyway, many of the elements in Mithra that coincide with the Christian beliefs are also set out in the Old Testament prophesies, and there is some evidence that those elements were not in the original Zoroastrian concept of Mithra but added later, perhaps as late as the post-Christian era.

I think, though, that it is pretty well established that December 25 was established as the date to celebrate Christ's birth primarily because it was also a Roman Holiday (Audrey!) and Christians could celebrate it without the risk of becoming Neroian torches.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 01:41:15 PM
Samiinh...No denying that much evil has been committed in the name of religion.  But denying a historical fact because it makes one uncomfortable doesn't serve the cause.  Now if you disbelieve that Jesus was God, or that there is  such being as God, that's a whole 'nother thing.  In the way of  proof, one speculation is as good as the next....that whole faith thing....

As far as the death of religion, man has always looked for answers outside of self.  Whenever one religion dies away, another rises in its place.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:43:33 PM
Quote
I think, though, that it is pretty well established that December 25 was established as the date to celebrate Christ's birth primarily because it was also a Roman Holiday (Audrey!) and Christians could celebrate it without the risk of becoming Neroian torches.

I believe that Constantine was a originally a follower of Mithra prior to declaring December 25th the official birthday of Jesus and Christianity as the state religion



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:45:47 PM
There is plenty of evil in this world as we see each day in Iraq and Washington and elsewhere.  Organized religions are responsible for much of this evil, IMHO, beginning with the Church of Rome.

Beginning with the Church of Rome? 



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 01:49:32 PM
Whiskey....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgJIj2STVBs

Liquid...sounds like you have good sources on Mithra...care to share?

The argument that Christianity is hooey because it is based on previous mythologies has always interested me.  It could work both ways...either that the early Christians co-opted previous beliefs because they could use the sense of the familiar to draw in new believers, or that God, being all-knowing, etc, chose to use these familiar mythologies to further His own purpose.  



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:52:42 PM
Personally I believe that Man has an innate need to define, classify, and explain everything in his universe.  Religion is Man's way of explaining the unknown be it for the caveman to the GQ Man of the Year


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:57:31 PM
That all said, I don't pretend to know everything or even much of anything in regards to the world as it has been defined, classified, and explained by Man. But I do know that attacking all Faith is about as ridiculous and effectual as attacking one faith.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 05, 2007, 01:58:04 PM
Whiskey....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgJIj2STVBs

Liquid...sounds like you have good sources on Mithra...care to share?

The argument that Christianity is hooey because it is based on previous mythologies has always interested me.  It could work both ways...either that the early Christians co-opted previous beliefs because they could use the sense of the familiar to draw in new believers, or that God, being all-knowing, etc, chose to use these familiar mythologies to further His own purpose. 



Sure, but I'll have to dig 'em up for you later since I'm about to head into a meeting


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 02:05:53 PM
Quote
Because I believe religion to be the cause of horrendous evil and death.  I do not believe there is a god either.  The evil will not dissipate until there is a death to religion as we know it.
I would think that if the 20th Century has taught us anything it is that this Johnlennonesque stuff is crap.  Mankind does not need religion as an excuse to slaughter each other.  If there was no religion, we'd find some other reason for it.  How many tems of millions died in the atheist Soviet Union?  In atheist Maoist China?  The probelm is not religion, but people, and we sadly will never be rid of ourselves.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: lulu on June 05, 2007, 02:08:13 PM
Have more wars been fought in the name of religion than any other cause?

I think so and that's why Iraq is not winnable (despite the fact it was started on a lie and Hussain kept the peace); it's sectarian and those religious factions will never live together.  they will die killing each other until they are all gone, no matter how long we stay, including sixty years or more, according to Bush.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 02:14:14 PM
Lulu...substitute "testosterone" for "religion" and you might have something. 

Might we have a different world history regarding wars and the like if women had run the show?  Or might we have fought even more wars?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 02:18:22 PM
Well, you mean quantitatively more?  I don't know; there are a lot of little wars throughout history that are so hard to classify.  The territorial expansion of the Jews into the land of Canaan gets a religious gloss in their histories, but was it really religious in nature, or a territorial war later jsutified in oral histories?  I suppose it would depnd on how you define it, and I know that there are those who so hate religion that they will define any war as having religious roots, no matter how tenuous.  

Certainly, in earlier years, playing to religious sentiment was a necessity for most kings, and it continues to be a handy tool.  But there's always those mixed motives.  Were the 100 years wars between England and France in the name of religion?  I mean, just because Henry invoked his right under canon law to be king of France, was Agincourt a religious battle?  We are not in Iraq for religious reasons, per se, but we are getting shot at for religious reasons as well as non-religious ones.  Is that a war in the name of religion?  The most horrific wars we've fought as a nation - two world wars and a civil war - were not about religion.  Arguably, we have never fought a war "in the name of religion" but we have fought our share of wars nevertheless.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 02:18:58 PM
Lulu...substitute "testosterone" for "religion" and you might have something. 

Might we have a different world history regarding wars and the like if women had run the show?  Or might we have fought even more wars?
A new war every month....

I know, I know. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 05, 2007, 02:20:31 PM
A new war every month...yes yes...the thought occurred to me...and I'm female.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 02:21:45 PM
Well, I just feel really shitty that I thought of it.  Not that it stopped me from posting it, mind you.  But I did feel shitty about it.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on June 05, 2007, 02:45:17 PM
Give me bones and carbon 14.

Not really, we have evidence of the existence of many people on just the words of others.

Most of the Founding Fathers come to mind and they lived just 200+ or so years ago. Anyone dig those bones up recently?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 02:47:14 PM
It was 40 years ago today that the world experience the "Six Days War" that changed the middle east.  Another religious war; thousands have died.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 02:51:02 PM
It was 40 years ago today that the world experience the "Six Days War" that changed the middle east.  Another religious war; thousands have died.
Was it religious or territorial?  I think that calling it either is extremely simplistic.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 02:53:35 PM
It was 40 years ago today that the world experience the "Six Days War" that changed the middle east.  Another religious war; thousands have died.
Was it religious or territorial?  I think that calling it either is extremely simplistic.

I had just become a new father on the 1st of June that year, and my memory of this war is vague, but I believe Israel struck its Arab neighbors preemptively believing that she was about to be attacked by them.  Why were the Arabs going to attack Israel?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on June 05, 2007, 02:53:58 PM
Territorial wars often have religious beginnings.

I don't agree that all war is religious based, but war does bring out the ZEALOTS.

State and religion still do not mix.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 02:56:28 PM
It was 40 years ago today that the world experience the "Six Days War" that changed the middle east.  Another religious war; thousands have died.
Was it religious or territorial?  I think that calling it either is extremely simplistic.

I had just become a new father on the 1st of June that year, and my memory of this war is vague, but I believe Israel struck its Arab neighbors preemptively believing that she was about to be attacked by them.  Why were the Arabs going to attack Israel?
Because they believed land belonging to them was being occupied by Israel, who believed the Egyptians were occupying their territory.  Egypt and Israel almost fought a war over the Sanai ten years earlier.  And, of course, the whole thing has that overlay of the religious differences, just as there are often religous and ethnic differences that get inflamed in most wars.  There are so rarely fought wars with A cause.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 02:59:14 PM
It was 40 years ago today that the world experience the "Six Days War" that changed the middle east.  Another religious war; thousands have died.
Was it religious or territorial?  I think that calling it either is extremely simplistic.

I had just become a new father on the 1st of June that year, and my memory of this war is vague, but I believe Israel struck its Arab neighbors preemptively believing that she was about to be attacked by them.  Why were the Arabs going to attack Israel?
Because they believed land belonging to them was being occupied by Israel, who believed the Egyptians were occupying their territory.  Egypt and Israel almost fought a war over the Sanai ten years earlier.  And, of course, the whole thing has that overlay of the religious differences, just as there are often religous and ethnic differences that get inflamed in most wars.  There are so rarely fought wars with A cause.

Was not the attack of 9-11 based on a religious idealogy?  Indeed, yes.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 03:06:43 PM
It was 40 years ago today that the world experience the "Six Days War" that changed the middle east.  Another religious war; thousands have died.
Was it religious or territorial?  I think that calling it either is extremely simplistic.

I had just become a new father on the 1st of June that year, and my memory of this war is vague, but I believe Israel struck its Arab neighbors preemptively believing that she was about to be attacked by them.  Why were the Arabs going to attack Israel?
Because they believed land belonging to them was being occupied by Israel, who believed the Egyptians were occupying their territory.  Egypt and Israel almost fought a war over the Sanai ten years earlier.  And, of course, the whole thing has that overlay of the religious differences, just as there are often religous and ethnic differences that get inflamed in most wars.  There are so rarely fought wars with A cause.

Was not the attack of 9-11 based on a religious idealogy?  Indeed, yes.
Well, there is at least a religious patina over the issues that gave rise to the attack.  Support of Israel, presence of American bases in Saudi Arabia, support for secular Arab governments, cultural clashes, American hegemony....  And a good dose of good, old fashioned, religious hate.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 03:17:41 PM

[/quote]Well, there is at least a religious patina over the issues that gave rise to the attack.  Support of Israel, presence of American bases in Saudi Arabia, support for secular Arab governments, cultural clashes, American hegemony....  And a good dose of good, old fashioned, religious hate.
[/quote]

I agree with you 100%.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 03:24:57 PM
Whiskey,

Some of the Native Americans tribes and nations had women as chiefs and councilmembers, yet the men still succeeded in finding reasons for the warriers to strut their stuff.

For those who've worked in schools and broken up fights. How often was it easier to break up a fight between boys than girls? I stepped between boys, knowing they would not strike me, while waiting for the male teachers to arrive and take the boys in hand. But, I wouldn't dare step between to girls fighting and expect to get out unscathed. When girls fight, they tend to be somewhat more viscous than boys, or at least that's been my observation.

Whiskey, that monthly war comment was a low blow. But funny! Give you a point for the humor, and take away a point for the badness - sum zero.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 03:38:55 PM
True or false:

Hillary Clinton will not be a wartime president.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 03:46:24 PM
I think the question is more how long it will take her to end the war she inherits.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 04:03:48 PM
True or false?

Disregard Iraq.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 04:07:30 PM
That depends on whether Bush invades Iran.

I suspect also we will still have troops in Afghanistan.  And of course, while the "War on Terror" is a trope, that will still be going on into the forseeable future.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 04:08:17 PM
True or false:

Hillary Clinton will not be a wartime president.

True. She will not be president of any kind, in my opinion.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 04:17:23 PM
That depends on whether Bush invades Iran.

I suspect also we will still have troops in Afghanistan.  And of course, while the "War on Terror" is a trope, that will still be going on into the forseeable future.

Another evader

Fact is WE DON'T FUCKIN KNOW.

Any candidate can run an anti-war campaign (even after voting for it - hey, this IS America).  What happens after taking office will often show NOT a blatant disregard for the stance taken while campaigning, but SIMPLE SHOCKING REALITY.

A 'peaceful' prez goes to war (HERS - not George's).  YEP.  Happens, folks. 

But keep viewing GWB as a prez hellbent on being at war - go right ahead and moke yourself all up.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 04:24:59 PM
Any candidate can run an anti-war campaign (even after voting for it - hey, this IS America).  What happens after taking office will often show NOT a blatant disregard for the stance taken while campaigning, but SIMPLE SHOCKING REALITY.

I think the "shocking reality" of the last 7 years has been that many Americans thought George Bush might somehow become Presidential---something he never did, and something we are all paying for--so I agree that "reality" can be much different in the actual presidency vs the campaign.

Then again, what's your point?

That Hillary doesn't have to run a campaign based on seeeking an end to the Iraq war in order to secure the Dem's nomination?

That it's easy for her to say she's against the war, but once in the driver's seat she'll see that it is all necessary?

Help un-moke that for us, if you will.


 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 04:28:28 PM
The latter.

The former's just sad commentary.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 04:30:10 PM
Change "it is all" to "it may be"...



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 05, 2007, 04:30:55 PM
I don't suppose it matters that Hilary supported the war but thinks that it has been hideouosly mismanaged and her current stand that we should get out is based on the extent to which the Bushies screwed it up.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 04:51:45 PM
Naw, Whiskey,

That would be too much reality and take too much thought on his part.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 05:02:52 PM
I don't suppose it matters that Hilary supported the war but thinks that it has been hideouosly mismanaged and her current stand that we should get out is based on the extent to which the Bushies screwed it up.

Hillary didn't/doesn't support the war.  Says she was duped.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 05:05:17 PM
As if going to war due to current intelligence, some of which turns out to be untrue is something she could never do.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on June 05, 2007, 05:15:01 PM
Kid,

I think Hillary has enough smarts, and should by now with what has happened, not to take "current intelligence" at face value. Further, there is mounting evidence that Bush, at least, know the "intelligence" was shaky at best, but it was what he wanted to push forward with his agenda.

Remind of the old Peter Pan movie of my youth, that when Twink was dying, the narrator said that it was only if all children truly believed in fairies that she would recover, and there we sat in front of the tv, screaming "I believe" as loud as we could to the nevertheless unhearing television set. Those were the days!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 05:34:48 PM
I don't think Hillary will be a war president  because I don't think Hillary will be president.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 05, 2007, 05:42:25 PM
Kid,

I think Hillary has enough smarts, and should by now with what has happened, not to take "current intelligence" at face value. Further, there is mounting evidence that Bush, at least, know the "intelligence" was shaky at best, but it was what he wanted to push forward with his agenda.

Remind of the old Peter Pan movie of my youth, that when Twink was dying, the narrator said that it was only if all children truly believed in fairies that she would recover, and there we sat in front of the tv, screaming "I believe" as loud as we could to the nevertheless unhearing television set. Those were the days!

Total bullcrap


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 05, 2007, 06:50:18 PM
Kid,

I think Hillary has enough smarts, and should by now with what has happened, not to take "current intelligence" at face value. Further, there is mounting evidence that Bush, at least, know the "intelligence" was shaky at best, but it was what he wanted to push forward with his agenda.

Remind of the old Peter Pan movie of my youth, that when Twink was dying, the narrator said that it was only if all children truly believed in fairies that she would recover, and there we sat in front of the tv, screaming "I believe" as loud as we could to the nevertheless unhearing television set. Those were the days!

Total bullcrap

LOL.  I am just see kid screaming, "I believe, I believe".  I'm sure he used to do that in church too.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 05, 2007, 10:45:28 PM
Change "it is all" to "it may be"...



well, that's a legitimate concern. Kind of like when Bush was held up for having no Foreign Policy experience when he ran for President. And we know how well that turned out.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 06:05:12 AM
Jerry Falwell would have been happy to the repuke candidate debates last night.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 06, 2007, 08:40:04 AM
Whiskey....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgJIj2STVBs

Liquid...sounds like you have good sources on Mithra...care to share?

The argument that Christianity is hooey because it is based on previous mythologies has always interested me.  It could work both ways...either that the early Christians co-opted previous beliefs because they could use the sense of the familiar to draw in new believers, or that God, being all-knowing, etc, chose to use these familiar mythologies to further His own purpose. 



http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/mithraism_and_christianity_i.htm


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 06, 2007, 12:52:12 PM
Liquid...thank you.  Looks quite interesting.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 06, 2007, 03:55:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJC2ptcJxD4&mode=user&search=


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 04:45:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJC2ptcJxD4&mode=user&search=

Absolutely nuts.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 06, 2007, 04:48:11 PM
You mean Blitzer, right?

6 days

LOL


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 05:15:54 PM
You mean Blitzer, right?

6 days

LOL

All of them.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 06, 2007, 05:46:33 PM
Not really, we have evidence of the existence of many people on just the words of others.

1 John 1:1-4

What Was Heard, Seen, and Touched

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.  And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 05:56:12 PM
Not really, we have evidence of the existence of many people on just the words of others.

1 John 1:1-4

What Was Heard, Seen, and Touched

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.  And these things we write to you that your joy may be full.

Proves nothing.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 06, 2007, 06:49:49 PM
Thinking Plague...there's something a bit off in using the Bible to prove the authenticity of the Bible.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 06, 2007, 08:42:50 PM
Thinking Plague...there's something a bit off in using the Bible to prove the authenticity of the Bible.


Lhoffman

Prove?

I think share would a better word.

And why do that?

For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
      And do not return there,
      But water the earth,
      And make it bring forth and bud,
      That it may give seed to the sower
      And bread to the eater,
      So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
      It shall not return to Me void,
      But it shall accomplish what I please,
      And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
- Isaiah 55:10-11



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 06, 2007, 08:54:25 PM
Ancient words from tribal poets.  Proves nothing.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 07, 2007, 10:20:35 PM
Thinking Plague...there's something a bit off in using the Bible to prove the authenticity of the Bible.


Lhoffman

Prove?

I think share would a better word.

And why do that?

For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
      And do not return there,
      But water the earth,
      And make it bring forth and bud,
      That it may give seed to the sower
      And bread to the eater,
      So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
      It shall not return to Me void,
      But it shall accomplish what I please,
      And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.
- Isaiah 55:10-11



So, do you believe in free will or God's will?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 07, 2007, 10:36:19 PM
Utley....I don't think one can believe in both.  If man has free will, then God cannot be omniscient.  If God is omniscient, he knows what man's choice will be and man is not free to make any other choice than the one God knows he has made.  If God is omniscient, the best man can have is the illusion of free will.

The other side of the coin is that if God gave man free will, then God is not free to work in the world He created. 

This is the very argument that got Spinoza in trouble.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 07, 2007, 11:05:01 PM
You're a moron


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 07, 2007, 11:16:26 PM
Well, Kidcarter...have you any thoughts on the matter?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 07, 2007, 11:25:40 PM
Yes - that your thinking that man's free will and God's will cannot coexist makes you a  moron.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 07, 2007, 11:35:33 PM
Kidcarter....since you seem to have worked this out, perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing your conclusions.  How can Free Will co-exist with God's will?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 07, 2007, 11:53:12 PM
Of course the other question that goes along with this:  If everything is pre-determined, how do we work out the problem of evil?  Morality?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 12:14:12 AM
"If everything is predeterminded........"

Good Lord, are you lost.

Have a nice weekend.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 12:38:12 AM
Kidcarter...

First, you may be intelligent (although evidence of this is sadly lacking in your posts), but even the most intelligent person has much to learn by asking questions and by giving careful consideration to the  history of faith and the viewpoints of others (Christian or non).  Have you ever studied the history of Christian thought?

Second, you may be a Christian (again, evidence of this is sadly lacking in your posts), but if you believe that you were created by God, your refusal to wrestle with difficult questions does a disservice to your maker.  What do you think is the meaning of the stories of the patriarchs?  Why did Abraham, who by the way is considered the Father of the Faith, laugh at God when told he would become a father?  Why did Jacob wrestle with the angel?  Do you think these are just entertaining little stories that the Jewish fathers thought we would find amusing?   Why did God give you a brain and the ability to think?  It would have been far easier to deal with sheep.  That you are afraid to ask questions says a lot more about your faith than about your God.

Third, clearly you have given no serious consideration to theological matters.  If you had, you would have had quite a bit more to bring to the discussion than name-calling.  No wonder people think Christians are uneducated yahoos.

Faith that is built on fear is worthless. 



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 07:46:28 AM
Thinking Plague...there's something a bit off in using the Bible to prove the authenticity of the Bible.
Well, no, not if you view the Bible as a source of oral history - as opposed to a source of divine wisdom.  In that context, the New Testemant are pretty much precisely the type of information historians of that era would expect to find and rely upon: if not first hand accounts, written representations of oral traditions and history passed down to a close generation.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 08:20:12 AM
Thinking Plague...there's something a bit off in using the Bible to prove the authenticity of the Bible.
Well, no, not if you view the Bible as a source of oral history - as opposed to a source of divine wisdom.  In that context, the New Testemant are pretty much precisely the type of information historians of that era would expect to find and rely upon: if not first hand accounts, written representations of oral traditions and history passed down to a close generation.

There were a number of gospels written following the supposed life of Jesus.  How come the four that are in the New Testament were favored over the others?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 08:45:26 AM
Thinking Plague...there's something a bit off in using the Bible to prove the authenticity of the Bible.
Well, no, not if you view the Bible as a source of oral history - as opposed to a source of divine wisdom.  In that context, the New Testemant are pretty much precisely the type of information historians of that era would expect to find and rely upon: if not first hand accounts, written representations of oral traditions and history passed down to a close generation.

There were a number of gospels written following the supposed life of Jesus.  How come the four that are in the New Testament were favored over the others?
Lots of reasons, including some involving historical accuracy.  Others involving the consistency of vision and story.  Others involving politics.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on June 08, 2007, 09:31:41 AM
Kidcarter....since you seem to have worked this out, perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing your conclusions.  How can Free Will co-exist with God's will?

Didn't you get the memo?

Everyone else is required to put up their beliefs here, not the kid-O.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 09:40:38 AM
Whiskey...I agree that the Bible has been used as a source of oral tradition, but usually the word "authority" in relation to the Bible is used to refer to the Divine and the idea that we ought to take its writings literally. 

Many people struggle with the contradictions found in the Bible.  And I'm always surprised that the people who take every word literally seem to struggle considerably less than those who see a variety of oral tradition and religious writing.  Is it an important document of the faith?  I think so, because it tells us about the nature of God and the history of his people.  Is it a literal history?  I can't believe so.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 09:41:51 AM
I'm a Christian

I stand with Governor Huckabee.  I don't feel the need to explain myself further.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 09:44:29 AM
I'm glad that's working for you Kid, and I would most respectfully suggest that the next time you feel the urge to call fellow posters moron or idiot...which you seem fond of doing...that you spend a few minutes in prayer about it.  I very much doubt that God has called you to behave in this manner.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 09:56:29 AM
Many people struggle with the contradictions found in the Bible.  
Well, oral histories tend to be like that.  Certainly, there is MORE there than an oral history.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 09:58:05 AM
That's a problem with history in general...many contradictions.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 09:59:37 AM
I'm glad that's working for you Kid, and I would most respectfully suggest that the next time you feel the urge to call fellow posters moron or idiot...which you seem fond of doing...that you spend a few minutes in prayer about it.  I very much doubt that God has called you to behave in this manner.

As I am sure you know, being a Christian is not about leading a perfect life.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 10:00:58 AM
Ah, Kid...I'm sure I know that better than anyone.   :(


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 10:01:30 AM
Which brings us back to the idea of Free Will     ;)


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 08, 2007, 10:04:13 AM
What I never understood is how you can take the Bible literally when it has been retranslated and retranscribed hundreds if not thousands of times over the course of two millennia. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 10:09:10 AM
Liquid...I think most denominations teach that the translators were divinely inspired. 

For me, the translations aren't such a problem, by the time the Old Testament was translated, the original Hebrew was pretty much untranslateable.  But I think the translators worked to give us the spirit of the word, rather than the letter. 

What troubles me more than the translation issues are the contradictory narratives about the nature of God and Justice.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 08, 2007, 10:12:04 AM
Liquid...I think most denominations teach that the translators were divinely inspired. 

For me, the translations aren't such a problem, by the time the Old Testament was translated, the original Hebrew was pretty much untranslateable.  But I think the translators worked to give us the spirit of the word, rather than the letter. 

What troubles me more than the translation issues are the contradictory narratives about the nature of God and Justice.

If there exist hundreds of versions of the Bible -- and each was divinely inspired -- which book is the right one to follow?  Passages differ greatly between versions. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 10:13:08 AM
The texts vary...but does the underlying idea? 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 08, 2007, 10:15:37 AM
Does the underlying idea really matter if you are trying to take passages as literally the divine inspiration of God?  The underlying idea requires Man to rationalize, no?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 10:17:29 AM
I think the story is more important than the words...but I'm not a literalist.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 08, 2007, 10:19:12 AM
Ah, Kid...I'm sure I know that better than anyone.   :(

You've come to the wrong place if looking for a feud

Cheers


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 10:20:56 AM
Ah, Kid...I'm sure I know that better than anyone.   :(

You've come to the wrong place if looking for a feud

Cheers

Not looking for a feud at all...simply agreeing whole-heartedly with you.  Sometimes it is easy to misread intent in posts.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 08, 2007, 10:21:17 AM
And that is my question, there are people that do take the Bible at its very word -- that every individual word was inspired by God and can quote the scripture at will - how can you take any document that has been translated thousands of times and currently exists in many different versions word by word?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 10:24:47 AM
Liquid...I don't understand that either.  It seems to me that a literalist approach would undermine faith rather than strengthen it. 





Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 08, 2007, 10:28:25 AM
Especially when you consider that when canonization was pretty much complete, numerous Gospels were excluded.  And that the most widely published and recognized Bible is the one that came about in the 17th century and that is almost entirely sourced from Tyndale's New Testament


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 10:32:20 AM
The interesting thing about Tynedale is that he revised his edition two or three times.

I've never quite gotten why he was seen as a heretic, it's doubtful any of his critics could read the Hebrew.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 10:53:49 AM
The interesting thing about Tynedale is that he revised his edition two or three times.

I've never quite gotten why he was seen as a heretic, it's doubtful any of his critics could read the Hebrew.
Well, it was the act of translating that got him torched, not the translation per se.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 10:55:22 AM
I'm impressed with the number of bible scholars we have here.  I'm not one, though one of my ancestors helped translate the bible into English, the King James English, from Latin in the early 1600s.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 08, 2007, 12:06:06 PM
So, do you believe in free will or God's will?

Both.

Scripture teaches both election and freewill, sometimes in the same verse.

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. - John 6:37


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 12:09:18 PM
I'm impressed with the number of bible scholars we have here.  I'm not one, though one of my ancestors helped translate the bible into English, the King James English, from Latin in the early 1600s.
Who?  Have you ever read God's Secretaries?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 12:53:31 PM
Whiskey, you seem well informed....of course, to have an ancestor who worked on the KJV translation is the epitome of cool.

This discussion has certainly piqued my interest in God's Secretaries.  I've looked at it in the bookstore a couple of times.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 08, 2007, 01:05:36 PM
God's Secretaries is interesting although sketchy.  But then, the documents that we have about the actual translation are few. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 08, 2007, 02:27:44 PM
Yes - that your thinking that man's free will and God's will cannot coexist makes you a  moron.

Did God tell you to say that?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 02:44:27 PM
So, do you believe in free will or God's will?

Both.

Scripture teaches both election and freewill, sometimes in the same verse.

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. - John 6:37

This would argue for election, or predetermination, but I don't see how it speaks to Free Will.  The verse has Jesus saying "will" come to me, rather than "may" come to me.  Seems a bit imperative. 

Verses like this one make me wish I could read Greek....someday.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 08, 2007, 02:49:52 PM
The purpose of reading "scripture" in my opinion is to reflect on its meaning for the individual.

The problem is that people want to reflect on its meaning for everyone else.

The Christian Bible is a rewriting of the Jewish one, anyway---with new chapters added. The "old testament" wasn't a testament, in the first place---that is a Christian overlay. The stories in the Jewish Bible are rewritten with the intent of demonstrating that a Messiah would come---coincidentally, right around Jesus's time...How about that?

Kind of like reading the Classics Illustrated version of "Les Miserables".


Or the Dick Cheney version of the history of Saddam Hussein.

It has an undeniable spin.

and that's okay.

Each text (Jewish and Christian) can inspire many great things for many people of each faith.

It's pretty clear, though, that the agendas which drove the publishing and distribution of each text are quite different.

Raised as a Catholic, I was always lectured as to what the texts meant--or what they should mean to me.

As a member of a Reform Judaism temple, the emphasis has been for me to uncover the truths within the text and apply it to my own spiritual needs.

Personally, I don't believe in an interventionist God, and it bothers me when I see, for example, ballplayers thanking Jesus or God for the outcome of a game.

I do beleve that God has graced us all with certain gifts that we need to reveal first to ourselves, and then use to advance justice and peace, and by doing so, advancing the world.

And by committing to the truths that we uncover for ourselves we honor God.

We are like a top that has been spun, but we control the direction in which we spin.

 
 

 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 08, 2007, 02:52:29 PM
Yes - that your thinking that man's free will and God's will cannot coexist makes you a  moron.

Did God tell you to say that?

And the Lord sayeth onto Moses, thou shalt be a moron if thou thinketh that thy will and the will of Man cannot live in harmony. 

Then the Lord dropped some Egyptians off at the pool. 



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 02:57:18 PM
Everyone here is funnier than I am....don't you people understand the value of self-esteem?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 03:12:55 PM
Yes - that your thinking that man's free will and God's will cannot coexist makes you a  moron.

Did God tell you to say that?

I had never heard of it, but I've added it to my Amazon wish list.  Thanks for the idea.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 08, 2007, 03:50:28 PM
Yes - that your thinking that man's free will and God's will cannot coexist makes you a  moron.

Did God tell you to say that?

And the Lord sayeth onto Moses, thou shalt be a moron if thou thinketh that thy will and the will of Man cannot live in harmony. 

Then the Lord dropped some Egyptians off at the pool. 



Yea--verily. Then unto the Egyptians assembled in the pool he spoketh. And they didst tremble and remove their shorts, thus exposing their sphinxters.

And this pleased the Lord a great deal, who said, verily, "I think I'm going to put mandatory circumcision in my next missive to Moses for my chosen people across the Red Sea. For they shall remember me by the sword that cuts them like wheat in their fields."


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 08, 2007, 05:38:03 PM
Yes - that your thinking that man's free will and God's will cannot coexist makes you a  moron.

Did God tell you to say that?

And the Lord sayeth onto Moses, thou shalt be a moron if thou thinketh that thy will and the will of Man cannot live in harmony. 

Then the Lord dropped some Egyptians off at the pool. 



Yea--verily. Then unto the Egyptians assembled in the pool he spoketh. And they didst tremble and remove their shorts, thus exposing their sphinxters.

And this pleased the Lord a great deal, who said, verily, "I think I'm going to put mandatory circumcision in my next missive to Moses for my chosen people across the Red Sea. For they shall remember me by the sword that cuts them like wheat in their fields."

Wow, I never understood why that was a Jewish tradition, and now I know.  thanks.  I didn't realize that the Egyptians had pool, though.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 08, 2007, 09:56:09 PM
This would argue for election, or predetermination, but I don't see how it speaks to Free Will.

Lhoffman

You do see people throughout Scripture being held responsible for the choices that they make, do you not?

For whose sin are we judged but our own?

Here’s a verse that (to me) suggests there are choices to be made.

Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! - Ezekiel 33:11

Though both co-exist, here’s a passage where God’s will overruled man’s will. 

In Genesis 50 Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead and they feared that Joseph would repay them for all of the evil that they had done.

Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God?  But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. - Genesis 50:19-20

As I thought about verses that taught Free-will, I came across a lot more that taught God’s Sovereignty.

Did I say a lot more? 

Did Eve choose to come into being?

Abraham was chosen.
 
The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, ‘Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you.’ - Acts 7:2-3

Rebekah was chosen as a bride for Isaac.

Israel was chosen.

Paul (Saul) was chosen.

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. – Acts 9:15

Did Lazarus have any power in himself to come forth?

The disciples were chosen.

You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. - John 15:16

John the Baptist was indwelt from within Elizabeth’s womb.

Jeremiah was chosen before birth.

 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
      Before you were born I sanctified you;
      I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” - Jeremiah 1:5


And to the believer:

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. - 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love…- Ephesians 1:3-4

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord.  And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. - Acts 13:48

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. - John 6:44


Well that should suffice.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 08, 2007, 11:07:24 PM
Thinking Plague...thanks for the very thoughtful post.  I think, though, that the case either for against Free Will can't be made in Scripture.  Many passages speak of being chosen, and many speak of the sense of being bound to serve the Lord.  But there are also passages that raise more questions than answers.  Take the Judas dilemma.  Here we have Judas at the Last Supper.  Jesus tells Judas he will betray him.  At this point, if we believe in predestination, Judas is no longer free to choose not to betray Jesus.  We have the sense that this is the will of God...part of His plan.  But if Judas is doing the will of God, why is he condemned?  Did he ever have a choice to do otherwise?  If Judas had Free Will, then certainly his actions should be condemned, but if he was acting as an agent of God's will, how do personal responsibility or morality enter in to it?

Another tricky passage.  Abram is told that he will be the father of generations.  He believes God at first, but then gets tired of waiting.  He has a child with Sarai's servant, Haggar.  This child is cast out into the wilderness.  Now it is believed that Haggar's son, Ishmael,  is the father of Islam.  Abraham's favored son, Isaac, is part of the line that threads through Judaism and Christianity.  Now, if Ishmael was part of God's will, was Abraham's lack of faith in God's promise a sin? or was it something beyond his control?  And what about the act of leaving one's son out in the desert to die? 

I think that our will must be limited.  But I'm not sure whether its limitations are related to theology or to our nature. 

Nature is limited.  There are rules, otherwise scientists wouldn't be able to make sense of it; otherwise there would be no miracles.  Since humans are part of nature, it makes sense that we also follow rules, we have limitations.  Sure we have more choices than do trees or grass, but in any given situation, there are only so many logical choices.   

But, if it's all part of The Plan, and all of our actions lead to fulfillment of The Plan, do we really have Free Will? or do we only have the illusion of Free Will?

And, if we truly do have Free Will, if at creation, God decided to step back and see what Man would make of his world, can a truly just God dismiss consequences and decide to step back in and take over?  Doesn't that negate Free Will? 


I think part of the reason theologians and philosophers...both Christian and non...have debated this issue for centuries is that it is impossible to reach a solid conclusion.

But then I'm troubled by the question:  Does it matter?  Not sure about that one either.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 06:22:57 AM
Religion is a man-made explanation for what man could not explain by reason, evidence, and observation.  All ancient societies used religion to explain the unexplainable to lessen their fears of a world they so little understood.  It served a purpose once upon a time.  What purpose does it serve today, when we no so much more about our physical world?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on June 09, 2007, 07:09:57 AM
Sam,

The answer to your question is that althrough we understand more about our physical world, we still cannot control it. We may be able to predict that a huricane will hit the gulf coast, we cannot prevent the devistation that hit New Orleans. We can predict a drought, but we cannot prevent it. We cannot even control the actions of our fellow man to some extent. How many people pray that they will not lose their job to an outsourcing to no avail? We can cure many diseases, but there are always new ones coming along.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 09:03:26 AM
Sam,

The answer to your question is that althrough we understand more about our physical world, we still cannot control it. We may be able to predict that a huricane will hit the gulf coast, we cannot prevent the devistation that hit New Orleans. We can predict a drought, but we cannot prevent it. We cannot even control the actions of our fellow man to some extent. How many people pray that they will not lose their job to an outsourcing to no avail? We can cure many diseases, but there are always new ones coming along.


I don't see how religion can control our physical world, Anne.  That doesn't make any sense.  Are you saying that the "god" everyone talks about creates new destruction and disease for man to try and figure out?  That doesn't make any sense either.  I'm not sure what purpose religion has in this world today, other than to promote hate and fear and death, as it always has.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 09:05:12 AM
I suppose religion can provide comfort to the fearful, the ignorant, the uneducated who need a security blanket, which is fine as long as they keep it to themselves and not try to force their insecurities on the rest of the free thinking world.  It's kinda like Nancy Reagan having to check with her astrologer before getting out of bed each day!! 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 09, 2007, 09:56:33 AM
Quote
I suppose religion can provide comfort to the fearful, the ignorant, the uneducated who need a security blanket, which is fine as long as they keep it to themselves and not try to force their insecurities on the rest of the free thinking world.
Your ignorance of and prejudice against beliefs you do not share is noted.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 10:14:33 AM
Quote
I suppose religion can provide comfort to the fearful, the ignorant, the uneducated who need a security blanket, which is fine as long as they keep it to themselves and not try to force their insecurities on the rest of the free thinking world.
Your ignorance of and prejudice against beliefs you do not share is noted.
 

Oh, I once shared those beliefs, having been brain washed as a child like so many, but then I grew up.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 09, 2007, 10:55:42 AM
Quote
I suppose religion can provide comfort to the fearful, the ignorant, the uneducated who need a security blanket, which is fine as long as they keep it to themselves and not try to force their insecurities on the rest of the free thinking world.
Your ignorance of and prejudice against beliefs you do not share is noted.
 

Oh, I once shared those beliefs, having been brain washed as a child like so many, but then I grew up.
So your ignorance, arrogance and prejudice are adult-acquired.  Pity you do not even have being juvenile to blame it on.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 11:09:12 AM
Quote
I suppose religion can provide comfort to the fearful, the ignorant, the uneducated who need a security blanket, which is fine as long as they keep it to themselves and not try to force their insecurities on the rest of the free thinking world.
Your ignorance of and prejudice against beliefs you do not share is noted.
 

Oh, I once shared those beliefs, having been brain washed as a child like so many, but then I grew up.
So your ignorance, arrogance and prejudice are adult-acquired.  Pity you do not even have being juvenile to blame it on.

No, I just came to the realization that I had been the victim of a big hoax.  It's obvious that you still believe the brain washing you received and it perpetuates your ignorance, arrogance and prejudice today.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 09, 2007, 11:16:49 AM
Samiinh....I suspect from your comment about "keeping it to themselves" that even reading about religion is troublesome to you....why read posts in the Jerry Falwell forum?  It's a sure bet that religion will arise as a topic of discussion. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 11:34:14 AM
Samiinh....I suspect from your comment about "keeping it to themselves" that even reading about religion is troublesome to you....why read posts in the Jerry Falwell forum?  It's a sure bet that religion will arise as a topic of discussion. 


Actually, I read lots of books on religion.  And presenting another view is certainly, IMHO, part of a discussion.   Having a religious belief doesn't make one a better person and subject to some kind of respect. I was raised in a religious home; my grandmother had read the bible from cover to cover many times, though I doubt she understood much of it.  My brother holds to the religious teachings or at least some of them we grew up with, but I've let them go.

I think it began when I was perhaps 9 years old, and a neighbor girl arrogantly told me that I would not be going to heaven, not I or any of my family, because we were not catholic.  I think that is probably when I began to question.  I was to only high school senior in my church who still attended Sunday school.  I was the president of our youth group.  I witnessed at summer church camps.  But my doubting continued as I did these things.  I can remember being in church and wondering how many people actually thought about the words they mouthed each Sunday as we did responsive readings etc.  We all looked like sheep.  Then I went away to school and took the required Religion 100.  All the faith I once had possess, I could not support in my head any longer.  I married a catholic woman who as I came to know her couldn't do anything without her having to talk it over with her god-man.  It drove me nuts.  I couldn't believe that people could be so helpless.  Now I do.

Jerry Falwell was an evil person.  I believe the Roman Catholic Church to be the most evil institution ever created by man.  It and its offspring are responsible for the deaths of millions.  It continues to be responsible for the deaths of millions.  If you find that offensive, so be it.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 09, 2007, 11:50:17 AM
Samiinh...Actually, I agree with you that people don't merit respect just because they are Christian.  Where we disagree is that you seem to think that being Christian merits disrespect.  "Christians are ignorant; Christians are uneducated"...You seem to have a very elitist attitude about your lack of Christianity, and that attitude is very apparent in your lack of respect for Christians.  I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to point out that painting all Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Women with the same brush is bigotry, and yet you feel free to depict all Christians as the same. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 09, 2007, 12:12:17 PM
I also find myself wondering why in the world you married a Catholic when you were an unbeliever....arranged marriage?

Feel free to ignore if you choose, but I wish there were some way to get kids to understand that these things do matter when they are considering marriage.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 12:15:30 PM
Samiinh...Actually, I agree with you that people don't merit respect just because they are Christian.  Where we disagree is that you seem to think that being Christian merits disrespect.  "Christians are ignorant; Christians are uneducated"...You seem to have a very elitist attitude about your lack of Christianity, and that attitude is very apparent in your lack of respect for Christians.  I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to point out that painting all Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Women with the same brush is bigotry, and yet you feel free to depict all Christians as the same. 


Hmmmm....I don't mean to depict all Christians this way; I mean to depict all people who believe in superstitions this way.  Perhaps my feelings are related to the ignorance of the Bush administration, and the republicans who fall all over themselves in their statements of faith.  I don't believe most of them.  I don't believe that civil government should be involved in "faith based" agencies.  I don't believe one has to profess allegiance to some organized religious body to be a patriotic American.   I do not believe America was established as a Christian Nation.  Our Pilgrim ancestors came from Europe to escape religious persecution of the state, and then turned around and set up their own Taliban syle religious governing bodies.  Fortunately, those who wrote our Constitution following our independence from England, were Enlightened when it came to establishing religion, IMHO.
 
One can lead a moral life or a spiritual life, a grateful life without being religious, IMHO.  Believing that myths and legends and ancient writings as the truth, I find incomprehensible for intelligent, thinking people who do not live in fear of death. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 12:18:11 PM
I also find myself wondering why in the world you married a Catholic when you were an unbeliever....arranged marriage?

Feel free to ignore if you choose, but I wish there were some way to get kids to understand that these things do matter when they are considering marriage.

Funny, it is a long story, and we weren't kids.  People sometimes do things spontaneously or impulsively without thinking out all the parameters.  It's called jumping from the frying pan into the  fire.  It was a mistake that lasted thirty years.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 09, 2007, 12:34:45 PM
Quote
Hmmmm....I don't mean to depict all Christians this way; I mean to depict all people who believe in superstitions this way.  Perhaps my feelings are related to the ignorance of the Bush administration, and the republicans who fall all over themselves in their statements of faith.  I don't believe most of them.  I don't believe that civil government should be involved in "faith based" agencies.  I don't believe one has to profess allegiance to some organized religious body to be a patriotic American.   I do not believe America was established as a Christian Nation.  Our Pilgrim ancestors came from Europe to escape religious persecution of the state, and then turned around and set up their own Taliban syle religious governing bodies.  Fortunately, those who wrote our Constitution following our independence from England, were Enlightened when it came to establishing religion, IMHO.
 
One can lead a moral life or a spiritual life, a grateful life without being religious, IMHO.  Believing that myths and legends and ancient writings as the truth, I find incomprehensible for intelligent, thinking people who do not live in fear of death. 


Samiinh...I'd agree with everything you say here, except that religion is superstition.  I think the incorporation of the sacred gives meaning to many lives....both educated and uneducated.  And a Baptist isn't a Quaker isn't an Episcopalian isn't a Jesuit.....



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 12:55:34 PM
I guess by superstition I'd include religious rites that were usurped from the pagan churches, belief in life after death, heaven and hell, angels and devils, ghosts, spirits etc.  None of these exist in my frame of reference. If they do in yours, that's fine, you're entitled to believe whatever you want; I'm not require to believe as you or George Bush or anyone else. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 09, 2007, 04:02:24 PM
Quote
ignorance, arrogance and prejudice
I perhaps can be accused of those faults and more, but at least I haven't labelled all people who have come to a different conclusion about the world and life as ignorant, fearful, uneducated or brain washed.  That is the essence of those faults: the idea that only one's own conclusions can have validity, and that anyone who disagrees is inferior.   


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 09, 2007, 04:42:47 PM
Quote
ignorance, arrogance and prejudice
I perhaps can be accused of those faults and more, but at least I haven't labelled all people who have come to a different conclusion about the world and life as ignorant, fearful, uneducated or brain washed.  That is the essence of those faults: the idea that only one's own conclusions can have validity, and that anyone who disagrees is inferior.   

OK.  You're entitled to think whatever you wish.  I believe I've stated that before.  My request is that you keep your religion in your church and out of the government.  And by YOU, I'm not speaking directly of you, WP, but those who would make this country another Taliban style theocracy.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 10, 2007, 03:21:33 AM
Quote
I suppose religion can provide comfort to the fearful, the ignorant, the uneducated who need a security blanket, which is fine as long as they keep it to themselves and not try to force their insecurities on the rest of the free thinking world.
Your ignorance of and prejudice against beliefs you do not share is noted.
 

Oh, I once shared those beliefs, having been brain washed as a child like so many, but then I grew up.

"But then I grew up......."

Yes - discovered you were gay, then denounced God for making you that way.  We get it.

Now change your avatar and we can continue to exchange pleasantries.  If not, we'll see ya.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 10, 2007, 07:34:38 AM
.

Now change your avatar and we can continue to exchange pleasantries.  If not, we'll see ya.

PROMISE?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 07:33:02 AM
Quotes from Jerry Falwell:

Aids is not just God's punishment of homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.

If you are not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.

Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.

The separation of church and state is a myth like global warming.

I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools.


Sen. Sam Brownbeck:  Falwell's great words and actions were never be forgotten.  Jerry's moral character and principles will forever be remembered deep within my heart.

Rudy Giuliani:  We all have great respect for him.

John McCain:  Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishments.

Mike Huckabee:  One of Christendom's great leaders.

Mitt Romney:  The legacy of his important work wil continue.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Dzimas on June 11, 2007, 07:45:29 AM
I guess that just goes to show that the leading Republican presidential nominees don't want to alienate Falwell's "Moral Majority."  I believe it was Reagan who first gave this supreme bigot creedence by taking him into his confidence while in the White House.  For years, Billy Graham had been the religious counsel for Republican presidents, dating back to Eisenhower.  The list of abuses Falwell has heaped on people over the years would fill this forum and then some.  There was nothing distinguished about him, at least in terms of accomplishments.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 07:56:57 AM
Falwell was a successful charlatan and first class pick-pocket.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 11, 2007, 08:21:52 AM
Quote
The separation of church and state is a myth like global warming.
Well, there is truth to that, if you think about it.  Since global warming isn't a myth, neither is the separation of church and state.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 11, 2007, 08:41:17 AM
Quote
The separation of church and state is a myth like global warming.
Well, there is truth to that, if you think about it.  Since global warming isn't a myth, neither is the separation of church and state.

I really doubt that was Falwell's meaning; however, you are right when you think about it.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on June 12, 2007, 10:07:16 AM
I don't see how religion can control our physical world, Anne.  That doesn't make any sense.  Are you saying that the "god" everyone talks about creates new destruction and disease for man to try and figure out?  That doesn't make any sense either.  I'm not sure what purpose religion has in this world today, other than to promote hate and fear and death, as it always has.

From wikipedia:

Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.

One could say that which we call "god" set it all in motion, the rest is physics.

The evil begins when mankind tries to control the masses with fear of the unknown.







Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 12, 2007, 01:12:33 PM
I think, though, that the case either for against Free Will can't be made in Scripture.

Another verse with heavy Free Will leanings:

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on June 12, 2007, 03:50:50 PM
Religion is a man-made explanation for what man could not explain by reason, evidence, and observation.  All ancient societies used religion to explain the unexplainable to lessen their fears of a world they so little understood.  It served a purpose once upon a time.  What purpose does it serve today, when we no so much more about our physical world?

I think when it all comes down to it, most people don't want to think that when they die - that's it.  Whether you led a good life or an evil life - the end is wormfood.  That there is no place that rewards you for being a good person or a place that punishes the wicked.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 12, 2007, 04:22:31 PM
Religion is a man-made explanation for what man could not explain by reason, evidence, and observation.  All ancient societies used religion to explain the unexplainable to lessen their fears of a world they so little understood.  It served a purpose once upon a time.  What purpose does it serve today, when we no so much more about our physical world?

I think when it all comes down to it, most people don't want to think that when they die - that's it.  Whether you led a good life or an evil life - the end is wormfood.  That there is no place that rewards you for being a good person or a place that punishes the wicked.



I also think that in other times, people's lives were so miserable, that a life in paradise after death made this life tolerable.  But wormfood is pretty much what it will be.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Chakotay on June 12, 2007, 05:50:58 PM
As Shakespeare had Marc Antony say, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." If one is not religious, then life has whatever meaning one assigns to it; we have to find what is meaningful to us and try to do whatever it takes to leave the best legacy to our descendants that we can....or, eat, drink and be merry and figure what the heck! I'm gonna die anyway.   ::)
Religion is a man-made explanation for what man could not explain by reason, evidence, and observation.  All ancient societies used religion to explain the unexplainable to lessen their fears of a world they so little understood.  It served a purpose once upon a time.  What purpose does it serve today, when we no so much more about our physical world?

I think when it all comes down to it, most people don't want to think that when they die - that's it.  Whether you led a good life or an evil life - the end is wormfood.  That there is no place that rewards you for being a good person or a place that punishes the wicked.




Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 12, 2007, 05:52:15 PM
But there are also passages that raise more questions than answers.  Take the Judas dilemma.  Here we have Judas at the Last Supper.  Jesus tells Judas he will betray him.  At this point, if we believe in predestination, Judas is no longer free to choose not to betray Jesus.  We have the sense that this is the will of God...part of His plan.  But if Judas is doing the will of God, why is he condemned?  Did he ever have a choice to do otherwise?  If Judas had Free Will, then certainly his actions should be condemned, but if he was acting as an agent of God's will, how do personal responsibility or morality enter in to it?

Lhoffman

These are just some thoughts, and who am I?

I’m hesitant to even broach the subject of Gethsemane.  There are aspects of Gethsemane that I doubt I’ll ever fully enter into in this life.

(And forgive me in advance for my imperfect analogy).

If I were to tell you that the sun will rise tomorrow morning (even tell you what time and where to look) and when tomorrow comes it rises, did I cause it?  Admittedly, Christ would know precisely what Judas would do.  But knowing something and causing it are two different things.  For this betrayal was even prophesied by David 1,000 years prior.
 
Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted,
         Who ate my bread,
         Has lifted up his heel against me. - Psalm 41:9


Compare to:

Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.” And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. - John 13:26

So for the sake of argument let us agree that Judas was “obligated” (or whatever term we feel best describes this) to betray Jesus in order fulfill this prophecy.

Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. - Matthew 26:49

And what is Christ’s response to His betrayer? 

But Jesus said to him, “Friend, why have you come?” - Matthew 26:50

Christ KNEW why Judas had come. 

So what response was Christ seeking?

Does not Judas have the opportunity to drop and acknowledge Christ as Lord?  Even to ask for forgiveness?

Think of it.  He would kiss the Door of Heaven and never enter through it.

Judas never acknowledged Christ as Lord.

Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. - Matthew 26:49

Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, “Rabbi, is it I?” - Matthew 26:25

Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, who would betray Him, said, “Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”  This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. - John 12:3-6


Now His betrayer had given them a signal, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him and lead Him away safely.”
As soon as he had come, immediately he went up to Him and said to Him, “Rabbi, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. - Mark 14:44-45


Plenty of people consider Christ to be a great teacher or philosopher or founder of a religion, or whatever.  But they have not put their faith in the finished work of Calvary.

If at the first Passover an individual had a lamb, or had slain a lamb, or had poured a lamb’s blood into a basin, would it have profited them anything?

But the application of the lamb’s blood and faith therein is what mattered.

And when I see the blood, I will pass over you - Exodus 12:13

“Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! - John 1:29

For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. - 1 Corinthians 5:7


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 13, 2007, 12:57:57 PM
Dude,

Just remember you are quoting from text that has been deliberately rewritten and rewritten and then interpreted precisely for the expressed purpose of getting you to think that it all went down just that way.

The Bible is as historically accurate a depiction of ancient times as the Sopranos is an accurate portrayal of modern life in north Jersey.


but if you seek truth you will find it...just remember that "truth" like art is in the eye of the beholder.




Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: whiskeypriest on June 13, 2007, 01:01:33 PM
Plague -

Well, here's an interesting take on Judas and Jesus....

http://southerncrossreview.org/49/borges-judas-eng.htm (http://southerncrossreview.org/49/borges-judas-eng.htm)


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 13, 2007, 01:26:48 PM
Dude,

Just remember you are quoting from text that has been deliberately rewritten and rewritten and then interpreted precisely for the expressed purpose of getting you to think that it all went down just that way.

for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. - 2 Peter 1:21

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. - John 14:25-26

And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. - Luke 24:27

But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.  You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.  But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. - John 5:38-40

MrUtley,

Today’s translations are compiled from thousands of documents compiled over centuries.  To suggest that there is one conspiracy governing all of these texts is a stretch, no?

But because these are not original documents and biases exist in every translation, one should look at multiple translations and go to the Greek or Hebrew and check them for accuracy.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 13, 2007, 04:41:10 PM
Sorry, Dude, but I think you are missing the point...

Bottom line is that, HISTORICALLY, the Bible leads to more other exploitation than to self-examination.

It leads to more forced genuflection than self introspection.

It lends itself to taking  rather than creating advantage for most.

Read the book, but use your own head to figure out what it means....for YOU..


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 13, 2007, 09:03:02 PM
Read the book, but use your own head to figure out what it means....for YOU..

Rationalism mounts the throne, and finally our imperfect human understanding, darkened through the Fall, stands as judge over God’s Book and God’s Word. – Erich Sauer

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. - 1 Corinthians 3:19

But we are all like an unclean thing,
      And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags (lit. menstrual cloths);
      We all fade as a leaf,
      And our iniquities, like the wind,
      Have taken us away. - Isaiah 64:6


         You thought that I was altogether like you;
         But I will rebuke you,
         And set them in order before your eyes. - Psalm 50:21


You shall not at all do as we are doing here today—every man doing whatever is right in his own eyes— - Deuteronomy 12:8

In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. - Judges 21:25

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,
      But the LORD weighs the hearts. - Proverbs 21:2


MrUtley,

Truth does not depend on me and thank God for that. 

For decades I was an agnostic and arguing with Christians was sport to me.  I sought them out.  John 3:16 was utter rubbish.  To my natural mind, God sending His only begotten Son to die for the sin of man was pure absurdity.

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. – 1 Corinthians 2:14

At the very least I would have thought that there was something that I must do to earn salvation.

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
      Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
       “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
      So are My ways higher than your ways,
      And My thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9


However, there are approximately 150 verses that state that salvation is by faith alone. (Relax; I’m not going to post them all).



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 13, 2007, 09:57:04 PM
ThinkingPlague...your posts are most interesting, but I don't think they lean at all toward the idea of Free Will.  If the betrayal of Jesus was prophesied as far back as David, either Judas had no choice, or David was worthless as a prophet. 

This argument has been around at least as long as the Church.  I can picture the early fathers arguing over the matter...and we know they did argue.  It must have occurred to them at some point that the fall was quite problematic under God's Will. 

I think man must be like the rest of nature, and have limited choices/responses.  There are only so many logical responses to a given situation.  In that sense, none of us have Free Will.

But as to Judas never acknowledging Jesus as Lord, you are right that this acknowledgement is not to found in scripture, but scripture doesn't tell us the whole story.  There were no witnesses to Judas' suicide, in fact the Gospels disagree on his method, how are we to know that Judas didn't acknowledge Jesus in his final moments?  Perhaps between the act and death?  Or perhaps even before the act that lead to his death.  Perhaps the realization of what he'd done was so overpowering that he couldn't deal with it.  And, of course the idea of suicide being a sin will arise, but it isn't our place to judge the spiritual state of others' souls.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 13, 2007, 09:58:26 PM
ThinkingPlague...by the way, you mentioned reading the original languages...or as close as one can get....Hebrew, Greek.  Is this something you are able to do or are working at?  I'd certainly like to be able to do this at some point in my life.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 13, 2007, 09:59:38 PM
Also, your question about Jesus' expectations of Judas in the garden...very interesting.  Will give it more consideration.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 14, 2007, 12:04:02 PM
ThinkingPlague...by the way, you mentioned reading the original languages...or as close as one can get....Hebrew, Greek.  Is this something you are able to do or are working at?  I'd certainly like to be able to do this at some point in my life.

Lhoffman

Reference books that I can recommend without hesitation and that anybody can use.

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies

Also you might want to think about gettting an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament.  Mine is by George Ricker Berry, but there are others.

Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh. - Ecclesiastes 12:12

For in much wisdom is much grief,
      And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow. - Ecclesiastes 1:18


 ;)



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on June 14, 2007, 12:06:37 PM
ThinkingPlague....LOL .....ANYBODY??

Thanks for the recommendation.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 14, 2007, 03:41:41 PM
Dude,

Just remember you are quoting from text that has been deliberately rewritten and rewritten and then interpreted precisely for the expressed purpose of getting you to think that it all went down just that way.

for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. - 2 Peter 1:21

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. - John 14:25-26

And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. - Luke 24:27

But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe.  You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.  But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. - John 5:38-40

MrUtley,

Today’s translations are compiled from thousands of documents compiled over centuries.  To suggest that there is one conspiracy governing all of these texts is a stretch, no?

But because these are not original documents and biases exist in every translation, one should look at multiple translations and go to the Greek or Hebrew and check them for accuracy.


Plaguing thought: "This is a Christian country. Why, so is hell. Inasmuch as "Strait is the way and narrow is the gate, and few-few-are they that enter in thereat" has had the natural effect of making hell the only really prominent Christian community in any of the worlds; but we don't brag of this and certainly it is not proper to brag and boast that America is a Christian country when we all know that certainly five-sixths of our population could not enter in at the narrow gate."
  - Mark Twain in Eruption


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 14, 2007, 04:12:18 PM
Plaguing thought: "This is a Christian country. Why, so is hell. Inasmuch as "Strait is the way and narrow is the gate, and few-few-are they that enter in thereat" has had the natural effect of making hell the only really prominent Christian community in any of the worlds; but we don't brag of this and certainly it is not proper to brag and boast that America is a Christian country when we all know that certainly five-sixths of our population could not enter in at the narrow gate."
  - Mark Twain in Eruption

I’ve just been educated beyond my intelligence.
 
MrUtley,

You know why churches have all of those stained glass windows…
To tell Bible stories for all of the people inside who can’t read.

Why, I struggle just to make it through “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street.”

I think what Twain is saying is:  If God doesn’t judge America, He’s going to owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.




Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Buddy the Leper on June 14, 2007, 08:05:49 PM
I’ve just been educated beyond my intelligence.
 

C'mon Plague,

Everyone knows Mark Twain. 

We had to read his Huckleberry Hound when we were in school. 

That's around the time they made us read The Diary of Anne Frank, but I can’t remember who wrote that one.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 14, 2007, 08:08:11 PM
I’ve just been educated beyond my intelligence.
 

Mr. Plague,

Everyone knows Mark Twain. 

We read had to read his Huckleberry Hound when we were in school. 

That and The Diary of Anne Frank, but I can’t remember who wrote that one.


Did you go to public school? or were you home schooled?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Buddy the Leper on June 14, 2007, 08:19:14 PM
Did you go to public school? or were you home schooled?

Damn, I wasn’t done tweaking the punch line and you quoted it.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 14, 2007, 08:20:31 PM
Did you go to public school? or were you home schooled?

Damn, I wasn’t done tweaking the punch line and you quoted it.

When was the War of 1812?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: incadove0 on June 14, 2007, 08:24:24 PM
I’ve just been educated beyond my intelligence.
 

Mr. Plague,

Everyone knows Mark Twain. 

We read had to read his Huckleberry Hound when we were in school. 

That and The Diary of Anne Frank, but I can’t remember who wrote that one.


Did you go to public school? or were you home schooled?

That was public school.  But Mark Twain and Anne Frank were products of home education.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Buddy the Leper on June 14, 2007, 08:24:59 PM
When was the War of 1812?

Around the same time Bush invaded Iraq.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 15, 2007, 05:58:35 AM
When was the War of 1812?

Around the same time Bush invaded Iraq.

I see.  And I'll just bet you were devastated when Jerry Falwell went to hell.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Buddy the Leper on June 15, 2007, 12:23:38 PM
I see.  And I'll just bet you were devastated when Jerry Falwell went to hell.

Everything that I know about Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Baker, Jim Swaggert, and the like, I learned from Frank Zappa. 

And none of it is very praiseworthy.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 23, 2007, 02:37:25 PM
erry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Baker, Jim Swaggert
[/b]

Who would want to be associated with these creeps?


Title: Let “the show” begin
Post by: Thinking Plague on June 28, 2007, 07:51:57 PM
Who would want to be associated with these creeps?

samiinh

There doubtless are exceptions and at the risk of painting with too broad of a brush, I’ve come across nothing on any of these broadcasts that I would recommend to anybody.

The admittedly small sample of “Christian” programming that I’ve been witness to is an odd blend of histrionics, capitalism, charlatanism, politics, this-is-the-way-we’ve-been-doing-it-for-centuries-traditions and the just plain bizarre. 

Add to that, everybody peddling their wares, a book to sell, a DVD series, a gimmick.

Good luck finding Christ in all of this.

That this is all some people know of Christ is sad indeed.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. - 1 John 4:1




Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 29, 2007, 06:18:59 AM
Praise the Lord and send a check.  Huckster, charlatan, fraud, pickpocket.  That's what they are.


Title: Re: Let “the show” begin
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 29, 2007, 02:17:05 PM
Who would want to be associated with these creeps?

samiinh

There doubtless are exceptions and at the risk of painting with too broad of a brush, I’ve come across nothing on any of these broadcasts that I would recommend to anybody.

The admittedly small sample of “Christian” programming that I’ve been witness to is an odd blend of histrionics, capitalism, charlatanism, politics, this-is-the-way-we’ve-been-doing-it-for-centuries-traditions and the just plain bizarre. 

Add to that, everybody peddling their wares, a book to sell, a DVD series, a gimmick.

Good luck finding Christ in all of this.

That this is all some people know of Christ is sad indeed.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. - 1 John 4:1




I like the brother that is on very early AM Sundays in the east


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: samiinh on June 29, 2007, 04:07:40 PM
Do you regularly send him checks, kid?


Title: Re: Let “the show” begin
Post by: Lhoffman on June 29, 2007, 05:26:11 PM


I like the brother that is on very early AM Sundays in the east
[/quote]

What is his name? 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 29, 2007, 09:05:13 PM
I'll get back to ya on that


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on July 03, 2007, 02:45:21 AM
http://www.mcc.org/gallery/07_07/index.html

The July 2007 gallery is titled, "Beyond Vietnam's Rice Fields" and it contains images and information about the work of MCC and its partners who are working with those in Vietnam's society who are not being swept along in the new economy of the region.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: papabear on July 08, 2007, 03:50:22 AM
Papabear says

I remember reading back that someone called Dr. King a womannizer and something about his doctorate being ill gotten.
Well Dr King played a very very important part in intergration for blacks. Maybe anyone who think that Dr. King was a little cheater. You better look at the father of our country and the majority of the people who wrote the declaration of Independance. They had slaves and they beleived God wanted it that way. I ask you Dr. King hatters do you think blacks should still be slaves or do you think blacks should not be able to vote or not be in major sports or still ride in the back of buses? Maybe a little lynching every now and then. It take many years for people who have thier history and names erased and trained to go against one another to heal wounds. The Jews are still trying to get over what Germany did to them but we were slaves in America for almost 200 years you don't get over that to fast. I remember black men in the south would hold thier heads down as a white person walked by and that mentality stayed for a long time.
Any man who beleive that we should be a first strike with the atom bomb surley don't walk the way of Jesus Christ and Fawell beleived in killing millions of people at a first strike. Would God bless him for that?? If he so believed in Jesus Christ our lord and saivor we would be the children of God and we would see another way.
The KKK called themselves christians and when civilrights took its hold the raciasts and fractions of the KKK went under ground. Oh where oh where can they be?? They surely was in full bloom in the 60s. You know what I think??? I think that they are still around trying to go back to what they think was the good old days but I can only say one thing.
You have a new black man who ain't gonna put up with the bulls--t that the blacks put up with in the past. They know that intergration is here to stay and so is the Chinees, Indians, Muslims, Aribs and every other race in this great country of ours. It won't be an atomic bomb that will attack us to hurt us. It will be from the same people that Farwell supported and protected. BIG BUSINESS GOING OVERSEAS AND SELLING THIS COUNTRY OUT. Money ain't every damn thing. What about the love for your country? That went down the tubes.China is poisning us and Iracc is Killing us. Fawell supported George Bush and his greedy rich off the backs of Americans friends and now it's almost too late because when the President don't care we have a problem.
Martin Luther King bought out fredom for people of color no matter if he had a fling on the side. At least he didn't have white slaves or wanted to nuke people.

Papabear


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on July 08, 2007, 04:56:58 PM
Papabear,

I have never in forty years seen one piece of evidence reported that proved the insinuations against MLK; it was all very convenient hear-say evidence , because he was a threat to business as usual, then, as now, when the establishment administration of government expected record numbers of not too clear thinkers to enlist in the elimination of others like themselves.  Obviously, if the public could be led to believe that they could get somebody else instead of themselves to fulfill military service, they'd be much obliged.

Since at that time, the war was theoretically to fight communists or Communism, it carried an aura with it from the preceeding period, just as a movie star does when going into a new film still carry the image of the previous roles he has played; and, what we had going, when Kennedy was approached to save the right people in Vietnam from things they did not want to admit having brought on themselves by collaborating with former colonialists, was the left-over hangovers of the McCarthy era during which, in order to build a record of hyper-patriotism (which, it seems to me, the Klan always passed itself off as being), patriots were asked to come forward in the entertainment and media business(one might as well say,the culture business) and turn in dissident competitors in their profession who may have caused them
acute displeasure for merely being talented  in a more universal way.

They did so as conscience-less as the followers of the Third Reich  had turned in people, whose ethical values displeased them, for mere merit badges as  Hero of the New Order.   This opportunist atmosphere still prevailed in the US, uncriticized by a number of Churches who did not want to rock the boat and be themselves considered unpatriotic.

Thus in the midst of his accomplishments, supported by the quiet background input of Bayard Rustin, Quaker-educated in Chester  county,Pa. as to the peaceable resistance method of protest, Martin Luther King became set up by a whispering campagin that alluded to something in the old way of the McCarthyite and Richard Nixon HUAAC hearings, for which  supoenas were issued on the basis of suggestions of wrong doing  and rumor mongering. and at which you were expected to testify against yourself or be forever suspected if you took the "Fifth".

At some point in time, the flamboyant life style of Chicago Mayor Marion Barry probably did not help allay the rumored legend that Rev.King was somehow a  clandestine swinger.

What we have most to be concerned about at the moment is the present administration's idea of how to use the Supreme Court to "dis-integrate" education which has allowed equal opportunity for more than four decades.  There are white people who have not had the experience of going to schools in urban areas in the north where the concept of mathematics was underplayed as recently as the Fifties. I mean, that will really get you somewhere. Hardly an equal footing. Yet, apparently the Christians of the moment prefer the separate but equal education because some of the white red-states do not feel they are getting their fair  share once again, although they seem ignorant of the fact that it is the Administration of the last six and a half years that has encouraged them to be so swell-headed about themselves. Where do they get these ideas? From a Decider who told them and kept backing it up by foreign excursions and intrusions for naught, but that would convince them the Muslims are at fault for all this inequity and shortage of the good things in life.  Everybody gets a turn behind the eight ball. Recently illegal immigrants who might make good voters in a pinch if the propaganda machine tells you what wonderful relations W had growing up in Texas and befriending the local Tex-Mex populace. That was in last week's nytimes.com (but I lose track of time fast around here and may have been the Sunday before)as they are building an Immigration bank of collected articles they have done; but obviously that plan did not pan out.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on July 08, 2007, 05:25:21 PM
Maddie,

I suspect you are better at quotes than I am. The two last posts, from The Bear and Yourself made me think of the adage: You can fool some of the people all the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Georgie-Porgie had his time to fool "all of the people" when he started this war, now he's down to those "some of the people all of the time".



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Detective_Winslow on July 08, 2007, 05:27:12 PM
What does this shit have to do with Jerry Falwell?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on July 09, 2007, 12:50:50 AM
Nothing at the moment, I dropped by one day when they were discussing the variety of their attitudes about him following his death. which wasn't much variance, it was all shuup, duck, that was close, no body really wanted to be struck by lightening for bad-mouthing him but they sure didn't like the guy, in retrospect.

So just as I came in here to check if there was anything to pick up that was scattered about randomly on the floor, I was thinking the very same thing, so glad to find you brought it up.

It's likely we ought to direct it back to Religion and Politics for I guess it was just a probability that the forum had been designated that and then Falwell dropped dead. Sheer coincidence.  We can move on with anything a poster has to contribute that is topical and leave Jerry (or was it Gerry_?) Falwell to rest in whatever he happens to be in at this point.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on July 09, 2007, 01:03:05 AM
DetWi,

As Maddie pointed out, this thread was created for a moment in time. That moment has passed. Jerry Falwell is dead and his empire will expire in its own time.

It is time to move on to the overtitle of the thread, Politics and Religion, which is still very much with us. Too many of our politicians are telling us they are following their "faith" while their actions prove they have none at all.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: papabear on July 09, 2007, 01:09:18 AM
Papabear says

Detective_Winslow
Full Member

Well I will tell you what this means. Falwell was a far right wing so called Christian who favorite first strike killing millions of people. Falwell like Dr. King were both leader and preachers. One want to Kill Kill and more Kill. The other want peace and for blacks and whites to get along and love each other.
Clarence Thomas should contact Michael Jackson and get some of his bleaching cream because the only thing black on him is his color. He hates being black.
Now back to Falwell, do any one know what happened to all of those KKKs I mean the Ku Klux Klan??? The all are now so called right wing christians.
Falwell had power as a christian leader, but he was leading his people down the wrong path. Hey the far right don't have to worry about the blacks anymore. I the people from Mexico. They said that one day they will get Texas and California back without firing a shot. We have more Mexicans crossing the border every day like running water and Bush won't do a damn thing about it and Fawell was his biggest supporter. We have so many Illegals in this country that we can even count them and a lot of them will even be voting. We have no loyalty in this country. Sean Hannity is running across the country with his show and calling all those right wingers a true American. They are not true Americans when they are selling the USA down the river. All those deals with China is paying off. China is poisioning us to death and some people are still trying to protect China.
Falwell protected George Bush and we need to get rid of Bush.

Papabear


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on July 09, 2007, 09:33:38 AM
At some point in time, the flamboyant life style of Chicago Mayor Marion Barry probably did not help allay the rumored legend that Rev.King was somehow a  clandestine swinger.

This might be the hardest-to-understand thing ever posted on any message board, anywhere.


Title: re: religion/madu speak
Post by: kidcarter8 on July 10, 2007, 01:40:42 PM
lol

Idiot thinks he'/she's speaking English


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on July 10, 2007, 08:44:32 PM
Well, you seldom use it at all. As for yank guy,he's got his own problems  which probably mostly amount to not having been old enough as yet to make it to Chicago and take a look around.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on July 11, 2007, 08:10:07 AM
I've been to Chicago many times and am certainly old enough (I think even a ten-year old would probably meet this threshold) to know that "Marion Barry" was never the mayor of Chicago.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on July 11, 2007, 09:58:51 AM
LOL

I was letting that one go. 

I think IGNORE is the best way to handle this gib-smackin moke.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on July 11, 2007, 02:46:59 PM
I do hope that the dear Dr. Falwell took his asbestos suit with him when he shuffled off this mortal coil.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on July 12, 2007, 01:47:39 AM
I suspect that I was considering two exchangeable ideas as an example. The other was Alan Keyes.

However, you two guys are obviously Moe and Curly.

And if you don't think a little racist name-calling will get you busted, think again.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: yankguy on July 12, 2007, 09:19:55 AM
What are you talking about?  Racist?

I said I've been to Chicago and that Marion Barry was never that city's mayor.  I'm not sure what your point was.  Please clarify.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on July 12, 2007, 03:00:19 PM
Hey, lighten up around here!

Take a bong hit 4 Jesus!!

Opps, I forgot.... the SCOTUS banned that kinda talk.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on July 13, 2007, 12:26:34 AM
Twasn't you, yankguy, it was that junior edition who has just been psychoanalyzed tonight by the members of the Immigration forum,well, maybe through the course of the day, I got there rather late.

If you go up to his last post in this column, you will note his decision to try out a few street-wise expressions, which I think is a sign of his youth but someday when he isn't talking to a woman, that language could be his undoing because he has a bigger idea of himself than the way he might be perceived by  the people he is denigrating.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on July 13, 2007, 12:34:15 AM
Sorry, but I remember coming in here to post about the error since I crossed up two ideas/people at the same time, the other was Allen Keyes of Illinois against whom Barack Obama ran for the Senate from Illinois; and I think, my meter ran out and I had to log-in. 

I did think my post went through however but apparently it did not while I was doing the whole thing in my sleep.


Title: Re:Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on July 13, 2007, 03:17:00 AM
Folks you can change--as I did just now--the "subject" by using the subject line when you post (or leave it, as you will.)


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on July 13, 2007, 11:08:06 AM
Sorry for the racist remark.

Didn't know the mokes WERE a race, but I sure see enough of em, so..........    :)


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on July 13, 2007, 02:28:46 PM
Christian Right Activists Disrupt Hindu Chaplain In The Senate

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/12/christian_right_activists_disrupt_hindu_chaplain_in_the_senate

Why am I not surprised... X-tian nut cases just gotta protest anything having to do with peace and tolerance...



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on July 23, 2007, 04:29:42 AM
So Tammy Faye has shuffled off this mortal coil.
Those whom she swindled will not miss her one bit.
I would be happy to sprinkle some of Kentucky's finest bourbon over her grave, provided I could filter it through my kidneys first.
I hope that she and Falwell are enjoying the warmth.
Elmer Gantry lives! >:(


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: liquidsilver on July 23, 2007, 01:00:17 PM
Tammy Faye was one of the better evangelicals in my book.  One of the few to have embraced and be embraced by the gay community.

While she certainly lived a life of excess and didn't exactly follow all of Jesus' teachings - at least she preached acceptance


Title: Religion and Politics
Post by: caclark on August 02, 2007, 12:00:24 PM
What's the first section you reach for when you get delivery of the Sunday paper? The sports page? The Sunday funnies? How about the Bible? Check out this article. If you get Sunday delivery of your local newspaper, you may soon have a copy of the Bible on your front door step whether you want one or not. The project is slated for the holiday season and will include only the New Testament, not the entire Bible. Just in time for a nice Chanukah present for Jewish subscribers.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1205747


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on August 02, 2007, 12:39:42 PM
CAClark....there are lots of things in my newspaper that I don't read, and I'm sure that's true of everyone.  On Saturdays, my paper has a religion section, which I read only rarely.  If you don't like the publishing decisions of a paper, there are two options.  Skip the content you have no interest in or cancel your subscription. 

The Bible looks to me like it will be packaged with the ads....you know, the huge pile of junk that comes with every Sunday paper that usually goes directly into the trash.  What bothers me more about this than the religious aspect is that these people don't seem to be taking God's idea of stewardship of the earth very seriously.


Title: Religion and Politics
Post by: caclark on August 02, 2007, 12:50:39 PM
".... If you don't like the publishing decisions of a paper, there are two options.  Skip the content you have no interest in or cancel your subscription."

I don't take issue with that at all. But that's not really the point, is it?

According to the article, the ministry set a date of Oct 31 to raise the needed $438,000. As of July 31, they had raised a dismal $13,000 from church offerings and special fundraisers and the project may have to be cancelled or postponed. Apparently some of the church members themselves don't think this is such a great idea.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on August 02, 2007, 12:55:29 PM
I'm not surprised that all don't think this is a good idea.  I wouldn't be willing to pay for this either.  There is something a bit profane in send the sacred writings of one's religion on a direct path to the trash heap.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on August 02, 2007, 12:56:15 PM
Laurie,

You are right. Those who profess to be religious seem to be mostly about what YOU shouldn't do.

There was an interesting POV in last month's Coop magazine opening a discussion on tatoos - body art. The suggestion was made that God didn't create man with pictures on his/her skin,, therefore it is an insult to God to adorne the body. God didn't make man with clothes on, either, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.

This months' issue arrived yesterday, and there were a number of letters to the editor on the body art issue, some Christians who have body art that proclaims their faith that can only be seen when they wear swimming suits. But, there were the expected quotes from Corinthians about the body being a "temple" and therefore body art was an abomination to God.

In "The American Colonies" by Alan Taylor, there was a good bit on the piety of the New Englanders. Seems these folks lived closer to their religious beliefs than any of the other colonists, yet there was a preference for preaching that they were NOT religious enough, and that all natural events were proof of God's displeasure. The author gave a name for such preaching, but I'm too lazy to go look it up now. That type of preaching is still in vogue, and despite it's appeal, the congregations that choose such a style of preaching are not necessarily more pious than others, but the are convinced they must tell everyone else what they are doing wrong.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on August 02, 2007, 01:03:21 PM
Anne...a bit of the anti-Scripture there.  Seems like a lotta Christians have crossed Matthew 7 out in their Bibles.  (Judge not....etc.)


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on August 02, 2007, 01:39:43 PM
lhoffman,

There is something a bit profane in send the sacred writings of one's religion on a direct path to the trash heap.

On the other hand, there is nothing whatsoever profane in sending the propaganda of other people's religion on a direct path to the trash heap.
Methinks we have more to fear from persecution by Christians than we do from persecution of Christians.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on August 02, 2007, 01:51:25 PM
lhoffman,

There is something a bit profane in send the sacred writings of one's religion on a direct path to the trash heap.

On the other hand, there is nothing whatsoever profane in sending the propaganda of other people's religion on a direct path to the trash heap.
Methinks we have more to fear from persecution by Christians than we do from persecution of Christians.

Speak for yourself....which, by the way you are doing quite clearly when you use the term "propaganda" to refer to what others consider "sacred."   Torah, Bible, Koran...view them as propaganda as you wish, but there are billions around the world who would disagree with you. 


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Donotremove on August 02, 2007, 01:59:18 PM
In the spirit of Jonathan Edwards, preachers whose sermons pound away at congregations about their failings are called "Hellfire and Brimstone" preachers.  Found today, mostly in old timey fundementalist churches--either white or black--where church goes on most of the day, Sunday.  The preaching is loud and rythmic with lots of response from the congregations.  I love to drop in on one now and then.  As Steinbeck said after attending one such service (Travels With Charley,) to paraphrase: Being such a complete and utter sinner makes me feel like I count for something.  It was exhilerating.


Title: Religion and Politics
Post by: caclark on August 02, 2007, 03:24:36 PM
thecap0, August 2, 2007 at 1:39 pm: “Methinks we have more to fear from persecution by Christians than we do from persecution of Christians."

Tell that to the South Korean missionaries being held by the Taliban. And so far, I’ve heard of no Christian zealots high-jacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings. Let’s hope it stays that way.

“....there is nothing whatsoever profane in sending the propaganda of other people's religion on a direct path to the trash heap.”

....or to the fireplace. Heck, you can even do the socially responsible thing by tossing it with the newspapers to be carted off to the recycle bin.

As for the Bible, I need no more copies. In my library, I have copies of the major English translations. Some are cheap copies but a few are high-quality editions for which I paid a good price.

What’s at issue in the story I posted is whether distributing Bibles with the Sunday newspaper is a desirable way to evangelize. Some church-goers do not think it’s a good way to sow seeds of good will, much less to proselytize. I agree. The editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram was braced for criticism from non-Christians and unbelievers. He was taken aback when he drew sharp criticism from Christians who thought the program would be counter-productive.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: law120b on August 02, 2007, 04:19:04 PM
could someone explain why a christian organization wishing to provide copies of their bible would only send out the four versions of the final chapter rather than the whole thing?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Lhoffman on August 02, 2007, 04:34:33 PM
thecap0, August 2, 2007 at 1:39 pm: “Methinks we have more to fear from persecution by Christians than we do from persecution of Christians."

Tell that to the South Korean missionaries being held by the Taliban. And so far, I’ve heard of no Christian zealots high-jacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings. Let’s hope it stays that way.

“....there is nothing whatsoever profane in sending the propaganda of other people's religion on a direct path to the trash heap.”

....or to the fireplace. Heck, you can even do the socially responsible thing by tossing it with the newspapers to be carted off to the recycle bin.


I'm guessing that is why people aren't willing to donate to this project.  It is one thing to throw away copies of a Bible, it is quite another for a Christian to create copies of the Bible, knowing it will be considered propaganda and end up in the trash heap. 

As far as throwing away copies of the Bible, in general, I don't like to discard books.  From the religious aspect, I wouldn't destroy a Koran if one were delivered to my doorstep, and for the same reason I wouldn't burn a flag.  These things have no significance to me, but I know they are sacred to others. 

Of course, turning the Bible into advertising does sort of strip away the aspect of the sacred.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on August 02, 2007, 04:38:31 PM
caclark,

And so far, I’ve heard of no Christian zealots high-jacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings. Let’s hope it stays that way.


Nope.  Instead they bomb Federal Buildings in Oklahoma City and abortion clinics around the country.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on August 02, 2007, 04:40:29 PM
lhoffman,

Speak for yourself....which, by the way you are doing quite clearly when you use the term "propaganda" to refer to what others consider "sacred."   Torah, Bible, Koran...view them as propaganda as you wish, but there are billions around the world who would disagree with you.

Look up the definition of the word propaganda, and then get back to the forum.
In any case, I don't want the zealots of ANY faith shoving their propaganda down my throat.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on August 02, 2007, 04:46:08 PM
I live in a very multi-cultural area, people from many countries, people of many faiths.  I would never call the sacred writings of others propaganda.  It is not a question of whether I share their beliefs.  To treat other people's beliefs in this manner is rude, disrespectful and smacks of the provincial. 

As to your comment on the bombings of Federal buildings and abortion clinics,  which do you think would be the larger percentage:  Christians who bomb federal buildings and clinics or school teachers who are pediphiles?  Statistics can be manipulated to suit any need.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on August 02, 2007, 04:53:08 PM
The term Alan Taylor uses in The American Colonies is "jeremiads", based on the preaching of Jeremiah.

I have heard the term "fire and brimstone", and it's sometimes called "Hell and damnation" preaching. But "jeremiads" was a new term to me.

I have two translations of the bible around the house. They make nice references depending on the argument. Just as with statistics, you can "prove" almost anything, with the Bible, you can "prove" a lot of stuff that puts some people's teeth to grating.


Title: Religion and Politics
Post by: caclark on August 02, 2007, 04:55:37 PM
Lhoffman, August 1, 2007 at 4:34 pm: "As far as throwing away copies of the Bible, in general, I don't like to discard books.  From the religious aspect, I wouldn't destroy a Koran if one were delivered to my doorstep, and for the same reason I wouldn't burn a flag.  These things have no significance to me, but I know they are sacred to others."

That’s pretty much how I feel about it. We used to have a used bookstore in town to which I could take old books and get a buck or so for a book the dealer thought might sell. If not, outside the front door was a bin of free books you could contribute to. There were always people going through the bin and some of them were dressed like people who didn’t have much money. Unfortunately, that bookstore closed down a few years back.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on August 02, 2007, 05:42:28 PM
lhoffman,

As to your comment on the bombings of Federal buildings and abortion clinics,  which do you think would be the larger percentage:  Christians who bomb federal buildings and clinics or school teachers who are pediphiles?

Which do YOU think would be the larger percentage of those who are pedophiles - schoolteachers or "priests" of the RC sect of Christians?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on August 02, 2007, 05:45:17 PM
lhoffmen,

I would never call the sacred writings of others propaganda. 

Still don't know the definition of the term, do you?
I really don't give a flying flahoohgle what people choose as their "sacred writings.  It can be anything from the Kama Sutra to the Satanic Bible for all I care.
When they try to shove it down my throat, it is propaganda in the purest sense of the term.
Live and let live.  What a glorious concept.  The propagandists ought to try it some time.
As I tell the Holy Rollers who try to foist their propaganda on my family, "Thank you very much, but we were born just fine the first time."


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: law120b on August 02, 2007, 06:11:49 PM
as i tell the scientologists in times square who try to hand me their crap, 'i already have a religion.'  and i carry a copy of something to hand to the jews for jesus when they hand me their cartoons; and here it is:

http://search.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp?s=g&k=jesus


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 02, 2007, 06:22:24 PM
lhoffmen,

I would never call the sacred writings of others propaganda. 

Still don't know the definition of the term, do you?
I really don't give a flying flahoohgle what people choose as their "sacred writings.  It can be anything from the Kama Sutra to the Satanic Bible for all I care.
When they try to shove it down my throat, it is propaganda in the purest sense of the term.
Live and let live.  What a glorious concept.  The propagandists ought to try it some time.
As I tell the Holy Rollers who try to foist their propaganda on my family, "Thank you very much, but we were born just fine the first time."

Does your entire family actually agree or did you just FOIST your beliefs on them?

I just attended a wedding of a Catholic girl and a young guy from Columbia who was Jewish.  So I meet his dad and ask if there is a large Hebrew population in Columbia.  He says, "Oh, we're not Jewish - just my son".  How pleasant and openminded the man was - and truly reflected in the son's own persona.

I contrast this with "I don't give a flying flahoogle".  LOL


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on August 02, 2007, 06:26:01 PM
Schoolteachers or Priests?  Probably a close call.  The point is, it doesn't prove anything.  We can't assume all priests are evil anymore than we can assume all school teachers are evil.  By extension, we can't assume all church people are bad, any more than we can assume all school teachers are bad.  

People come to your door, your office, accost you on the street, you have the right to listen to their spiel as you see fit.  As to newspapers and their ads, the only control you have is to subscribe or not to subscribe.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on August 02, 2007, 06:27:46 PM
Law,

Thanks for that enlightening article. If I ever encounter any Jews for Jesus, I will quote from it!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Lhoffman on August 02, 2007, 06:28:07 PM
as i tell the scientologists in times square who try to hand me their crap, 'i already have a religion.'  and i carry a copy of something to hand to the jews for jesus when they hand me their cartoons; and here it is:

http://search.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp?s=g&k=jesus

I like it   :)    Out of curiousity, what is their response to this?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: oskylad on August 02, 2007, 09:32:10 PM
Quote
Which do YOU think would be the larger percentage of those who are pedophiles - schoolteachers or "priests" of the RC sect of Christians?

Hofstra University’s Charol Shakeshaft, a leading expert on public-school sexual misconduct, is reported to have testified to the Colorado General Assembly that nearly 7 percent of students nationally report “being sexually abused in a physical manner by an educator in public schools.” 

We may never know how many teachers are guilty of sexual misconduct because attorneys are much more likely to bring suit against the Catholic church than they are against public schools.  Suits against school districts are limited by government immunity statutes and damage caps; suits against the Catholic church are not.     


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on August 02, 2007, 09:59:00 PM
osky,

We may never know how many teachers are guilty of sexual misconduct because attorneys are much more likely to bring suit against the Catholic church than they are against public schools.

Just what experience, statistics, or other facts do you have to prove this, or does your opinion count as fact?
Ever tried to disprove a negative?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on August 02, 2007, 10:16:06 PM
Oskeylad,

The sexual abuse in Catholic schools has been going on for a long time, and is just now coming to the attention of the courts. If as much abuse is going on in the public schools, which is doubtful, it will come out in the wash. Today's students are much more aware of what is allowed and what isn't. I suspect that the percentage from Hofstra is a projection based on a small sample, and may or may not be realistic. Hubby was a victim of sexual abuse in an RC school that was never repeated when he finally went to public school.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: oskylad on August 02, 2007, 10:33:54 PM
Cap0 -

Flies swarm where there is honey.  It's well known that attorneys do, too.

The cap on damages against a public school may be as low as $150,000.  Catholic dioceses can be chased for millions.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on August 02, 2007, 10:38:46 PM
Okeylad,

Your comment does not reflect well on the legal community, nor for those who are seeking to bring their issues to light and resolution. Seems to me that damage from such occurances cannot be measured in dollars, and the pursuit of the highest judgement is not in the best interest of the client. If the accused is put off of seeking justice because they won't be rolling in dough, it diminishes the case they were bringing from the gitgo.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: oskylad on August 02, 2007, 10:49:11 PM
Weezo -

I agree.  I was not reflecting on the justice of the issue - only on human nature.   


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on August 02, 2007, 11:02:55 PM
olad,

The cap on damages against a public school may be as low as $150,000.

Just exactly what states make this part of their Rules of Civil Procedure?  Please be specific.

 Catholic dioceses can be chased for millions.

And it's still not enough.  How much would fairly compensate YOU for your being abused by a "priest" if it happened to you (Which I am sure no one here would ever wish on you.)?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: oskylad on August 02, 2007, 11:17:38 PM
Quote
olad,

The cap on damages against a public school may be as low as $150,000.

Just exactly what states make this part of their Rules of Civil Procedure?  Please be specific.

Colorado - $150,000
Minnesota - $200,000

Similar caps are imposed in other states.  These caps are set by statute and replace the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity, which generally speaking would have allowed no damages against a public body.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Donotremove on August 03, 2007, 11:20:18 AM
Korean Protestants proselytizing in a Muslim country (Afghanistan)?  Gimmie a break.  Whatever happens to them they asked for it.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Donotremove on August 03, 2007, 11:34:47 AM
Caclark, with puzzled brain I'm asking you: What was THAT all about?

Missionaries have caused the world enough trouble, including making women who dress-to-kill feel bad about themselves.  I say missionaries are a scourge to mankind.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: law120b on August 03, 2007, 03:28:26 PM
was it lhoffman or weezo who asked what the response was to what i do with scientologists and jews for jesus?  with the scientologists, i'm walking on by, so if they have a response. i'm not there to hear it.  sometimes i embellish my greeting as follows:  'oh, yes, like i'm ready to scrap the religion i was born with to grab hold of one started by a science fiction dude and adopted by that fukkn genius tom cruise."

with j's for j, if i have time for a discussion, i tell them that their beliefs are founded on jewish biblical history and prophecy.  since i'm a jew who does not accept that the torah came from god, what possible basis would there be to accept a derivative religion predicated on magical stories that are replications of multitudinous previous pagan myths, witnessed by almost no one, and then employed as modifications of my own religion that i don't accept as true.  i have not yet succeeded in de-coverting a jew converted to christianity, at least that i know of, but that won't keep me from trying.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 03, 2007, 03:51:24 PM
Oskeylad,

Hubby was a victim of sexual abuse in an RC school that was never repeated when he finally went to public school.

Dios mio!  Don't you think that is too much info?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on August 03, 2007, 03:59:12 PM
Law,

It may have been Hoffman who asked, but thanks for explaining. I tend to agree that if someone interrupts whatever you are about to proseletyze, they deserve whatever response you choose to give them. I was the same way myself, until I became a teacher and had to deal with my beloved student proseletyzing on their new conversions. I had to find a kinder, gentler response for them, usually a firm "I am not interested, I am happier unchurched that I ever was in a church."

At a later point in my career, I became a champion for the otherly religious. I was teaching computers to a K-2 population, and a 7th Day Adventist child was enrolled. The parent carefully outlined the type of lessons and materials that were not to be used with the child. The principal announced in a staff meeting that the child in question was to be sent to the office whever a lesson or materials were unsuitable in the event that the teacher was unable to provide alternate materials. This was a special problem when there were holiday themed assembly program. The child would sit in the office unless the mother came to gather the child. I objected, pointing out that sitting in the office was reserved as a punishment, and that no child should be punished for their religious beliefs. I offered to allow the child to come to the computer lab during the offending programs and lessons, rather than have the child subjected to a punishment. It meant that I had to give up my own enjoyment of those assemblies to babysit in my lab, but I felt strongly that a young child's religion, which is ofteen based on the choice of the parents, should not be subject to punishment.

The child's Kindergarten teacher did a good job over Halloween and Thanksgiving, but was out on pregnancy leave as we approached Christmas. The subsitute teacher was reluctant to prepare two sets of materials and was using Christmass themes heavily. As a result, that little boy spent many hours playing with the non-sectarian games in the lab, quite happily. I began to suspect that either the substitute was really falling down on the job, or that the boy, who loved the computers, was choosing to absent himself more often than necessary.

I am somewhat curious if the tradition of sending the otherly-religious children to the computer lab during inappropriate lessons continued. Since I was already absent from the assemblies, from time to time, if there were miscreants who were to be punished by not being allowed to attend the assemblies, they  were stationed in an adjoining room that I could easily supervise from the lab. They were not to be allowed the "fun" of being on the computers, and I had them practice handwriting by writing a punishment sentence over and over, just as was done when I was a student. It was punishment enough that few returned for a second round.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on August 03, 2007, 04:07:14 PM
Kid,

I provided "just the facts". I don't think it appropriate to provide prurient details of his childhood experience. It is enough for you to know that I have had to live with the consequences and know that the damage is real and lifelong. I will add, that in my years in protestant churches I was both witness and victim to both successful and thwarted attempts at sexual abuse, so it is not just an RC issue. It was shocking to me to see how the power to pursuade was abused, Heaven or Hell promised as a consequence of not following sinful directives, as is the reason that both hubby and I remain unchurched to this day. No, I will not take a chance again on what I know is a great temptation to those who pose to be "godly". Although I am long past the age of posing much "temptation", I simply will not put my time, money, or apparent support to institutions that I know for a fact, can abuse young people.




Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 03, 2007, 07:05:57 PM
Hear, hear!  Here's to the unchurched.


Title: Am I going to Heaven?
Post by: Thinking Plague on August 03, 2007, 09:21:17 PM

I found this “Am I going to Heaven” quiz online.

Since April 25, 2004, 52,809 people have logged onto this online ministry and taken this quiz.

26,421 - Passed
26,388 – Failed

http://www.biblelineministries.org/amigoing.html


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: thecap0 on August 03, 2007, 11:17:19 PM
tp,

Since April 25, 2004, 52,809 people have logged onto this online ministry and taken this quiz.

26,421 - Passed
26,388 – Failed

For those of us who believe that we go around once and then we are worm food, WHO CARES?!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on August 06, 2007, 12:26:48 PM
Christian Right Activists Disrupt Hindu Chaplain In The Senate

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/12/christian_right_activists_disrupt_hindu_chaplain_in_the_senate

Why am I not surprised... X-tian nut cases just gotta protest anything having to do with peace and tolerance...





srnich,

May the Atman be with you.

Didn't know you guys had covered this much territory, I will have to read back.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: law120b on August 06, 2007, 12:31:48 PM
either i'm going to hell or that bible minitries web test is full-o-shi+...............or maybe both.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on August 06, 2007, 12:45:52 PM
as i tell the scientologists in times square who try to hand me their crap, 'i already have a religion.'  and i carry a copy of something to hand to the jews for jesus when they hand me their cartoons; and here it is:

http://search.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp?s=g&k=jesus

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)



I'm late, while looking for a post by weezo, I ran across your post, and pondered why is the requirement for descent from King David different from Jewish descent based on the maternal lineage?

After that, I have an interesting thing I found propogated by a man who does not clarify that he is a member of Jews for Jesus when circulating material extremely antithetical to Jews.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on August 06, 2007, 12:51:21 PM
weezo, re:#501

I want to thank you for the consideration shown to the boy not allowed to participate in Christmas, including computer teaching materials, because he was a Seventh Day Adventist.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: law120b on August 06, 2007, 01:07:27 PM
why is the requirement for descent from King David different from Jewish descent based on the maternal lineage?

the former is from the words of the Jewish bible in prophesying the characteristics of meschiach.  that latter is a talmudic invention based on the fact that--before DNA testing--you knew for sure who was the mother, but you didn't know for sure who was the father.

the former is suggestive that the latter is wrong, so that the reform branch of judaism is correct in allowing judaism to pass maternally or paternally, without need for conversion.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on August 06, 2007, 02:40:51 PM
Without explaining kvetch, which somebody asked me to define the other day, I shall,--

There were no Reformed(nor Conservative, for that matter)branches at the time in question of fulfilling the prophecies made as to the lineage descending from David.

I've just gone through a similar but different crab from literary forumites discussing a period of time to do with Jacob and the laws of adah, for which they were using the Christian texts as made so readily available in our contemporary era.  I preferred to quote the Rabbinate of the British isles. That did not go over big. When my quote of bonafide translator was simply skipped and then ridiculed with a gigantic amount of "scorn heaped upon moi", I took off with my own kind of mumbled curses under my breath but --

upon return found that the nasty post addressed to me had been removed by the perpetrator so that nobody would ever contest his pungent use of language to retain his authority as a nonbeliever in things Jewish. That reader's version would simply be that he is a nonbeliever in me being allowed an opinion.

So, of course, I still want to know why the lineage of David's descendents is in question.  I live in one of those quaint areas where many people seem to accept the idea with using the Hebrew word, having forgotten some of their own lineage (which rarely happens to any of us all inclusive these days).


Title: Worm Food
Post by: Thinking Plague on August 14, 2007, 05:48:33 PM
For those of us who believe that we go around once and then we are worm food, WHO CARES?!

For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another
- Job 19:25-27


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: obertray on August 15, 2007, 01:33:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?em&ex=1187323200&en=2590af4760a81047&ei=5087%0A

Did everybody here see this?

I may have to dust off some of my old BS and see if the NYT will write about them too (perhaps I'll need to dust off the bong!).

A 20% chance? The question comes to the same for religion, "Why would 'He' bother to make it complex?" If you can do anything, why make them need to poop? I can see why you'd want to make them need to eat, because it sets up a eat or be eaten dynamic that translates into a morality. But most animals (and vegetables) don't care where they poop.

If you're doing a computer sim, why waste the processing power to create "Space"? would we be less curious if space were indeed a bowl over the earth with pictures of stars painted on it? Why bother with nebula ansd so on.

The second question being the one about time. Granted, the program can be created with 100B years of prehistory preloaded, and just as granted, the whole thing could have started at the moment of my birthand you were all preloaded and post added with memory pustules of your own which you only think are real...

I think that this theory has real meat to it and I think it should be mandatorially discussed in every science class in the nation as an alternative to the other great theories of existence.



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on August 15, 2007, 02:38:23 PM
What if that geek went off to get a sandwich... about 5 billion years ago???

OOPS!



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: srnich on August 15, 2007, 02:45:21 PM
Science?

Like Astrology maybe.


Title: Re:Sim geekery ism ists
Post by: obertray on August 15, 2007, 03:15:51 PM
Of course Asimov wrote this story so very long ago (and it was supposed to have started right around now) Where two computer scientists ask, Can a system be so powerfull such that it can replicate an enviroment on it's own? (actually i don't know the question they asked, and I'm not at my library so I can't go get it, but *******Spoiler Alert****** in the end the computer (which had become the internet) becomes massively large (running the machines of an intergalactic humankind) to the point where human kind died and the machine remained as humankind re-evolved, without knowing that there was a supermassive self regulating "computer" that was the equivalent to what we would have referred to as God.

I'm sure Barton knows which story I refer to. As well I'm sure others in the SCI FI books area do.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on August 15, 2007, 05:36:38 PM
If you think of the title of that story, please share. I'd love to read it. Asimov is a favorite, although I've been doing much more history reading than sci-fi. Seems all sci-fi got gory or just too darn smutty - maybe I've just gotten too old to enjoy the smut anymore!


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: obertray on August 15, 2007, 11:47:43 PM
Weezo,

For you, I'll look it up... Back in a flash (far as you know) Ja miss me?

The name of the story is The Last Question it was written in 1956! I came across it in the book The Edge Of Tomorrow which is a book made up is fictions and factual essays by Asimov. It can be had for as low as free at the library or 4.24 from Amazonians  http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Tomorrow-Isaac-Asimov/dp/0812521323

There are links that say you can read it online for free but the one I tried didn't work for me, but here is the Wikipedia plot summary... (I told you i got the question wrong)

Quote
[edit] Plot summary
This particular story deals with the development of a computer called Multivac and its relationship with humanity through the course of seven historic settings. The first is set in the year 2061. In each of the first six scenes a character presents the computer with a question, namely as to how the threat to worthwhile continued human existence posed by heat death can be averted. As the characters in the story recognize, the question is equivalent to: "Can the second law of thermodynamics, used in the story as entropy, be reversed?" In each case the computer finds itself unable to reply due to "insufficient data for a meaningful answer".

In the last scenes, the god-like descendants of humanity watch the universe finally approach the state of heat death and ask the Cosmic AC, Multivac's descendant, the question one last time before "Man" merges with it. Cosmic AC is still unable to answer, but continues to ponder the question after space and time cease to exist. Eventually the Cosmic AC discovers the answer, but has nobody to report it to; the universe is already dead. It therefore decides to show the answer by demonstrating the reversal of entropy, creating the universe anew; the story ends with AC's pronouncement, "'LET THERE BE LIGHT!' And there was light—"



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: weezo on August 16, 2007, 06:53:41 AM
Ober,

Thanks for the title and the name of the book. Library is not a possibilty since my local library is small and distant, and I don't do well returning books. Once I get them I want to keep them. I like the price, so will order it today. I am almost finished with my last batch of books and it is time to make a new order. Hubby enjoys sci-fi as well, and will probably enjoy this book too.

The fifties was a prime time for sci-fi books. So many of them have been rather prophetic as the time has rolled around. I don't know if you have read a story by Asimov called "The Fun They Had" and you can read it at http://www.educationalsynthesis.org/language/FunHad.doc

The story is quite relevent to me, since I am developing instructional web content to make it eventually possible for children to learn from home (or wherever) via computer. The story reminds me that I need to keep fun in the equation of learning!



Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: obertray on August 17, 2007, 12:08:10 PM
"The story reminds me that I need to keep fun in the equation of learning!"

Thanks for the link, it is funny to see which things connect and which things don't with a time capsule like that one (key punch cards and the anachronistic use of the terms and exercise of "homework" when there is no real distinction between the two spaces) and it is instructive to see the offhand acceptance of adoption of the Key punch, much like your acceptance of typing instead of handwriting. (I wonder how much easier typing might be if we stopped teaching the "ABCs" and started teaching that they went "QWERT". Granted, we would lose much of the mythology of our alpha/beta but then gamma survived being upended by deltas new best friend "C"... Given the resistance to changing the keyboard, perhaps working it from the other end.... And while we're at it maybe we can move some letters into positions that make a common usage sense so that, for example "T" and "H" are at the current "JK" position and then the "E" and the "A" can be in the "GH" or "DF").

Meanwhile, I don't think that the lesson of the story was that they were actually having fun but rather that what ever others are doing is fun and it was written for the children of the day who hated doing what they were doing (going to school) and it was a story of the "one day you'll look back and realize that these were the best days of your life" type of stories.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: obertray on August 17, 2007, 12:10:51 PM
And can I just say that I hate giving Jerry Falwell (but does he fall deep enough?) even the courtesy of the heading of tis hread? His name alone is enough to keep me from visiting. Could it be possible to change the topic


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Donotremove on August 17, 2007, 01:30:55 PM
Obertray, do an in-house message (look at the bar underneath your name and you'll see messages.  If you have one it will have a number after it).  Click on members.  Click on Admin.  Scroll down to where it asks if you want to send a message.  Click.  Write message--I always put something in the subject line pertinent to the message--and click on save copy for yourself (not mandatory, but I always do) then click send (or whatever it says.)  Admin will get back to you about your request.  Tell him several of us would like the discussion changed to Religion.  I mean, I've seen others wonder about the Jerry Falwell heading being misleading.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: obertray on August 17, 2007, 01:51:28 PM
And done... Thanks DNR...

Interesting that your initials mean exactly the opposite of your handle. Is that intentional?


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Donotremove on August 17, 2007, 02:00:22 PM
". . . your initials mean exactly the opposite of your handle.  Is that intentional?"--Obertray

I don't understand the question.  DNR.  Drive, Nuetral, Reverse?
(If this turns out to be obvious I'm going to kill myself)


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: obertray on August 17, 2007, 02:19:41 PM
DNR - Do Not Resuscitate.

Don't kill, don't save.

I guess it's not an exact opposite, but close enough for a wisenheimer.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Donotremove on August 17, 2007, 02:36:58 PM
Obertray, I have those instructions on a card in my wallet but just seeing the initals didn't light up anything in my brain.  :-[


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: obertray on August 17, 2007, 03:26:28 PM
Obertray, I have those instructions on a card in my wallet but just seeing the initals didn't light up anything in my brain.  :-[

Perhaps then the instrux are redundant! (just kidding, absolutely kidding!)


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: kidcarter8 on August 17, 2007, 04:08:57 PM
Obertray, I have those instructions on a card in my wallet but just seeing the initals didn't light up anything in my brain.  :-[

Whaaaaaaaat????


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Donotremove on August 18, 2007, 02:17:49 AM
That's right, Kid.  If you find me on the ground (or the bathroom floor--most old men die there) near death, do not call for help or let anyone try to resusitate me.  Got that?  Zero, zilch, nada.  If you're sure I'm dead you can call 911.  Otherwise, get a beer from the fridge and sit down and wait till I stop breathing.  The remote for the TV is right there on the coffee table.  If my daughter drops by she'll wait with you.  She knows the drill.  No smoking.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: madupont on August 18, 2007, 02:56:12 AM
donotremove,

oh,God, you've made my day,which started out with a message I didn't particularly need in the instruction box  you just explained to obertray who will find out why he has that name when he gets in there and tries to remember the instructions. Hint: use the Obertray.


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: obertray on August 18, 2007, 02:23:40 PM
We probably all saw it, but I'll post a link anyway   http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/magazine/19Religion-t.html


Title: Re: Jerry Falwell
Post by: Donotremove on August 19, 2007, 01:35:18 AM
Obertray, that is one long article and I'm sure the exposition is a good one but right now I am so frustrated (the article mentions that right away) that for the time being I have turned a blind eye to religious questions of any kind.  I read the first page and faltered.  I'm truly backslid as my Baptist family would say.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: obertray on August 20, 2007, 03:27:06 PM
Thank you admin.

May Jerry RaP.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: obertray on September 10, 2007, 03:43:44 PM
Yeah that was a long article.... maybe one day I'll finish it (as should be said in church "I doubt it!")

But today there was an article about 15 year old boys being kicked out of polygamists' compounds. these boys have but a smattering of education (being just 15) and are likely not to get any more.

It's obvious to all onlookers that the real reason they're being tossed is that they have reached a firm young age that is much more appealing to the 25 and under womenfolk (at least) and make it harder for wrinkled uncle Ned to marry hie 14 year old niece as is God's will! And the article glance off this point, saying that the boys are unneeded for an equitable balance of husband and wives.

Truth be told, I guess the boys have nothing to complain about. But maybe we could set it up so that a Chinese couple could adopt them. Maybe even a trade of sorts, they give us 5 or 10 chinese girls, and they can have a polygamist's boy.....

Perhaps, a better solution would be for the polygamist cult to move to China, there they could marry all the excess girlsand perhaps, pay a dowry for them so that the family won't have to have lost out...

Why should this cult expect to stay where they are, the history of the Mormons was one of wandering away from persecution. Presecute these SOBs until they go either to Alaska, Siberia or China. That's what I say! 


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: elportenito1 on September 11, 2007, 10:36:08 AM
Sect leader facing rape trial to use faith as his defence


 Ian Munro Herald Correspondent in New York and agencies


September 11, 2007



THE US is both religious and religiously tolerant, but if the nation's founding fathers could have imagined someone like Warren Jeffs, they may not have been so ready to embrace freedom of worship.

Jeffs, 51, the leader of a polygamous Mormon sect, is about to stand trial for being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old girl. He is reputed to have dozens of wives, some inherited from his father.

The girl was married to her 19-year-old cousin in 2001, and the marriage consummated weeks later, all at Jeffs insistence. She will be the principal witness against Jeffs, who took over formal leadership of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints when his father died in 2002.

As the church's leader, or "prophet", Jeffs claims to be in direct contact with God and therefore determines who can marry whom. The girl reportedly twice told Jeffs she did not want to marry or have sex. He is allleged to have told her it was her spiritual duty and that it was sanctioned by God.

In addition to the girl, two men are expected to give evidence about Jeffs's interference in their sexual relations with their wives, and about his instructions to persist with underage weddings regardless of state law. By Jeffs's reasoning, to oppose him is to oppose the will of God, although divine guidance failed him in August last year. He had been on the run when police stopped him for having an illegible car number plate, and he was arrested.

While the trial is about justice for one woman, it is also likely to excite public interest for its insights into the 12,000-strong community Jeffs leads.

The community, where immodest, short-sleeved shirts and movies are banned, exists in two towns either side of the Utah-Arizona border in remote desert country - Hildale and Colorado City.

Jeffs reportedly has excommunicated more than 100 men, taking their wives and children from them and placing them with other men.

Teenage boys are expelled for going to the movies, or looking at girls with interest. A welfare worker in nearby St George says teenagers are expelled almost weekly and left to fend for themselves in a mainstream society for which they are unprepared. Many end up in trouble with the law.

In the past five years about 2000 teens had been ordered out with no support and forbidden to contact their parents, said Michelle Benward, vice-president of the support group New Frontiers for Families.

"The mothers are living in such fear," Ms Benward said. "Most of them have 10 or 12 children. If they are once held as misbehaving they are told they could be reassigned to another husband or their other children can be taken away.

"There's thousands that have either been invited to leave or have left because they can't deal with the level of scrutiny. I have a couple of hundred I have contact with … hundreds of boys and 10 girls."

Polygamy is illegal in Utah, although it is not a factor in Jeffs's trial. However, the trial will hear evidence of Jeffs urging his followers to maintain the practice.

A spokesman for the Utah Attorney-General, Paul Murphy, said there were 30,000 polygamists in the state. Instead of charging people with polygamy, officers were told to focus on child abuse, fraud and domestic violence.

Mr Murphy said jury selection had begun last Friday.

Defence lawyers will argue that Jeffs is being prosecuted for his faith. Officiating at a wedding ceremony did not make him an accomplice to rape, a defence lawyer, Walter Bugden, is reported to have said.

Ms Benward, who is about to open a home for excommunicated teens, said it was not polygamy but Jeffs who created problems for his cult.

"There are other polygamous groups in Utah that do very well. The problem is having a tyrannical, obsessed, deranged leader."


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: incadove0 on September 11, 2007, 04:06:19 PM
[from article]  Ms Benward, who is about to open a home for excommunicated teens, said it was not polygamy but Jeffs who created problems for his cult.

"There are other polygamous groups in Utah that do very well. The problem is having a tyrannical, obsessed, deranged leader."


The problem is also people willing to follow tyrannical, obsessed, deranged leaders, even to the point of throwing their own children out on the street.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on September 11, 2007, 05:45:17 PM
inca, a deranged social gene?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: thecap0 on September 11, 2007, 07:28:52 PM
inca,

The problem is also people willing to follow tyrannical, obsessed, deranged leaders, even to the point of throwing their own children out on the street.

The very paradigm of Eric Hoffer's True Believer!


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on September 11, 2007, 07:31:14 PM
Donotremove

Don't try and figure it out. I thought I'd explain Big Love to el portenito now that he is speaking English again and better then Russell Crowe too. But he's probably still asleep down  under.

Always remember what Al Gore said,"Do you have a Senator?" Now that we have one, I also have "a Reader" for -- Peeling the Onion, after you said it looked like I was having a discussion by myself.  As I said, Desdemona and I were doing just fine in there swapping info. Until invasive over-familiarity crept into the mix  making wise cracks that really look bad in context of what I was actually quoting, and the authors of said posts will probably feel foolish later unless they remove their embarrassing remarks; which seems to be a hallmark of their tribe when they realize what they were saying, as they slap their foreheads,"when I could have had a V-8 instead!


Title: Need a new heading - THE LAW
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 12, 2007, 09:41:43 AM
Is there any reason at all to give bail to the West Virginia 6, the cretins who detained and assaulted the 20 year old woman?

Plea bargaining and insufficient bail are 2 growing problems in this nation. 

Need more jails?  Hell - build em.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/09/12/2007-09-12_racist_sickos_allegedly_tortured_black_w.html


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: srnich on September 12, 2007, 09:57:43 AM
No need for more prisons, just let minor drug offenders out. It's time to decriminalize drugs.

Addicts are not always criminals.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on September 12, 2007, 02:08:10 PM
Kid, I agree.  That W. Virginia bunch of slime have no redeeming qualities whatsoever and should be locked up till hell freezes over.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: obertray on September 12, 2007, 05:17:21 PM


 And since this is the religion forum let me say ah, that that trailer ah should be cast out! Begone Satan! Leave this trailer park ah! You evil hast dwelt in this trailer ah  too long! We condemn ah you to the fires of ah hell ah!

Wait wait, where's Jbot? There's a screen play in this! This trailer is possessed by the devil! "Based on a true story" Move over Long Island Their's a new emnityville horror in W ByGod Va.

Don't get me wrong (you're probably not) I read this article this very a.m. and when I clicked on the link I said to myself, I'm only reading this sensationalist crap so that I'll know what people will be talking about. But when I got to the part where it said that a black girl who's a little bit dumb, I knew this story isn't going anyplace (But then I was wrong about Tywanna Brawley too so, don't go by me).

It's heinous and these people are clearly insane. But, when there's a little white 4 year old girl missing someplace an entire ocean away, who is going to want to photograph a bunch of inbreed white trash with potatoes growing behind their ears and a stalk of wheat sticking out between a rotted stump and the last tooth amongst them? When there are good looking people from far away so we don't have to think about our own ugliness, this story will never see the glare of the media spotlight.

But that doesn't mean I'm not going to make fun of those people who will think the trailer is possessed (I have to admit, I'd destroy it, just to be on the safe side too!) and repossessed! (My brother used to have a 5 trailer "Park" in the Catskills. I liked the people who lived there for the most part, but we didn't nickname it "Robber's Roost" because the clergy were living there.

Now, if one of those families were to move into this trailer in WBGVa, I can see how it's history would tend to convince the new inhabitants to act likewise. So I'd just destroy the trailer. Throw everybody into jail (which to paraphrase my favorite Republican, this is the Politics forum too you know, Babs Bush) "This is a step up for a lot of these people!"


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on September 12, 2007, 05:32:35 PM
Nice finish, Ober.  The Babs Bush quote is just perfect.  Yea-uh and Amen, Brother, on burning that trailer to the ground--just as it stands with out saving even a single piece of paper.  Then, scraping at least a foot of dirt from the site to be replaced with contaminated soil from the Rocky Mountain Flats nuclear facility.  Ten foot wire fence with razor wire on top and "warning radio active" signs all around.

Did I miss anything?

Alas, you're right on with the amount of publicity the rape and torture of a 20 year-old Black woman that's just a tad slow is going to get.  I mean, I didn't read anywhere that her own family had worried about where she was for five days.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: elportenito1 on September 26, 2007, 08:43:59 AM
Submission can be abused, say Anglicans

 Linda Morris

September 26, 2007

The Bible's instruction that wives "submit" to their husbands in marriage had been misused to justify domestic abuse, leaders of the Sydney Anglican church have conceded.

The church's annual synod last night reaffirmed its support for the disputed doctrine that the "relationship of loving and sacrificial leadership of a husband and the intelligent voluntary submission of a wife was the biblical pattern of marriage".

However, some men in the church had twisted the teaching for their own ends, said Sydney Anglican, Lesley Ramsay, who has led opposition to the ordination of women priests and bishops.

"Men who use this justification have not understood the texts, do not understand God, do not understand the nature of Christ's love, do not understand headship. Their mistreatment of their wives flows out of their sinful inadequacies, not out of what God teaches in the Bible."

The Sydney Anglican diocese subscribes to a conservative interpretation of biblical theology that God created men and women to be "equal but different", and in marriage the husband lovingly leads his wife, and the wife willingly submits - in family and in the church.

The teaching has left the diocese open to criticism that use of the word "submission" could encourage domineering and even abusive behaviour.

The Reverend Philip Bradford supported the diocese's condemnation of domestic violence but strongly opposed its traditional understanding of male and female roles. His parents modelled a relationship where every decision was shared and prayed over without the imposition of authority, he said.

Professor Bernard Stewart said the Scriptures needed to be taken as a whole in a way that reflected marriage as a partnership of man and women created equally in God's image.

Leading condemnation of domestic violence, Mrs Ramsay said: "We need to teach this to our congregations … but we also need to recognise that in the hands of some, this pattern has been twisted beyond recognition … and we need to reject it."


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on September 26, 2007, 03:01:19 PM
donotremove,

The only way that woman was a tad slow was in getting away. She was a twenty year old woman which is considered a grown woman in that part of the south, these guys migrate here to Pennsylvania for work regularly which is why I never walked to the Turkey Hill for anything unless I walked in toward fields as the Amish do.   The local Scots-Irish may be cousins. But, I have read their counterparts on the internet, the riot-act, about being an embarrassing lot to anybody Scots.

The "girl's" mother had to come there to get there. You see,ever since Katrina, I read the Black version of the news, otherwise I won't ever get the word from the horse's mouth.   I couldn't bring a bit of news back the other night because it had already been eliminated from interest, as blogs of old panthers publishing advice on the Jena,Louisiana situation while we've got "white folks" bragging about Chicken in the library down home who, as once said, don't know diddly-squat. Do tell?

The news had already moved on to the situation in West Virginia which was tantamount to last night's episode of "The War". I would imagine Dave Rockefeller might have a thing or two he could do about local justice in something like a trailer park obertray described. 

You remember all that flap about Horowitz of the radical left who went right to Republican, well the other night I found his Playboy piece when he was still making changes in redecorating himself in 1970 so he covered with a piece on Marcuse,and his descriptions were delicious of people sometimes known from the anti-Vietnam movement. And I have to dig out a bit --

This will stop you in your trench. Because the first tendency of the urban Black is to march South,picking up as they come, and put a stop to Jena, although Bobby Brown will raise money in a pinch to save the day which was advised. The upshot of Forty years and a mule of Republican blow back by connivance is this remark which is bearing fruit.

Here's Horowitz,--"The hope is for the victory of reason through a student-worker revolution that will be, in the words of Marcuse’s students, 'just as violent as the violence it combats.' "

So with hesitance,
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/semnycrally?source=SEM-event-google-newyork-site-national



Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on September 26, 2007, 03:56:22 PM
Maddy, did I say something in Religion and Politics?  I don't remember having done so, at least not recently. As for attending the Obama rally in Washington Square, I don't think so.  Besides, unless I am sure the candidate--whoever it turns out to be--is totally aware of the condition our poor country is in, from assaults by our own government institutions (and the military has become institutionalized and has been for some time making policy outside the three branches of government) and certain other powerful interests, then I'll just sit this one out and stay home on election day.  Personally, I think we've already crossed the Rubicon and have lost our Democracy.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: incadove0 on September 26, 2007, 09:18:11 PM
Keep hope alive, Donot.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on September 27, 2007, 11:52:08 AM

Nice finish, Ober.  The Babs Bush quote is just perfect.  Yea-uh and Amen, Brother, on burning that trailer to the ground--just as it stands with out saving even a single piece of paper.  Then, scraping at least a foot of dirt from the site to be replaced with contaminated soil from the Rocky Mountain Flats nuclear facility.  Ten foot wire fence with razor wire on top and "warning radio active" signs all around.

Did I miss anything?

Alas, you're right on with the amount of publicity the rape and torture of a 20 year-old Black woman that's just a tad slow is going to get.  I mean, I didn't read anywhere that her own family had worried about where she was for five days.


This is what I was referring to but I should have grabbed a number.

This morning the AP says the FBI is pursuing Civil Rights violation in this case.
And this was a posted source from the paper my sister-in-law in Ontario is likely to read since she worked for years at the Buffalo Urban League:
http://www.buffalonews.com/248/story/168679.html


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on September 27, 2007, 12:26:19 PM
Maddy, thanks for the link.  Woulda, shoulda, coulda.  Not too many are going to think about and discuss this issue of violence to the disabled.  I mean, they would, except there's O.J., the young, rich blondes, rattling sabers about Iran, THE CAMPAIGN, the missing child in Portugal, college campus shooters, trying to scrape one more mortgage payment together, and myriad else. But say, while you're up, get me a beer, okay?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on September 27, 2007, 01:25:30 PM
What is your problem?  I noticed when you said something about my moving  that didn't seem comprehensive. Sorry.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on September 27, 2007, 02:18:44 PM
Huh?


Title: Sick, ....but I guess it's "progress"
Post by: kidcarter8 on September 28, 2007, 10:19:06 AM
Marry Your Babby Daddy Day.

Bravo, Riverside Church.  I guess.



Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on September 28, 2007, 02:09:10 PM
And, I wonder how long those marriages will last?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 16, 2007, 03:31:26 PM
donotremove,

You see,ever since Katrina, I read the Black version of the news, otherwise I won't ever get the word from the horse's mouth.   


The "black version of the news":

Inside Studio WNGR:

Bob N. Weaver: We take you now to Washington, D. C., murder capital of the USA.
Our reporter, Clarence Clemancy in the field with a story regarding yet another tragedy in a D. C. crackhouse. Clarence?


Clarence Clemency: Thanks Bob. I'm standing here next to yet another corpse and another victim of the white overlords of this illegal city, taken from our red brethren so many years ago. This young African-American, Mohammed Hate Amerika, forced to sell crack to make ends meet, was shot dead today, most likely by the very same white policemen sent to "investigate" his untimely death at the tender age of 23. Far too young to die, Amerika was trying to get enough money to send his only son, Kill Amerika to Cuba where he could be properly trained in the ways of Revolution by Fidel Castro and his supporters. No one knows what will happen to young Kill. No one here wishes to comment on the death of Mohammed, fearing they, too, will end up sprawled on a sidewalk, a bullet to the back of the head, a life ended by the modern slavemasters. Bob?

Bob N. Weaver: No doubt about it, Clarence. In other news today, all New Orleans' blacks remain victims of George Bush and his family, as the white-planned hurricane Katrina, which was caused by weapons testing in the Gulf of Mexico, leaves all of them homeless with no place to cash their meager welfare checks, and no chance of receiving reparations for their ancestors enslavement.  
 


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: barton on October 19, 2007, 11:00:32 AM
Donot, when smart guys like you sit out POTUS elections, we get [insert noun descriptive of dementia and/or retardation here] like Bush in the oval office.

Please Please Please put a clothespin on your nose and step into a polling booth Nov. 2008.



Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on October 19, 2007, 12:24:57 PM
Barton, naturally I will vote (by mail) in the 2008 election.  I'm just down-in-the-mouth about the field.  I was so excited about Obama.  Now, I'm on the fence.  He's just too damn careful.  I guess I want Howard Dean without the primal scream.

Hillary knows politics, knows how to deal.  Hillary knows how the world works.  But is she the one that can put the military (Pentagon) back under civilian rule?  Can she convince Congress that defense jobs in their districts/states have the U.S. (the world, actually) by the short hairs and that Congress has to stop rubber stamping Pentagon budgets?  Does she understand that Democracy cannot be exported or imposed?  Does she believe the U.S. is the world's policeman and that it's our way or the highway, and that we don't need to ring the world with military bases?

Do any of the Democratic candidates?

Do you know of any real leader available in the U.S. today?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: barton on October 20, 2007, 11:43:01 AM
Anyone who would try to lead our country would have to be some kind of nut....


so I'm thinking, hmm, Dennis Kucinich?

 :)


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on October 20, 2007, 12:05:48 PM
Barton, I really like to hear the little guy answer questions (from whomever.)  He never equivicates or spins.  He's ready (political viagra?).  And he makes so much SENSE.  I was surprised when the folks here told me about his past governing f*ckups.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on October 23, 2007, 04:08:49 PM
All I know that when I look at candidates, I tend to look at what they have done, and what they do, rather than what they say, or what they say they are going to do.

Take Ronald Reagan for example. He said he was for small government, and responsible leadership. His record in California was the opposite, so when he got in could anyone be surprised that he'd run up the biggest deficit spending in American history? Could anyone truly claim to be surprised when he said that ketchup was a vegetable? when he reduced subsidies for mental health programs, while expanding breadth and depth of the relationship between government contractors and the Pentagon----something Eisenhower had warned us all about, when he was President?

Did it surprise you when George Bush I said he wouldn't raise taxes and then did?

Did it surprise you when Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy said they'd support education in this country while they went about setting the table for the divisive, disruptive, and destructive NCLB law?

Were shocked when Bush II said he was a "uniter and not a divider" but turned out to be a "divider and not a uniter" (unless you count bringing unity to Al Quaeda and the Democratic Party)?

Check the records...watch what they do, and who they take their money from....it's the best way to analyze them all.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: srnich on October 25, 2007, 03:49:24 PM
Of course you're right about most all that.

In a frustrating kinda way.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 25, 2007, 03:51:50 PM
Can't "unite" a group so swayed to unrealistic ideal.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on October 25, 2007, 04:04:38 PM
Actually, Kid,

It is easier to unite a group under unrealistic ideals than under realistic ones. Religion is an excellent example. Science is the other side of the coin.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: kidcarter8 on October 25, 2007, 04:30:45 PM
Not these whackjobs.  See what Condi had to deal with yesterday?  Please.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on October 25, 2007, 06:22:18 PM
Kid,

I saw a newsbyte of Condi today, but have no idea what it was about. For a group to not organize under a given individual or the goals of the current administration does not in the least indicate that a better negotiator and actual realistic goals could not bring them together. Do not confuse the failures of the Bush administration with the notion of the impossibility.

If you are a reader, Kid, you may want to join the World History Book Forum. We are reading and starting to discuss a book called "March of Folly", which explore certain governmental follies in the history of the western world. The book ends with the Vietnam war, and how wasteful it was in both lives and dollars because one after another administration wanted to set the "realistic goals" for the Vietnamese people who were strugging for their independence. How can we "fight for freedom", when in truth, we want to dictate how and what freedoms will be allowed. A foreign power dictating "freedom" is no freedom at all.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: srnich on October 26, 2007, 03:14:11 PM
Not these whackjobs.  See what Condi had to deal with yesterday?  Please.

Def.: whackjob:

"Steve, I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."  Condoleezza Rice May 2002.


Please.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: liquidsilver on November 10, 2007, 05:14:12 AM
Really wild "debate" between Mormons and Christian

http://www.break.com/index/christian-guy-totally-owns-mormons.html


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on November 10, 2007, 01:02:23 PM
Liquidsilver

Or, as they say on, Curb Your Enthiasm, when Larry David gets the floor,"Pretty good.  Pretty good.".


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on November 10, 2007, 01:02:54 PM
Can't "unite" a group so swayed to unrealistic ideal.


I think I know where you're going with this, but more importantly than using terms like UNITER and DECIDER and all the rest, is the FACT that their use was INITIATED by a President whose policy and practice were and remain in complete OPPOSITION to the principles implied by the use of those terms.

THUS, it remains and ideal that is unfulfilled, not by the President's critics, nor by the most marginilized of those critics, but by the President himself.

Therefore, in examining whom to consider for the next POTUS, if it is important to the US and its voting citiizens to feel that their country's leader is, in FACT (and not in theory), a UNITER and NOT a DIVIDER, then it is encumbent upon that voting citizenry to examine each of the candidates' potential at being able to fulfill that role.

Which leads us to look at Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. It is fair to say that the two of them are the MOST DIVISIVE candidates in the race.

And, it's possible, that our November 2008 choice may come down to them.

If that doesn't depress you, you are simply not paying attention.

 




Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on November 28, 2007, 07:08:10 PM
Well, of course it does.  But not literally, I refuse to let either the Hillary or the Rudy depress me.  I was surprised by a remark the other night from Dzimas because I hadn't named names nor even remembered them but  when I reminded him of the rumors that had once started about Hillary, was I surprised to find the international news media is spreading a more current rumor to that effect.  Somebody is out to get her but good. Of course, the real problem in her campaign remains as the people who think they are getting Bill back if they vote for her; he is not cooperating either, Europe is more aware of his affairs amour than we are.

All she can do is threaten him with a permanent split.  This will not necessarily please her constituency. Rudy's constituency is already rather displeased with "the mate".   I think you see the problem here with this approach to a presiding officer elected by the people.

It is laughable so why should it depress me.   I hate to tell you when I first voted but after having the senior Bush put a stop to any more of that with all his good advice, I can now see why I didn't vote earlier. 

As I recall you have residence in New Jersey -- so let me tell you it was a treat voting in New Jersey compared to where I am now and the whacky business that goes on with the non-separation of church and state, which I know that they will get prosecuted for having devoted so much underhandedness to operating.  This thought does not depress me in the least.  It will happen. (Maybe not in New Jersey, I know what you mean.)


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: srnich on November 30, 2007, 02:52:52 PM
The latest farce.

Pat Robertson Not Down With Yoga


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/29/pat-robertson-not-down-wi_n_74527.html



Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on December 01, 2007, 02:42:40 PM
What'sa matter? Did he misconstrue it as a foreign religious practice not to be abided by upstanding Americans.   I'm afraid to read it because it might be worse that I thought.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on December 01, 2007, 11:13:47 PM
No, Maddie,

The foolish man just said that all those soothing chants are really prayers to the Hindu gods - you are praying to a "false god" and don't even know it!

Well, something is amiss with that. In my understanding of prayer, you have to know that you are talking to God and what you are saying. If you are making a mindless chant, even if it is one to the "right" god, but you are not paying attention and making the effort to reach God with the chant, I don't see how it could be construed a "prayer".

Sorta reminds me of an old Catholic rule that Catholics could not enter a non-catholic church - and if you did, you had to confess it as a sin when you went to confession again. I remember the issue coming up when I joined the Blue Birds (I was about 10), and they met in a Methodist Church, and my mom had to call the priest and get permission for me to go to the meetings, which was permitted ONLY because there were no comparable girls clubs sponsored by any of the Catholic churches.



Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on December 02, 2007, 10:14:24 PM
Oh,  I used to repeat mantra after my Austrian friend Elf Laksmi when she  came back from India to visit her folks and would drop by to see  me for about three days at a time.  She would proceed to make some chai on my old iron Stewart stove, and she would sing chants as she was taught to do at Hanuman temple by the old teacher of Baba Ram Das who would say, "Sing, Laksmi, sing." So she would accompany herself on the stove with a little chant, and have me repeat the words after her but I don't think I know the correct order of any of those words after thirty years.  It's an interesting language, Hindi.  You can add word upon word of modifying inflections of meaning, syllable by syllable, which is often done in German as well, which is probably why Elfriede picked up the other language so well in India, since German is an Indo-European language.

At other times, she would go up to Massachusetts Institute of Technology and stay with others there who were both alumni of MIT and fellow disciples of the old guru at Hanuman temple (which has since been bombed by irate Muslims; at least since what happened to Iraq)and at other times or even those times she would take a job selling European cheese at a counter in a shop on Harvard Square and then complain that she had put on weight.

I really dropped by to post this:

The Iraqi government has warned of a health "catastrophe" facing
Baghdad after an upsurge in cholera brought the total number of cases
recorded in the city to 101. Many of Baghdad's water pipes and
sewerage systems have been damaged or destroyed by more than four
years of warfare. (Observer)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2220624,00.html



Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on December 03, 2007, 10:02:29 AM
The "green zone" in Baghdad has sparkling clean water--hot and cold.  The contractors that were handed (no bidding) the job of restoring the water to the city have all taken (stolen) their money and gone on to other things.

Perhaps the Iraqi government should stop stealing the oil money (what there is after the machinations of the U.S. government to steal some too) and use it to fix the water purification and delivery system for Baghdad.  After they fix that, the Iraqi government can start on the electrical delivery system/grid.  Both these projects would provide jobs (and keep disgruntled citizens from blowing things up) and would do more to restore "peace" in Iraqi than most anything else.

Of course, the water and electrical systems were destroyed by the Coillition during the first 30 days of the "War of Liberation" in direct violation of the terms of the Geneva Convention.  Just as the looting (and stripping of vital parts of the Iraq manufacturing and public sectors--hospitals, etc,) was allowed to happen in order to soften up the public to drastic CHANGE that was right around the corner.  You know, the CHANGE that lets multinationals come in and scoop up the insides of your country for bargain basement prices.

Allowing for the concern by private citizens and groups, the power in the current American government doesn't care a fig about the Iraqi people (or you and me, either), except for some window dressing.  I'd go on to say the present goverment in power in Washington does not even believe in government or Democracy.  They know that it is necessary to hide their true aims under democratic government's skirt.  Their true goal is government by multinational with higher and higher profits (no current profit is EVER enough) lest they collapse and plunge us into the dark ages again.

Well, don't get me started . . . .


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 04, 2007, 12:49:22 AM
Mike Huckabee's moment of truth, and how he failed to do the right, and righteous thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120301620.html


Title: Germany moves to ban Scientology
Post by: liquidsilver on December 07, 2007, 11:26:13 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: thecap0 on December 08, 2007, 07:44:57 AM
Romney had the opportunity to make a Kennedyesque statement, and he blew it.

Our country is worse off for his weasel words.

Oh well, one less Rebuttlickan to worry about.

Can anyone here spell pander?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on December 08, 2007, 08:46:10 AM
Romney had the opportunity to make a Kennedyesque statement, and he blew it.

Our country is worse off for his weasel words.

Oh well, one less Rebuttlickan to worry about.

Can anyone here spell pander?

Expecting Romney to be like Kennedy is like expecting Rudy Giuliani to be like Lincoln.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on December 08, 2007, 09:10:48 AM
Liquid, I, personally, think the Germans have it right to ban the Church of Scientology.  Personally, I would ban them here, and churches that worship Satan and snakes, and, well, fill in the blanks.  But that IS NOT religious tolerance, and we, as a people, espouse religious tolerance.

The problem starts with defining what IS a religion.  And, you can stroll back through history to the mists of time and see wars being fought over THAT.

The Germans will be disappointed in the results of their ban.  It will drive the followers underground and actually attract more recruits.

Did you notice the advertisment at the end of the article?  The one touting the services of ex-Navy Seal protection of your very person as you move about in the world?  The security contractors are moving away from Iraq and looking to open up new markets, eh?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on December 27, 2007, 09:02:08 PM
Donotremove,#578     re: German Scientology?

I noticed the posts earlier but most people seem to be beside the point as to what Scientology has to do with any of this and I will try to clarify what is now a muddled subject.

The problem occurred when it was announced that a movie would be made in Germany to do with Claus von Stauffenberg's attempt  to remove Hitler before things got worse.

"Stauffenberg was motivated by a sense of moral responsibility, brought on by his knowledge of the crimes the regime was committing, as well as his belief that some of Hitler's tactical orders had no chance of success.

Stauffenberg felt this amounted to an act of treason against German soldiers...?"

Sound familiar?  If it does than you can understand why someone decided in La-la Land that a film ought to be made; and, star Tom Cruise (well-known Scientologist).

The Germans found the first clause, up to the semi-colon, "Interesting....";but, followed by what came after the semi-colon,
that became an entirely different matter.  On the order of."What? Tom Cruise? You've got to be kidding!  He looks nothing like Stauffenberg."

Quite true, I will include the updated copy, so you can see for yourself what the Graf von Stauffenberg looked like. Then you can decide for yourself if the fuss is worth it.

You see, for starters the producers announced that they would be filming on the very spot where Count Stauffenberg was executed for the assassination plot.  The Germans do not feel that is an option. Immediately it escalated, from Tom Cruise not being big enough to fill the  shoes of a martyr,  into another dimension; and if you think I'm exagerating, I will bring some of the things that I posted earlier during the quickly defunct Mailer reading-discussion of his last book,The Castle in the Forest,in the Fiction Forum where the short-schrift read-up timed-out irascibly as almost always.   Originally, I had posted something about the von Stauffenberg family and their home in an earlier Non-fiction venue  that was halted by almost effortless flippancy which is usually the case with the disruptive element. It is recognizable by their belief that they can destroy Kultur for the good of the Future. By lies, if necessary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3909635.stm#upagain

I think that after you read this and begin to fathom how badly some percentage of the population of Germany feels about having been in the wrong when deludedly perceiving Hitler as their Saviour, they had eventually, given time to reflect, had a revelation that Claus Schrenk Graf von Stauffenberg was not such a bad guy but an intermediary who offered them another chance to think differently about the German past and their belief system.

This, then is why they changed their minds about Scientology.

One foot note before I back out the door. In Germany, as I was made frightfully aware when I had barely arrived in Western Europe Forum, nearly five years ago, and was immediately asked,"What do you think of the German tax on churches?"

What do you think?    I thought so. Keep in mind, this does not refer to your church or anybody's unless your church or theirs  happens to be in Germany.

Scientologists are in the habit of successfully making money to support what they believe and which they believe is an anti-church position. How much relevance does this then have, if German converts to Scientology are exempt from paying, their government, the Church Tax. 

Plot beginning to thicken. You bet.


Yet, to tamper, with their newly rendered attempts to make psychological restitution for the Nationalist error has offended them deeply; and they do not see it simply as Tom Cruise, short guy, that is, short on heroic stature, but he has always made it frightfully apparent that he comes saddled with a true believer doctrine of his own, since where ever he goes,he mentions, Scientology.








Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on December 27, 2007, 11:15:04 PM
http://www.traces.org/mildredfishharnack.html

Mildred's personal friendship with the family of the American ambassador to Germany could do nothing to save her from Hitler's personal sense of wrathful justice. His life against all  other.

http://www.traces.org/midwestdiplomats.html

[You will find that in the very last section of topics covered under the Traces re: Mildred Fish Harnack*, first link at top,

the very last paragraphs describe the place where the film producers decided to have Tom Cruise shot on film (on location) where the man whom he was playing, Claus von Stauffenberg was in actuality shot by a firing squad.  No further arrangements could therefore be discussed.  It indicated a basic lack of respect.

http://www.traces.org/americaninternees.html

At the end of this third description, is a map of the American State Department employees route out of Germany to Lisbon to embark for America.  This was the routine trail for almost all emigres  who managed to get out once Hitler was in power (with some slight  adjustments to a route along the Cote d'Azur arranged  at the time in Europe,by journalist  Varian Fry, I believe was his name).A number of these latter emigres were artists of Jewish origins who became a part of the California community  at Malibu.

In my childhood (and much later as well, about sixteen to seventeen years ago, in fact) I knew people who either themselves had the foresight, or their parents did, to leave Austria and Zurich before Hitler ever became Reichschancellor but possibly closer to the Munich Putsch and well before the Night of the Long  Knives when thousands died.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on December 30, 2007, 03:21:41 PM
As we  are winding to a close of our US Christmas season with New Year's Eve and Day , I think this ought to be a good reminder of some of the differences of opinion we have had on who is right about public  celebrations, decorations, etc.

Long Island,Patchogue
What About Those With Different Beliefs? (1 Letter)
 
"I would remind Mr. Butler that the community and the country are made up of many groups of people who celebrate distinct holidays at this time of year. Wishing everyone “Merry Christmas” can be an insult to them.
 
Mr. Butler is entitled to his opinion, but he shouldn’t force it on the rest of us. I celebrate Christmas, but not for religious reasons, and I don’t need to “keep Christ in Christmas.”

The non-Christian world doesn’t believe in the same thing that Mr. Butler does, but it doesn’t make them bad people any more than what Mr. Butler believes makes him better than those with other beliefs."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/opinion/l30island-WHATABOUTTHO_LETTERS.html



Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: srnich on January 03, 2008, 02:00:51 PM
WHEW!

Christmas made it through another year of "attacks".

Was gettin' worried there with O'Reily and all..........


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on January 03, 2008, 10:14:17 PM
Don't worry, Obama wouldn't take Christmas away from little children.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: luee on January 12, 2008, 04:25:33 PM



Sharia (the legal system which is part of the overall social recipe of Islam...sort of a book on laws that is part of the set that includes the book on religion) is just flat out incompatible with how modern economic development works, modern investments work, property laws with non sharia states, the development of human capital which modern economies require.

It worked to tame the warrior culture which is frequently found in an economy of scarcity and a nomad geography...back in the 6-12 Century. It also has an additional appeal: It tames the very rich and keeps them under the same prohibitions as the common folks. This is the aspect which is attractive to many in the ME...its a way Islam tamed the very predatory wealthy who would not share in its past. They know their rulers are out of control and have lost sight of the people. the call to sharia law is often the call to control for the repressed but also the call to even handedness from the poor

But it is strictly incompatible with modern complex interactive and intertwined nation states. It causes chaos within the society and with neighbors now a days...and with the equitable distribution of oil wealth and oil exchange with the outside world.

Petro nations do not share their wealth very well and when they do share they do not insist on education or merit or productivity. The result is a nation ill prepared for the modern world. And the oil industry simply does not supply enough jobs for a consumer market to be developed or a middle class to develop.

The marriage of sharia law and a petro economy is a disaster which exacerbates the terrible distribution of wealth, youth, illiteracy and educational strains on their societies.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on January 12, 2008, 08:23:06 PM
Luee,

You have brought up the subject of Sharia Law. Please explain how the law operates and why it is incompatable with modern life? You say they cannot co-exist, but without any reasoning to your theory, it is just a "say so", not a fact.

There is merit in a system of laws that does not dispense privilege to some at the expense of others. Greed and selfishness are problems in all countries, not just the underdeveloped ones. In fact, at times we (The US) seem to exhibit to the world just how wonderfully admirable greed and selfishness are.

If you are asserting that modernity cannot exist without greed, selfishness, and repression, I would like to seriously question your logic. If it is just one of your typical rants about how out-dated these people are who OWN the ground where the oil is located, just let it go by. I will understand.

If you think there is something unique about petroleum as compared to other resources that have been sought and fought over in other times, I would suggest to you that you take off your blinders. Much of what is going on with the "world control of oil" is really a repeat of what went on during the pre-modern times with salt, that lowly mineral that is relatively easy to produce, but which governments, one after another, used to "control" the lower classes and to show esteem for the privileged classes. Oil is not very different from salt. A book that explores that relationship is "Salt" by Mark Kurlansky. I suggest you give it a read.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: incadove0 on January 13, 2008, 05:48:53 AM
An example of Sharia law in action.

Spate of Executions and Amputations in Iran
By NAZILA FATHI
Published: January 11, 2008, New York Times
TEHRAN — Using strict enforcement of Islamic law, the judicial authorities in a restive region of southern Iran amputated the right hands and left feet of five convicted robbers this week, part of what the government said was an effort to deter other troublemakers.

An Iranian rights group led by Shirin Ebadi, the lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner, protested the double amputations, which it called an expansion of cruel punishments in Iran. The group also protested a spate of public executions reported over the past two weeks.

“Unfortunately, the violation of human rights in Iran has not only been expanded in some fields, it has also found new dimensions,” Ms. Ebadi’s group, which calls itself Defenders of Human Rights, said in a statement.

Iranian newspapers on Thursday reported the hanging of seven men convicted of murder and drug smuggling in different cities this week. In the first 10 days of January there have been 23 publicly disclosed executions.

“Figures confirm that executions have increased in Iran,” Ms. Ebadi said in an interview. “We have issued statements several times and have said that we are against punishment by death.”

Iran has been an active user of the death penalty, usually hanging, and is one of several countries that opposed its abolition last month during a vote on the United Nations General Assembly resolution, joining in an unusual alliance with the United States. Officials argued that the abolition of the death penalty would be an infringement on Iran’s sovereignty.

Amputation has been a punishment in Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979 installed Islamic law, but Iran’s judicial authorities have rarely publicized examples of its use and have rarely ordered double amputations. In the newly publicized instances, the courts ordered the right hand and left foot cut off, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the condemned to walk, even with a cane or crutches.

A statement by the Judicial Branch in Sistan-Baluchistan Province, where the convicted robbers were punished, said it hoped the double amputations would “teach a lesson to other criminals,” the news agency ISNA reported.

It was not clear when this week the amputations were carried out. Reports said doctors watched to limit bleeding and infection during the procedure.

“It doesn’t matter how often these sentences are issued; even once is not acceptable, and our laws should change,” Ms. Ebadi said. “We have constantly protested the existence of such punishments in our penal code. But the government ignores our protest.”

The amputations were done in Zahedan, the provincial capital near the Pakistan border, where the authorities have faced increasing insecurity because of the Sunni minority in the region. Iran’s population is overwhelming Shiite.

Iran has waged a large-scale campaign this year aimed at improving security in Sistan-Baluchistan. At least some of those reported executed so far this year had been arrested during the campaign.

Iran Daily reported Thursday that two men, identified only by their first names, Mojtaba and Mohammad-Hossein, were hanged for murder Wednesday in the southern city of Jahorm. Three others, according to the daily Jomhouri Eslami, were hanged in the eastern city of Birjand on Wednesday after being convicted of drug trafficking. The daily added that two others convicted of murder were hanged in the northern city of Tonekabon but did not specify when.

The authorities hanged 13 people on Jan. 1 and three others after that.

According to a count by Agence France-Presse, based on reports in local newspapers, Iran hanged 298 people in 2007, compared with 177 hangings in 2006.

The executions this year were carried out ahead of the mourning month of Muharram that began Thursday under the lunar calendar. Under Islamic law, executions are forbidden for the month.

Among those reported executed on Jan. 1 was a 27-year-old woman and mother of two who killed her husband when she was 23. The woman, Raheleh Zamani, was hanged at Tehran’s Evin prison despite a promise by the authorities to postpone her execution by a month. A group of feminists were trying to get the consent of the victim’s family to save her life. She had married at the age of 15 and had been abused by her husband, Ms. Ebadi said.

More Articles in International »


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 14, 2008, 06:09:49 AM
So, sharia is like Texas law.

Got it.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: thecap0 on January 14, 2008, 01:32:24 PM
One can only wonder why Huckster...err...Huckabee refused to answer a simple question from a reporter yesterday.

"Mr. Huckster...Huckabee, do you personally believe that only Christians can go to Heaven?

What's the "Christian" candidate got to hide?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on January 14, 2008, 03:58:18 PM
CapO,

They don't prepare for these things very well, the candidates, not the journalists. Candidates get in the habit of everybody loves them, so they don't practice answering the questions that can blow it all with the wrong answer. If they did practice, that would be a lie.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on January 14, 2008, 04:29:40 PM
It seems to me that only a foolish politician would not "practice" for the questions that might be asked by whoever the minute he/she steps out his/her front door. If we can say that "practice" means anticipating the issues and his/her response concerning what they would work toward if elected to office.  I can't see anything wrong with that.  Seems rather prudent.

What pisses me off is politicians promising to "do", "enact", "put in place", when anyone with any sense at all knows even the president doesn't work alone.  Being part of the majority helps you get what you want, for sure, and a politician in that instance might feel a bit cocky--ask Fritch, Newt, the Texas bug exterminator, Lott. 


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on January 14, 2008, 06:51:26 PM
Regarding who goes to heaven: As long as preachers either avoid the question or set up silly conditions that cannot be met by any and every human being who lives a good life, I will remain unchurched. I really do not believe that a Just God would set up any less system.



Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: thecap0 on January 14, 2008, 08:30:42 PM
Anne,

As long as preachers either avoid the question or set up silly conditions that cannot be met by any and every human being who lives a good life, I will remain unchurched. I really do not believe that a Just God would set up any less system.


Well said!

If only our "Christian" leaders could be more Christ-like.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Thinking Plague on January 14, 2008, 09:49:13 PM
One can only wonder why Huckster...err...Huckabee refused to answer a simple question from a reporter yesterday.

"Mr. Huckster...Huckabee, do you personally believe that only Christians can go to Heaven?

What's the "Christian" candidate got to hide?

This is why Christian politicians are useless. 

In the end they are flavorless salt (at best).

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned?  It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. - Matthew 5:13


In case anyone wants to know what Christ says about the matter (after all, what Huckabee believes isn’t going to change anything):


Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”  – John 3:3

He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. – John 3:18

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” - John 3:36

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” – John 8:24

I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me. - John 14:6


 


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on January 14, 2008, 11:41:58 PM
And, you believe thats all that needs to be said?

First, of all, how do you know that is what was said? And, how do you know that even, on the slim chance, that these were an exact quote, how do you know that they weren't taken out of context when they were written down decades later?

But, since you want to quote your favorite prophet, please tell me what he says about those who never had the opportunity to even hear about him? Where do they go after death? Unless they have lived a bad life, the don't belong in hell, do they? Then where do they go? Is there a heaven for Christians, and another heaven for the rest of humanity? If there are two heavens, tell me which one serves the better coffee, and I'll choose to go there.




Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on January 15, 2008, 04:35:51 AM
Christians are admonished to "go unto all the world and preach the gospel", and when that has been accomplished, "then the end shall come."   Hence, missionaries.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on January 15, 2008, 06:55:28 AM
Ah, yes, the missionaries - the greatest force that ever set out to destroy culture everywhere in the world. Fortunately, the missionaries, who typically spoke (preached?) with forked tongues, convinced Natives around the world, that they could "go to heaven" only if they accepted servitude during their lifetime.

According to the Bible, clothing came about after the "fall" when Adam recognized that he was naked and needed to "cover up". Yet, the first thing that missionaries tend to do with Native populations, is/was to point out their nakedness and make an effort to get the Natives to wear clothes. If the Bible account of Adam and Eve was supposed to represent the beginning of clothing for all humans, how comes so many cultures didn't get the message from their own experiences, but had to be told about clothes by the missionaries?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 15, 2008, 04:42:02 PM
One can only wonder why Huckster...err...Huckabee refused to answer a simple question from a reporter yesterday.

"Mr. Huckster...Huckabee, do you personally believe that only Christians can go to Heaven?

What's the "Christian" candidate got to hide?

This is why Christian politicians are useless. 

In the end they are flavorless salt (at best).

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned?  It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men. - Matthew 5:13


In case anyone wants to know what Christ says about the matter (after all, what Huckabee believes isn’t going to change anything):


Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”  – John 3:3

He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. – John 3:18

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” - John 3:36

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” – John 8:24

I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me. - John 14:6


 

How about he who makes up stories about "him" in the first place? Like say "John", "Luke", "Matthew", and "Mark", and those other original "Christian politicians"?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Thinking Plague on January 15, 2008, 09:04:31 PM
First, of all, how do you know that is what was said? And, how do you know that even, on the slim chance, that these were an exact quote, how do you know that they weren't taken out of context when they were written down decades later?

God the Father is not going to give His only begotten Son to die that exceedingly horrific death, only to leave the account of His Son to happenstance.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. - John 14:26

But, since you want to quote your favorite prophet, please tell me what he says about those who never had the opportunity to even hear about him?

And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.  But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. - Luke 12:47-48


You’re worried about some remote culture that hasn’t had the ample opportunity to hear the Gospel.  According to this verse you should be far more worried about all the people who have had exposure and rejected it.


Where do they go after death? Unless they have lived a bad life, they don't belong in hell, do they?

We all belong in Hell.  The best of men is but a sinner in need of grace.


Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. - Genesis 6:5 

But we are all like an unclean thing,
      And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags (lit. menstrual cloths);
      We all fade as a leaf,
      And our iniquities, like the wind,
      Have taken us away. - Isaiah 64:6


Notice that our righteousnesses are likened to filthy rags.  What could be said of our sin?  For the longest time I thought that the Hebrew wording that suggested menstrual rags was there to illustrate repulsiveness.  But the more I’ve considered this verse, I think that it speaks of "no conception", unfruitfulness AND repulsiveness.


The heart is deceitful above all things,
      And desperately wicked;
      Who can know it? – Jeremiah 17:9

No one is good but One, that is, God. - Luke 18:19

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells - Romans 7:18

 

Hope that helps a little.




Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: thecap0 on January 15, 2008, 09:28:25 PM
TP,

The best of men is but a sinner in need of grace.


Speak for yourself and yourself only, Jack.

"Sin" is nothing more than a guilt trip to keep the sheeple in line before they are fleeced.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on January 15, 2008, 09:34:05 PM
Plague,

You gave some pretty quotes, but you did not answer my question. How can a JUST God provide heaven for those who know about it, and send everyone else to hell. That does not seem JUST to me, and I will only give my worship to a JUST God. Why would a JUST God punish all the descendents of the first trial at making a human. Or, was it his/her first attempt?

You also did not anwer the deeper question of how so many descendents of Adam and Eve ended up without the shame of nakedness that accompanied Adam's great "sin".

Menstrual rags are not any more repulsive than anything else that has absorbed blood and body tissues. But, in history, such items were considered dangerous for men to come in contact with. Far grosser than menstrual traces would be fresh, smelly turds, but then men make them as well as women, so it wouldn't come off sounding quite so gross to males. And, from frequent reading of the bible, I think that whomever wrote it intended it primarily for men, not for women.

Let me toss in one more wrench. Supposedly, women's punishment for Eve giving food to her spouse, was that she would forever after bear children in pain. Many women around the world experience little or no pain in childbirth. It amazed the invading Europeans that Native women bore children rather easily. Even within a given family (my own for example), some women bear children with much pain and agony and others sail right through it. Does this mean that not all women are punished for that "original sin"?

And, while I'm on the soapbox, tell me how listening to one man/woman preach for a lengthy period of time (in colonial times most of Sunday was taken up with listening to preaching), is "worshipping God"?And, how is donating your money to a church instead of a worthy charity "supporting God's work"?





Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Thinking Plague on January 16, 2008, 08:32:52 PM
How can a JUST God provide heaven for those who know about it, and send everyone else to hell.


When Abraham pleaded for the inhabitants of Sodom he said to the Lord:

“Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?  Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it?   Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”
Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord:  Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?”
So He said, “If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it.”
And he spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose there should be forty found there?”
So He said, “I will not do it for the sake of forty.”
Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?”
So He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
And he said, “Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?”
So He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.”
Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?”
And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.”
- Genesis 18:23-32


This whole exchange was to demonstrate in effect, that none of the inhabitants were righteous.  The premise again, is…All have sinned.  If by providence God chooses to save some, it is by grace and not because they don’t deserve Hell. 

Grace is unmerited favor.  We don’t earn it.  We can’t buy it.  We inherit it because we trust Christ as Savior and become born into His family.  It is a gift of God.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. - Ephesians 2:8-9

That does not seem JUST to me, and I will only give my worship to a JUST God.

We’ll I implore you not wear that “fig leaf” when you stand before the Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer and Judge of the entire universe.

But let me just say, I agree with you.  If I were God, I probably would have some system for people earn their way to Heaven.  Furthermore I would have never have offered my son to die for the sin of the world.  That (to my natural mind) is absurdity.  Which one of us as parents wouldn’t do anything if it was in our power to spare our children from pain and death?

But remember this.

“ For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
      Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
      “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
      So are My ways higher than your ways,
      And My thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9


Why would a JUST God punish all the descendents of the first trial at making a human. Or, was it his/her first attempt?

Since you mentioned it…

When the 7 days in Genesis were up, God told Adam:

“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:28

I wouldn’t make a big deal about that except for the fact that after the flood of Noah, God used the same command in the Hebrew to tell Noah:

Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. -  Genesis 9:1

So we know that in Noah’s case, there was prior life.  That life was destroyed and Noah was to repopulate the earth.  In brief, I’m not one of these people who think that the Earth is 6,000 years old.  I think that there was life on Earth long before Adam came onto the scene but that’s another topic.
 
You also did not anwer the deeper question of how so many descendents of Adam and Eve ended up without the shame of nakedness that accompanied Adam's great "sin".


It is a picture of man’s attempt at self redemption.  The ineffective fig leaves which Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves were taken away.

Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. - Genesis 3:21

Skins are from a blood sacrifice.  Adam and Eve had their first view of death and a terrible sight it must have been to them.  Along with it a lesson in the severe nature of sin and the drastic measure that God would use to take it from his sight. 

Look too at Adam’s son Able. He offered a blood sacrifice acceptable to God (that cost him his life). (Sound familiar?)

Without shedding of blood there is no remission (of sin) - Hebrews 9:22


some women bear children with much pain and agony and others sail right through it. Does this mean that not all women are punished for that "original sin"?


I try not to speculate too far beyond what is taught in Scripture but I would just mention that it is evident that these conditions were not present before the fall.

And, while I'm on the soapbox, tell me how listening to one man/woman preach for a lengthy period of time (in colonial times most of Sunday was taken up with listening to preaching), is "worshipping God"?

Very impressive.

For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light. - Luke 16:8

Look at these verses.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.  And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. - Romans 12:1-2

The Greek word for service in this verse means worship.  This is what our reasonable "worship" should be.

While we are not to forsake the assembling of one another for fellowship (Hebrews 10:25), it simply is not Scriptural for an entire assembly to sit under the authority of one man.  Gifts are given to all believers.  In other words, in an assembly of 100 (or more) people there should be multiple pastors and multiple teachers, etc.  It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that all receive gifts and only one person uses them.  Furthermore, no one individual has all the gifts.  These conditions exist because people allow it to happen.  What power could that one man really have if the other 99 didn’t allow it?  So both are at fault, the “man up front” likes the authority and the members of that congregation like the anonymity of the 27th pew.

And, how is donating your money to a church instead of a worthy charity "supporting God's work"?

You bring up an important point.  I’ve heard that as much as 80% of donations to churches go towards buildings and their maintenance.  Furthermore, if the very next event on God’s clock is the rapture, what are we doing planting roots in this life?  The money would be far better spent on those with genuine needs and melting the hearts of those who don’t know Christ (than on bricks and mortar).




Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Thinking Plague on January 16, 2008, 08:34:36 PM
"Sin" is nothing more than a guilt trip to keep the sheeple in line before they are fleeced.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. - 1 John 1:8


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: thecap0 on January 16, 2008, 09:26:50 PM
"Sin" is nothing more than a guilt trip to keep the sheeple in line before they are fleeced.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. - 1 John 1:8


You can continue to live your guilt ridden life that way if you choose.
What if you're wrong; all that wasted denial!!
We only go around once, so I'm going for the gusto.

At any rate, NO faith, neither yours nor mine, deserves to see the light of day in a political campaign.
Remember that the Constitution tells us that there shall be no religious test for office.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on January 16, 2008, 10:46:44 PM
Plague,

Is it fair for me to assume that you are a Quaker?

Out of curiousity, where did you get 6,000 years. Reputable sources date Homo Sapiens back 500,000 years, and Homo Erectus emerged 2 million years ago. Homo Habilis, who was earlier yet was sufficiently human to scatter to various continents from Africa.

It is fairly certain that there were other human beings who existed at the time of Adam and Eve. Otherwise who was Cain afraid would harm him for killing his brother? And where did Cain's wife come from? And the spouses of Adam and Eve's other children.

Frankly, there are just too many holes in the story to make it anything more than an allegory! And, what is YOUR explanation for God not being able to decide which version of creation to put in the bible, so he put two of them there. In one, Man came before the animals and in the other, the animals came first (which is confirmed by science).




Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 17, 2008, 01:09:39 PM
How can a JUST God provide heaven for those who know about it, and send everyone else to hell.


When Abraham pleaded for the inhabitants of Sodom he said to the Lord:

“Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?  Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it?   Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”
Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord:  Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?”
So He said, “If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it.”
And he spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose there should be forty found there?”
So He said, “I will not do it for the sake of forty.”
Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?”
So He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
And he said, “Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?”
So He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.”
Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?”
And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.”
- Genesis 18:23-32


This whole exchange was to demonstrate in effect, that none of the inhabitants were righteous.  The premise again, is…All have sinned.  If by providence God chooses to save some, it is by grace and not because they don’t deserve Hell. 

Grace is unmerited favor.  We don’t earn it.  We can’t buy it.  We inherit it because we trust Christ as Savior and become born into His family.  It is a gift of God.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. - Ephesians 2:8-9

That does not seem JUST to me, and I will only give my worship to a JUST God.

We’ll I implore you not wear that “fig leaf” when you stand before the Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer and Judge of the entire universe.

But let me just say, I agree with you.  If I were God, I probably would have some system for people earn their way to Heaven.  Furthermore I would have never have offered my son to die for the sin of the world.  That (to my natural mind) is absurdity.  Which one of us as parents wouldn’t do anything if it was in our power to spare our children from pain and death?

But remember this.

“ For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
      Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD.
      “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
      So are My ways higher than your ways,
      And My thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9


Why would a JUST God punish all the descendents of the first trial at making a human. Or, was it his/her first attempt?

Since you mentioned it…

When the 7 days in Genesis were up, God told Adam:

“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:28

I wouldn’t make a big deal about that except for the fact that after the flood of Noah, God used the same command in the Hebrew to tell Noah:

Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. -  Genesis 9:1

So we know that in Noah’s case, there was prior life.  That life was destroyed and Noah was to repopulate the earth.  In brief, I’m not one of these people who think that the Earth is 6,000 years old.  I think that there was life on Earth long before Adam came onto the scene but that’s another topic.
 
You also did not anwer the deeper question of how so many descendents of Adam and Eve ended up without the shame of nakedness that accompanied Adam's great "sin".


It is a picture of man’s attempt at self redemption.  The ineffective fig leaves which Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves were taken away.

Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. - Genesis 3:21

Skins are from a blood sacrifice.  Adam and Eve had their first view of death and a terrible sight it must have been to them.  Along with it a lesson in the severe nature of sin and the drastic measure that God would use to take it from his sight. 

Look too at Adam’s son Able. He offered a blood sacrifice acceptable to God (that cost him his life). (Sound familiar?)

Without shedding of blood there is no remission (of sin) - Hebrews 9:22


some women bear children with much pain and agony and others sail right through it. Does this mean that not all women are punished for that "original sin"?


I try not to speculate too far beyond what is taught in Scripture but I would just mention that it is evident that these conditions were not present before the fall.

And, while I'm on the soapbox, tell me how listening to one man/woman preach for a lengthy period of time (in colonial times most of Sunday was taken up with listening to preaching), is "worshipping God"?

Very impressive.

For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light. - Luke 16:8

Look at these verses.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.  And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. - Romans 12:1-2

The Greek word for service in this verse means worship.  This is what our reasonable "worship" should be.

While we are not to forsake the assembling of one another for fellowship (Hebrews 10:25), it simply is not Scriptural for an entire assembly to sit under the authority of one man.  Gifts are given to all believers.  In other words, in an assembly of 100 (or more) people there should be multiple pastors and multiple teachers, etc.  It is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that all receive gifts and only one person uses them.  Furthermore, no one individual has all the gifts.  These conditions exist because people allow it to happen.  What power could that one man really have if the other 99 didn’t allow it?  So both are at fault, the “man up front” likes the authority and the members of that congregation like the anonymity of the 27th pew.

And, how is donating your money to a church instead of a worthy charity "supporting God's work"?

You bring up an important point.  I’ve heard that as much as 80% of donations to churches go towards buildings and their maintenance.  Furthermore, if the very next event on God’s clock is the rapture, what are we doing planting roots in this life?  The money would be far better spent on those with genuine needs and melting the hearts of those who don’t know Christ (than on bricks and mortar).





You know, you've got the "plague" part down pat. The "Thinking" part? Not so much.

I'm glad you find comfort, zealot, in your neo-scriptures, but proselytizing your faith is no different than what Al-Quaeda does.

And they're pretty good at it.

You'd be better off going out and feeding and clothing the poor than attempting to convert anyone in here.

Off with you, Son of Satan.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Thinking Plague on January 17, 2008, 02:41:39 PM
Off with you, Son of Satan.

OK

If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household! - Matthew 10:25


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on January 17, 2008, 03:11:57 PM
Of course, Matthew is a fictional character.

Got any quotes from Mickey Mouse or Sgt. Fury?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: luee on April 01, 2008, 03:15:14 PM
John Q. Adams' capital letters, was he accurate?

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of  Hagar [i.e., Muhammad],  the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.  Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle.  Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion.  He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.  THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST:  TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged.  The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” [p. 269]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F3F5C99B-338A-4BC1-A4B2-585EFE643619


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 01, 2008, 03:50:22 PM
And so the United States adopted a policy of letting other nations handle their own affairs...which worked for many years.


Title: Tavis on Maher
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 03, 2008, 11:33:39 AM
Tavis Smiley on Real Time with Bill Maher:

"I could debate you on that"

6 words screaming out for attention.

What is the contexy, you ask?

Well, the panel was discussing Dr Martin Luther King.  TRhe first thing that was strange was ewhen Smiley began to call him Martin King, something I have never heard (a snub?  I'd say so)

Smiley also likened some of Dr King's statements to those (anti-America in tone) of Jeremiah Wright.

Then it gets weird. 

A statement is made that Dr King was disinvite to the White House - and SMILEY says, "YES, byt the same people that killed him"

Maher could not let that go, questioning Smiley as if he misspoke - giving the smug Tavis an out.  (Paraphrase) "Wait  a minute.   You don't mean that the same people that disinvited Dr King were responsible for his assasination?"

Smiley:  "I could debate you on that - yes"


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 03, 2008, 12:01:48 PM
I wonder if he was referring to Jowers:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/mlk/part3.htm


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 04, 2008, 08:50:07 AM
Douglas Brinkley was on Imus this morning, and he says he believes that there is no way the James Earl Ray acted alone. He also talked a great deal about the FBI's involvement in trailing King and linked it to King's outspokenness against the Viet Nam war and LBJ's dissatisfaction with that circumstance.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 04, 2008, 10:55:02 AM
Sure doesnt link well

Rayt didn't act alone----------------------------------------------------> The FBI killed King.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 04, 2008, 12:12:51 PM
Sure doesnt link well

Rayt didn't act alone----------------------------------------------------> The FBI killed King.

I think it's more like Ray didn't act alone and the evidence that is available would preclude anyone from making that assertion without serious questioning ------------------------------->FBI did nothing to prevent it, as it may have served their own purposes, and the Administration they were working for...

 


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: luee on April 05, 2008, 06:02:19 AM
Sure doesnt link well

Rayt didn't act alone----------------------------------------------------> The FBI killed King.

No the FBI--------------------------------------------------------------------------->Killed JFK. The CIA-----------------------------------------------------> killed Bobby and MLK. The CIA and Mossad-------------------------------->planned 9-11. All infidels are evil. The best one is that the hostage crisis was planned by raygun to win the election.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 05, 2008, 08:54:06 AM
Who acted to kill your brain, luee?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: madupont on April 05, 2008, 10:39:15 AM
Luee and MrUtley,

I saw that show again this week, before catching up last night with the Senator Arlen Specter sells a book about cancer on Real Time, and Robert Reich explains financial reality to us. There were a couple of other guests with whom I am not familiar, one a congresswoman from California speaking out against the continuance of the war racking up that financial reality (thus a reason not to support candidate mcCain who will want to continue the economic recession for 100 years); the other was a younger woman who speaks about greening and green politics and candidates and the misuse of the Just Say No program in education, as well as a congress that it seems just can't say no when a president whether Bush or Bush endorsed mcCain says,"War". She advocated they be outed and replaced.

Another guest was someone whom I believe is named Esai Morales who addressed the issue of why Latinos and Blacks "seem to be pitted against each other inspired by the bottom line of Capital" when discussing this back from the two ladies comments and addressing a reference to Robert Reich.

Back to the show of which kidcarter speaks, calling Martin Luther King, "Martin King", is not a snub  but an ordinary endearing form in the Black community when speaking of him.

I also saw and heard this:"Tavis Smiley on Real Time with Bill Maher:

"I could debate you on that"

6 words screaming out for attention.

What is the contexy, you ask?

Well, the panel was discussing Dr Martin Luther King.  TRhe first thing that was strange was ewhen Smiley began to call him Martin King, something I have never heard (a snub?  I'd say so)

Smiley also likened some of Dr King's statements to those (anti-America in tone) of Jeremiah Wright.

Then it gets weird. 

A statement is made that Dr King was disinvite to the White House - and SMILEY says, "YES, byt the same people that killed him"

Maher could not let that go, questioning Smiley as if he misspoke - giving the smug Tavis an out.  (Paraphrase) "Wait  a minute.   You don't mean that the same people that disinvited Dr King were responsible for his assasination?"

Smiley:  "I could debate you on that - yes"   "unquote.


Thanks for the complete text, I agree with every word Tavis Smiley said and actually it was BillMaher who raised the issue quoting directly from the texts of Martin Luther King's speechs, making the point that Wright's method of homiletics is in no way different than what you can hear in the majority of inner city community congregations.  It has always been this way since black people were allowed to sit in the back of the Christian churches of slave owners and expected not to know how to read the language or the notes of music.  It has ever since been the center of their  politic activity and it will not change. Nor would I expect it to.

It was just unfortunate that it was necessary for Barack Obama to make the expedient choice, because he was running for the presidency, to distance himself from the Rev. Jerry Wright,by whom I had occasion to have been spoken to  in the midst of a Black Voices blog when some white woman from Missouri insisted that because Hussein was his middle name that Barack Obama was a Muslim up to no good; this is similar to the Malcolm X back lash following his return from Mecca on the haj and became convinced from what he saw of every color on earth of pilgrim which converted him to see it that way from then on until his assassination and the attendent suffering continually brought to his family by whites after that as had always been the case when he was just Malcolm Little and his father was called out of the house and killed on the streetcar rails. His family had always been "Negro activists" attacked by the Klan.

Although the distancing was expedient, I've convinced myself, you are free to believe what you want, but I am convinced that because of the retirement of Jeremiah Wright at his age that an agreement was made that he not speak publicly during campaigning to endorse Obama because they both understood the expediency of the political situation.

The segment of sermon heard in the usual homiletic style that you  heard overplayed or read "from the usual suspects" was delivered seven years ago following the events of 9/11 and as I recall people again of every color managed to say much the same thing like it or not. The only reason for suppressing of opinion or shaming of opinion on that matter is to shush done conversation that leads back to the actual powers that be in charge of the administration at that time just as Tavis Smiley remarked about in inference that would throw light upon a previous administration.





Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: luee on April 05, 2008, 11:31:35 PM
Who acted to kill your brain, luee?

Houris in space were the culprit Mr. U. Everything is just a grand conspiracy by the bossman to you.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 08, 2008, 11:45:46 AM
Fitting avitar, monkeybrains.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 24, 2008, 05:56:15 PM
WTF's wrong with Florida? Maybe we should give it back to the Seminoles (the real ones, not the college idiots):

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-04-24_D908ES1O1&show_article=1&cat=breaking


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2008, 08:06:22 PM
Utley,

Bad as that is, on the Immigration forum there is a link to a proposed law that would make it a felony for undocumented illegals to work in Mississippi. The KKK is strong-arming it into passage, and, as usual, their plea is for racial purposes. We really do need stronger support from the Supreme Court to keep these foolish states in line.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 24, 2008, 08:53:32 PM
The license plate gig is more bothersome, frankly, since it cuts to the core of the Constitution.

As for making it illegal for illegals to work , wouldn't that be redundant?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2008, 10:16:32 PM
The license plate gig is more bothersome, frankly, since it cuts to the core of the Constitution.

As for making it illegal for illegals to work , wouldn't that be redundant?

No, I think the license plate is less bothersome. If it is OK to say "I believe" on a license plate, it will have to be judged OK to say "I don't believe" or "I feel gay tonight" on a license plate. The two will cancel each other out, and license plates will be like bumper stickers, likely to say anything that sells.

Making it a felony to work is what bothers me. These people are coming here, escaping from oppression, and we are setting them up for failure.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: Donotremove on April 24, 2008, 10:35:18 PM
He's baaack.  The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has captured the press with his "speaking out for the first time" interview with Bill Moyers (PBS Friday at 9:00 Central Time.)  Good timing, Reverend.  Just when Obama is trying to win Indiana voters, an uphill task at best.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2008, 10:42:42 PM
The sooner we let Obama and Wright go their separate ways, the sooner we can return to our value of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Wright has every right to express himself if he so chooses. He is no longer Obama's pastor. I will undoubtedly not see the tv show because it just isn't hubby's thing, but will look for what is said the next day to see if Wright is given the right to express his reasons, and his beliefs, without it being tagged onto Obama.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 25, 2008, 11:15:26 AM
The license plate gig is more bothersome, frankly, since it cuts to the core of the Constitution.

As for making it illegal for illegals to work , wouldn't that be redundant?

No, I think the license plate is less bothersome. If it is OK to say "I believe" on a license plate, it will have to be judged OK to say "I don't believe" or "I feel gay tonight" on a license plate. The two will cancel each other out, and license plates will be like bumper stickers, likely to say anything that sells.

Making it a felony to work is what bothers me. These people are coming here, escaping from oppression, and we are setting them up for failure.

No, it's more than that. It's the state promoting fundraising efforts for a particular religion, implying that Christianity is the official state religion of FLA.

Offensive and WRONG!


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: law120b on April 25, 2008, 12:26:48 PM
to me, it would be no different that NY having mets, yankees, rangers, bills, isles and knicks plate, as long as you cover all faiths equally and no plate is offensive to another faith.  e.g., a 'jesus loves you' plate is ok, but 'you jews are going to hell' would be somewhat troubling, i.e., i'd set your f&*king car on fire.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 25, 2008, 12:58:35 PM
I might get a "FUK FLA" plate here in NJ.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: law120b on April 25, 2008, 01:13:22 PM
how about 'dela valley is for douchebags'?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 25, 2008, 01:27:04 PM
how about 'dela valley is for douchebags'?

how about "Visit Red Bank and Swim in Sewage"?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: thecap0 on April 25, 2008, 01:39:50 PM
Ut,

how about "Visit Red Bank and Swim in Sewage"?

How about, "Visit Philadelphia and watch a minor leaguer try to play MLB for the Phillies"?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: law120b on April 25, 2008, 02:37:33 PM
how about 'my religion is philliesuckism'?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2008, 03:19:37 PM
How about, "Take your church and shovel it!"


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 25, 2008, 03:29:12 PM
how about 'my religion is philliesuckism'?

How 'bout: "Mookie is My Rabbi"?


Title: Youuuuuuuu fu--in dopes
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 28, 2008, 09:31:10 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/28/prayer.death.ap/index.html


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on April 29, 2008, 08:50:44 AM
What will be their defense?

"It was God's will. You can't argue with that, now, can you, Mr. Prosecutor?"



Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: kidcarter8 on June 24, 2008, 10:53:53 AM
Dead forum

Clear it out


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: luee on June 24, 2008, 11:23:13 AM
RIP George Carlin;

When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was.

In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: MrUtley3 on June 24, 2008, 12:16:19 PM
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25343812


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: thecap0 on June 25, 2008, 07:59:20 AM
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25343812

Which says more about Dobson than it does about Obama.

BTW, Dobson's not an ordained minister; he huckstered himself into the position he holds.  He's just the kind Carlin railed against.

BTW, why would anyone follow an individual who is named after trout bait?


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: FlyingVProd on October 20, 2017, 07:35:37 PM
In ancient Rome, if you helped the homeless and widows and orphans and ministered to people in prison and stuff like it says in Matthew 25; 31-46, there were people who would become suspicious that you are trying to run for public office, etc, etc, etc, because by helping people you earn love and people give you power. And you will be known by your deeds. Mother Teresa had a lot of power. Pope Francis has a lot of power. Pope John Paul II helped to free Poland, and helped to bring down the USSR and helped to bring down the Berlin Wall. But no matter how powerful you become, you must give all glory to God. You must remain a humble servant of God no matter how powerful you become, and you must follow the word of God.

Salute,

Tony V.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: FlyingVProd on October 22, 2017, 07:21:20 PM
The Italians know the secret of life. Here is an article that everyone, everywhere, can learn from, it is about the Italian immigrants in Roseto, Pennsylvania, USA, they had ZERO crime and they had ZERO people on welfare, read this article and you will see that there is a better way to do things than what is happening now, plus the people of Roseto, Pennsylvania, were healthier and they had fewer heart attacks. And they did it without any help from the government (although in a nation "Of the people, by the people, for the people" the government is us, and the government is part of our team, we in the USA are self governing). And we always knew that it was healthy to go to parties, and to throw parties!

The whole "Rugged Individualist" thing is really, really, really, BAD.

-------------------

14.2 "The Roseto Effect"

I. HEALTH AND CULTURE

People are nourished by other people. The importance of social networks in health and longevity has been confirmed again by study of a close-knit Italian-American community in Roseto, Pennsylvania. At first blush, Roseto seems a diorama of what once was the nation's ideal lifestyle-neighbors who looked after one another, civic-minded joiners and doers who formed the grass roots of American-style democracy. It seems to showcase those virtues that have all but disappeared elsewhere in what has become what we are now--a nation of strangers.

At one time the village came to be a living laboratory demonstrating that neighborliness is good not just for the body politic (community) for the human body (self) as well. Now Roseto is changing, becoming a community of suburban commuters with satellite dishes, fenced-in yards, and expensive cars.

Thirty years earlier, medical researchers were drawn to Roseto by a bewildering statistic: in defiance of medical logic, Rosetans seemed nearly immune to one of the most common causes of death. They died of heart attacks at a rate only half of the rest of America. Doctors were mystified in that residents led what medical textbooks predicted would be short lives.

The men of the village smoked and drank wine freely. They spent their days in backbreaking, hazardous labor, working 200 feet down in nearby slate quarries. At home, the dinner tables each evening were laden with traditional Italian food, modified for local ingredients in ways that would drive a dietitian to despair.

The Mediterranean diet, with its use of olive oil rather than animal fat, has been touted lately for health benefits. But, poor immigrants couldn't afford to import cooking oil from their homeland and instead fry their sausages and brown their meatballs in lard. Yet, the resulting hefty bodies contained unusually health hearts. Why?

.....

II. A RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY

Study of the "Roseto Effect" began with a chance conversation over a couple of beers. A local physician happened to mention to the head of medicine at the University of Oklahoma that heart disease seemed much less prevalent in Roseto than in adjoining Bangor, occupied by non-Italians.

When first studied in 1966, Roseto's cardiac mortality traced a unique graph. Nationally, the rate rises with age. In Roseto, it dropped to near zero for men aged 55-64. For men over 65, the local death rate was half the national average.

The study quickly went beyond death certificates, to poke, prod, and extensively interview the Rosetans. Instead of helping to solve the puzzle, all the data simply ruled out any genetic or other physical sources of the Rosetan's resistance to heart disease. Two statistics about Roseto were eye-catching: Both the crime rate and the applications for public assistance were zero.

.....

III. HEALTH AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS

Subsequent study showed that all of the houses contained three generations of the family. Rosetans took care of their own. Instead of putting the elderly "on the shelf," they were elevated "to the Supreme Court." The scientists were led to conclude that the Roseto Effect was caused by something that could not be seen through the microscope, something beyond the usual focus of medical researchers.

It seemed that those groaning dinner tables offered nourishment for the human spirit as well as the body. In fact, all of the communal rituals--the evening stroll, the many social clubs, the church festivals that were occasions for the whole community to celebrate--contributed to the villagers' good health.

In "The Power of Clan," an updated report on studies by Stewart Wolf, a physician, and John Bruhn, a sociologist, cover a broad period of time from 1935 to 1984. They found that mutual respect and cooperation contribute to the health and welfare of a community and its inhabitants, and that self indulgence and lack of concern for others exert opposite influences.

Tracing the history of Roseto, the sociologists found that early immigrants were shunned by the English and Welsh who dominated this little corner of eastern Pennsylvania. According, the Rosetans turned inward and built their own culture of cooperation and as Wolf and Bruhn noted, "radiated a kind of joyous team spirit as they celebrated religious festivals and family landmarks."

"People are nourished by other people," said Wolf, noting that the characteristics of tight-knit community are better predictors of healthy hearts than are low levels of serum cholesterol or tobacco use. He explained that an isolated individual may be overwhelmed by the problems of everyday life. Such a person internalized that feeling as stress which, in turn, can adversely affect everything from blood pressure to kidney function. That, however, is much less likely to be the outcome when a person is surrounded by caring friends, neighbors and relatives. The sense of being supported reduces stress and the disease stress engenders.

"We looked at the social structure of healthy communities," Wolf said, "and found that they are characterized by stability and predictability. In those communities, each person has a clearly defined role in the social scheme."

Into the 1960s, Roseto was the epitome of predictability and conformity. In clothing, housing or automobiles, any display of wealth was taboo. Women knew that, from their teens on, they would work in one of the many small blouse factories scattered throughout the village. Even the evening meal followed a rigid cycle.

"Monday" recalled 66-year old Angie Martocci, "almost everyone in town ate spezzati (a spinach and egg soup). Tuesdays, it was spaghetti and gravy (tomato sauce). Wednesday was roast chicken and potatoes. Thursday, spaghetti again. Fish on Fridays, of course. Veal and peppers on Saturday; and antipasto, meatballs and spaghetti on Sunday."

All of that conformity reduced the distance between the haves and have-nots, thereby reinforcing everyone's sense of conformity also spared Rosetans the stress that comes with freedom of choice. (My comment: the anthropologist David Maybury-Lewis in his video series Millenium that individuals in a tribal society grow up in a defined world where people know their place and their relationship to others. We grow up with freedom, he says, in a limitless world where we are often lost and terribly alone.)

Possibly the strongest conformity in the village was the work ethic. No only did everyone work here, they worked toward a common goal--a better life for their children. The reverence for work was the legacy of Roseto's first priest, Rev. Pasquale de Nisco. Arriving in 1896, De Nisco practiced what he preached. Taking up a pick and shovel, he started clearing ground next to the church to build the graveyard, where he now lies. Above all, De Nisco, whose influence is still strong in Roseto, preached education.

.....

IV. THE EFFECT FADES

In the slate quarries and blouse factories, the men and women of Roseto labored to be able to send their children to college, which they did at a rate far above the national average. By World War II, Roseto had a small white-collar class and was prospering. And of course with that, life began to change.

Wolf and Bruhn's study took place just as Roseto's golden age of community was drawing to a close. They were able to predict that Rosetans then under 30 would not long be content with their rigid, traditional lifestyle. By the '70s, homes on the outskirts of town were in the suburbanized style that had become the American norm: large single family houses, swimming pools, fenced years, country clubs, and churches outside of the community.

As people moved and achieved material success, they found those gains at the expense of traditional communal values with which they have been raised. One person said, "I'm sorry we moved; everything is modern here and we have everything I need here, except people."

The principal of the elementary school said that children's lives changed. They went from days filled with activities to lives of watching from the sidelines. She found she had to teach children how to play jacks and marbles. The strongest evidence that change had come to Roseto was in 1985 when the town's coronet band, founded in 1890, demanded for the first time to be paid for playing at the church's big festival.

As Wolf and his colleagues continued to monitor the health of the community, they noted that social change in the village was accompanied by increasing health problems. In 1971, the first heart attack death of a person less than 45 occurred in Roseto.

Nationally, the Americans' vulnerability to heart attack began to decline because of the widespread adoption of exercise programs and healthier diet. At the same time, the Rosetan's rate rose to the national average.

Roseto has lost its statistical uniqueness. Yet, it makes clear to a visitor that it retains a sense of community--one that would be the envy of almost any place else in the nation. For many families, eating remains a ritual of the communal nature of life here. On Sundays, extra chairs are drawn up and leaves are added to dinner tables all over town for a ceremony that satisfies both physical hunger and the hunger to be surrounded by people who share our lives.

At Rose's Cafe, the only restaurant remaining in town, proprietor Rose Pavan calls everyone by name. Anyone with questions about menu items is swept into the kitchen for a sample. Children, most in Catholic school uniforms, flock in for an after-school snack--just as parents did back when Rose's was Mary's Luncheonette.

A visitor is bound to come away from Rose's with a full stomach and even fuller appreciation how far the rest of us have drifted from the civic-mindedness that marked much of the nation's history.

(My comment: this article is drawn from a series done by The Chicago Tribune on America's loss of community. Other articles focused on our changing urban/suburban social fabric. They noted the social changes implied by suburban homes where the garage is in front and both parents are employed, often an hour drive away. This article was especially relevant for medical anthropology's emphasis on bio culture, the interrelationship between culture, health and disease.)

If older Rosetans are concerned that they have traveled too far down the path of materialistic fulfillment--a path that seems never to end in lasting contentment--shouldn't other Americans be at least as concerned?

We now know that people's reaction's to the same stressful experience vary widely and those who have a greater sense of control, support and satisfaction in their lives are less at risk of illness. Those who get sick most seem to view the world and their lives as unmanageable while those who stay healthy have a greater sense of coherence and control through faced with the same problems. The Rosetans, to put it in Darwinian terms, were a successful adaptation.

A wide range of illness reflects the role that ineffective coping and inadequate support play. The highest rates of tuberculosis have been found among isolated and marginal people who have little social support, although they may live in affluent neighborhoods. This article focused on heart disease, others are indicators of social life as well. These include respiratory diseases, accidents, and mental illness. Studies in England have shown that civil servants with the highest rate of death from coronary heart disease occurs amongst those with little social support. We are indeed nourished by contact with others.

.....

V. SOCIALIZING AND LONGEVITY

A study published in the British Medical Journal in 1999 found that people more than 65 who like to eat out, play cards, go to movies and take part in other social activities live an average of two ½ years longer than more reclusive people. Simply mixing with people seems to offer as great a benefit as regular exercise. Social and productive pursuits are equivalent to and independent of the merits of exercise.

In a similar study at Harvard, it was found that those who were most engaged in productive pursuits were 23 percent less likely to die than those least involved in such pursuits. When each activity was examined individually, doing a lot as opposed to not much, extended live in almost every case regardless of the activity.

Does humor matter? While it is popularly accepted that laughter speeds healing and fights disease, some researchers say that laugher isn't the best medicine after all. A review of humor research does not confirm a direct therapeutic effect of laughter.

Does love matter? In a study of 10,000 married men, it was found that-in the subsequent five years-men who felt love from their wife had significantly less angina that those that felt no love.

People who perceived themselves as socially isolated were found to be two to five times more at risk for premature death from all causes. Persons with low interpersonal conflict in their lives do best.

..... CJ '99

Resources

Condor, B. "Romantic Rx Studies link love and intimacy to improved cardiovascular health" Chicago Tribune April 2, 1998.

Grossman and Leroux "A New Roseto Effect" Chicago Tribune October 11, 1996.

Justice, B. Who Gets Sick New York: Tarcher/Putnam Books, 1987.

McFarling, U "Humor's touted medical value faces skepticism" Chicago Tribune July 7, 1999.

Shaffer, C. and Anundsen, K. "The Healing Powers of Community" Utne Reader September-October, 1995.

"Whether bingo or brunch, study touts socializing" Chicago Tribune August 20, 1999.

--------------

Here is another article about the Roseto Effect...

Link...

http://tinyurl.com/Roseto-Effect (http://tinyurl.com/Roseto-Effect)

Salute,

Tony V.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: FlyingVProd on October 25, 2017, 03:25:12 AM
Better Way Anaheim offers volunteer community service, help ending homelessness
 
http://www.anaheim.net/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1027 (http://www.anaheim.net/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1027)

Salute,

Tony V.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: FlyingVProd on December 30, 2017, 05:56:46 PM
The Chinese are building in Skid Row, in Los Angeles, Skid Row is over, they are going to redevelop the area and relocate and help the people.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0825-china-dtla-snap-story.html 

We need to end Skid Row, we need to welcome redevelopment and improvements and investments. Skid Row is a horrible place. We need to end Skid Row and the people there need to be helped and relocated into some form of housing situation. If the Chinese want to build in the bad neighborhoods, and if they want to help redevelop and improve those areas then I say that we should welcome the investments. We also need to run many local programs, and improve on good work that is already happening. We need to clean up the slums.

Of note, they better make sure that the Chinese obey California's strict building codes, as California has earthquakes. And they should make the Chinese use real plywood instead of particle board for shear paneling, etc, etc, etc. As they build we need to also have high beautification standards, and we need to get the Chinese to build nice new expensive post offices in the redeveloped areas, and outdoors there can be nice landscaping and fountains and trees and benches to sit on, etc. We need to negotiate with the Chinese to really improve and end Skid Row and to make those areas nice. 

Salute,

Tony V.


Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: bambu on January 26, 2018, 05:23:18 PM
The Chinese are building in Skid Row, in Los Angeles, Skid Row is over, they are going to redevelop the area and relocate and help the people.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-0825-china-dtla-snap-story.html 

We need to end Skid Row, we need to welcome redevelopment and improvements and investments. Skid Row is a horrible place. We need to end Skid Row and the people there need to be helped and relocated into some form of housing situation. If the Chinese want to build in the bad neighborhoods, and if they want to help redevelop and improve those areas then I say that we should welcome the investments. We also need to run many local programs, and improve on good work that is already happening. We need to clean up the slums.

Of note, they better make sure that the Chinese obey California's strict building codes, as California has earthquakes. And they should make the Chinese use real plywood instead of particle board for shear paneling, etc, etc, etc. As they build we need to also have high beautification standards, and we need to get the Chinese to build nice new expensive post offices in the redeveloped areas, and outdoors there can be nice landscaping and fountains and trees and benches to sit on, etc. We need to negotiate with the Chinese to really improve and end Skid Row and to make those areas nice. 

Salute,

Tony V.

Probably a good idea to also make sure that American steel is used.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/bullet-train-wheel-parts-made-by-japans-kobe-steel-failed-quality-tests-20171012-gyzs44.html  (http://www.smh.com.au/business/bullet-train-wheel-parts-made-by-japans-kobe-steel-failed-quality-tests-20171012-gyzs44.html)

Bullet train wheel parts made by Japan's Kobe Steel failed quality tests

The latest scandal to hit Japan's storied manufacturing industry erupted on Sunday after the country's third-largest steel producer admitted it faked data about the strength and durability of some aluminium and copper.

As scores of its clients from Toyota Motor Corp to General Motors Co scrambled to determine if they used the suspect materials and whether safety was compromised, the company said two more products were affected and further cases could come to light. The company's shares steadied after a two-day rout.

Figures were systematically fabricated at all four of Kobe Steel's local aluminium plants, with the practice dating back as long as 10 years for some products, executive vice-president Naoto Umehara said on Sunday. The company said on Wednesday that data was also faked for iron ore powder and target materials that are used in DVDs and LCD screens.




Title: Re: Religion and Politics
Post by: FlyingVProd on March 19, 2018, 07:07:58 AM
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. - Galatians 5:22-23

___

May God bless us all!

Salute,

Tony V.