 sj |
||
|
||
BS: According to Falwell
|
|
|
Subject: According to Falwell From: Tedham Porterhouse Date: 14 Sep 01 - 03:34 PM This article is from today's Washington Post. --- God Gave U.S. 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says By John F. Harris Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 14, 2001; Page C03
Television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two of the most prominent voices of the religious right, said liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for Tuesday's terrorist attacks because their actions have turned God's anger against America. "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson. "Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population." Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes." Then Falwell broadened his blast to include the federal courts and others who he said were "throwing God out of the public square." He added: "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' " People for the American Way transcribed the broadcast and denounced the comments as running directly counter to President Bush's call for national unity. Ralph G. Neas, the liberal group's president, called the remarks "absolutely inappropriate and irresponsible." Robertson and others on the religious right gave critical backing to Bush last year when he was battling for the GOP presidential nomination. A White House official called the remarks "inappropriate" and added, "The president does not share those views." Falwell was unrepentant, saying in an interview that he was "making a theological statement, not a legal statement." "I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist," he said. But he said America's "secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture . . . the result is not good." Robertson was not available for comment, a spokeswoman said. But she released a statement echoing the remarks he made on his show. An ACLU spokeswoman said the group "will not dignify the Falwell-Robertson remarks with a comment."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
|
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: GUEST,Maybe Date: 14 Sep 01 - 03:42 PM There might be some truth in those statements. On the other hand, I personally think that it happened because we didn't sacrifice a virgin during the Summer Equinox. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Sep 01 - 03:53 PM Falwell and Robertson are getting too much attention? This drool from these idiots is already on a thread. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Sep 01 - 03:53 PM More of the text and a more complete version of this blurb is already posted on the Arab-American Thread and makes for interesting reading. The reply from the People for the american Way is also included in the other article. Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Wesley S Date: 14 Sep 01 - 03:53 PM Complete and total hogwash. Falwell has again laid claim to the title of America's biggest idiot. I feel sad that a person who claims to be man of God could be so misdirected. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Sep 01 - 03:57 PM SEE PEG'S POST of 11:16 PM on the 13th on THIS THREAD for a better article (more detail). Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: PeteBoom Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:00 PM If that is the Christian God those two worship, it is not the same Christian God I worship. No wonder the Muslims, Budhists and Hindus I work with think I'm an exception to what Christians are. Yegodsandlittlefishes. (shaking my head and considering whether is beer or whisky tonight...) |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Rick Fielding Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:13 PM Before getting TOO smug, just remember that these creatures are BOTH welcome in the highest places of Government. I hope that condemnation of their views doesn't come only from liberal Mudcatters. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:37 PM I have had friends who worked for a born-again boss. That must be excruciating torture. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: MMario Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:45 PM If I am reading the posts above correctly the White House has already deemed the remarks "inappropriate" and not agreeing with the views of the President. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Wesley S Date: 14 Sep 01 - 04:54 PM Pete - If I were still a drinking man I'd join you. Please have one of EACH for me. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: katlaughing Date: 14 Sep 01 - 05:03 PM Gawddamned bastards. THEY are the ones who will destroy this country, with no help from any outside enemies, if they continue to carry on, without loud and massive opposition. As I said in the other thread, they both will richly deserve whatever hell each can imagine for themselves when they die. Mrzzy, not sure if you mentioned this here or another thread, but I have had a hard time stomaching all of the 'god" stuff flung down from the White House and goverment, etc. this week, too. We should be recognised as America, first and only, NOT as some huge enclave of fumdamentalist Christians like these two. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Armen Tanzerian Date: 14 Sep 01 - 05:03 PM Perverters of religion and traitors to their people (a short list):
Osama bin Laden
Pat Robertson
Ali Khamenei
Jerry Falwell
Saddam Hussein |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: mousethief Date: 14 Sep 01 - 05:12 PM Can we take a vote and remove him from the ranks of people called "Christians"? He seems to stand against what is deepest and brightest in the teachings of Christ, which is to say, compassion. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Kim C Date: 14 Sep 01 - 05:35 PM Rick, I'm conservative, and neither of them speak for me; they never ever have. And I agree completely with Armen. What Jerry and Pat may not realize is that there are a LOT of people in this country who do not make a public show of their religion, whatever it may be. I think the US is a religious country, a country of many different religions and spiritualities, with good people in all of them. Just because they are not immediately visible does not mean they don't exist. I think Jerry and Pat are wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Sep 01 - 05:41 PM Ya' know, if we end up being hell bent on retaliation, I'd suggest we load these two fuckers up and drop THEM on Bin Laden. If you read all of the other article and their remarks, was there any group that Falwell didn't blame?....except WASP males? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Wesley S Date: 14 Sep 01 - 05:43 PM He never mentioned the Mudcat. So what are we doing wrong ?? |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Noreen Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:03 PM we make God mad. Really? Talk about Man creating God in his own image... ! |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Greg F. Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:15 PM Why does ANY ONE, ANY WHERE, ANY TIME report the demented antics these two utter fuckwits? Want to lose sleep for the next week or two? Realize that there are THOUSANDS of people-perhaps tens of thousands- in this country that actually BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY! And posters here are worried about "Muslim fanatics"??? Give me a fuckin' break! Greg |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Bill D Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:20 PM Pat & Jerry are sanctimonious businessmen....they haven't had a thought in years that was not self-interest drivel. Too bad that stance appeals to so many.
|
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: DougR Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:26 PM Nope, Rick. I don't agree with 'em. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: GUEST,Frank Date: 14 Sep 01 - 06:38 PM "There are Christians and then there are Christians."........Poisonwood Bible. Pat and Jerry have arrogated to themselves the only pipeline to God. No humility there! Their views of religion may have added to the disenfranchisement of poor Arabs and Africans. To blame the actions of Bin Laden and followers on God is pretty perverted. It shows what they really think of God. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Bill D Date: 14 Sep 01 - 07:04 PM "God" is a notion Pat & Jerry re-define to suit themselves...The 'Bible' is famous for being re-interpreted to suit just such men.. One of the reasons religion does not appeal to me is the concept of a Supreme Being who 'cares' and can be prayed to allowing random murder & violence ...and idiots like Pat & Jerry to explain what makes "HIM" mad...*shaking my head in frustration* there may be a Heaven...and there may NOT be..but I simply would not care to go to one run by the rules and the Boss I hear about....(no, those of you who tout a kinder, more compassionate God needn't remind me that not all views of this matter are the same)....sorry for the little rant, but some things push my button pretty hard... |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: DougR Date: 14 Sep 01 - 07:06 PM Okie dokie, Bill D. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 14 Sep 01 - 07:10 PM (Hi Bill.) Now that I have read all of this I think I understand some things that were said to me recently that were pretty damned weird and had nothing to do with ME... and I guess what I would wish people would remember is that just because these "Leaders" have the bucks to put their message everywhere does not mean that people with SENSE actually agree with them.. I mean, we might be willing to worship with them but.... Might not, too. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Bill D Date: 14 Sep 01 - 07:25 PM *nod*...safer to do your own form of worship out of range |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Gareth Date: 14 Sep 01 - 07:39 PM Didn't Dylan sing something on this ? "With God on our Side !" Trouble is all sides invoke him. God/The Almighty/Jehova/Allah. Ah well thats probably earned me a place on every fundamentalists hit list. Gareth
|
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 14 Sep 01 - 08:29 PM The old Grecian gods were better. There was at least one to suit any situation. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 14 Sep 01 - 08:59 PM What I would like to be able to do is sit as long as it would take, with someone who is Muslim, and someone who is Jewish, and talk over how "our" God sees all this--ALL of it-- because as I understand it, all three groups sort of agree they are talking to the same Big Guy. I mean, I would ask them, "What does God say to you about all this when you pray?" As individuals, maybe we could sort something out and then go back to our "own" folks and say what we had learned, and ask "our" people to do more of that sort of talking. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Rick Fielding Date: 14 Sep 01 - 09:44 PM For what it's worth, I think that Rex Humbard and Jimmy Swaggert were damn good singers, and Rex's version of "I'll Fly Away" from the forties (played on his big steel National guitar) was superb. Jimmy sung with great dynamics and had a strong left hand (like his cuz) Also, Jerry Falwell has great EV. (evangelist hair) Pat Roberstson at his best LOOKS even more sincere than Bill Clinton (and apparently rides pretty good horse) On the old black and white clips from the fifties I've seen, Oral Roberts was extremely dashing in his white suit, and had some dynamite stage moves. His son, Richard.....well maybe I'll stop now. There, I've done it! I've said good things about TV evangelists for the first time in my life....and I feel much better. Sorry for the humour folks, but after three days of rage and sadness, I'm a bit weird tonight. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Troll Date: 14 Sep 01 - 10:20 PM How does one get in touch with the Rev.' Falwell and Robertson? I'd like them to fax me a picture of the firey letters whereby GOD toldthem why HE has turned HIS FACE away from America if indeed HE has. Otherwise, I'm afraid that I shall take their announcment with a large grain of salt. Or maybe I'll take some Mylanta instead. This kind of self-righteous intolerance makes me want to vomit. troll |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 14 Sep 01 - 11:19 PM Rick.... words cannot express what you have done to me with that post (which I just read aloud to Hardi)... Rick, I was supposed to SING with that throat tomorrow night! I think you busted it! Funniest man I have heard in the last... coupla weeks, anyhow. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Peg Date: 15 Sep 01 - 11:31 AM At least Billy Graham did a nice job at the memorial service. I heard a very articulate reasonabe priest (I think he was catholic) with Ted Koppel on TV last night; he called for religious leaders to LEAD; not spread more hatred. He did not name Falwell and Robertson by name but he very clearly denounced them and mentioned this incident as one that caused him much distress... |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 15 Sep 01 - 01:02 PM But Rick, you forgot the Southern accent. Everybody knows a TV evangelist has to have a fake Southern accent. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Sep 01 - 01:24 PM I'm with Greg.......I am so sick of these bastards and all the sanctimonius bullshit. I mean even the billy Graham bit was beyond me as he came close without say we should "smite our enemies." That we should bring this into a Holy War really reduces the whole thing to the bare essence doesn't it.......With God on our side and all of that.......God Bless America being sung on the Capitol steps by Congress........Scares the livin' shit outta' me and I can't find any humor in it that wouldn't offend a lot of people..........Saw Robert Schuller on the tube and he was completely appalling...I could hear the guys in the booth saying, "Aw Geez, get this fucker off quick!" I have great feelings for those who believe and seek comfort and strength in a supreme being.....but this crap relates only to self serving and arrogant bullshit which sadly, many believe. Once again, I'd suggest for those who follow them, a lesson from Mark Twain and the "War Prayer." I'd link that thread, but I doubt anyone is reading this let alone clicking links. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 15 Sep 01 - 01:34 PM I have just read the first post on this thread, what a load of shite.I can't believe people believe this crap.These two guys should be locked up they are obviosly insane.just my opinion.john |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 Sep 01 - 01:44 PM Even more depressiing, Falwell is Chancellor of Liberty University. We are training a good crop of bigots. Then there are Bob Jones University (where Ian Paisley attended) and Oral Roberts University and ... |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Skeptic Date: 15 Sep 01 - 01:46 PM All I can say is that after reading the Falwell article I am just plain releived that the problem has been solved, we have identified the enemy and out mission is clear and we can all get back to business as usual. One of the draw backs about being a committed civil libertarian is that I sometimes have to not only tolerate people like Robertson and Falwell but argue that they have an absoulte right to run their mouths and spout their thinly vieled doctrine of hatred, intolerance and fear. Sad that they debase a religion that is proclaimed to be based on love and universal brotherhood to do so. Sadder still that people believe it. Its hard work being noble. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: marty D Date: 15 Sep 01 - 01:56 PM John, I used to live in a town who's greatest claim to fame was it's local TV evangelist. Millions DO believe it. They also believed aids was God's judgement on gays. Yes it's sickening, but these are NOT just fringe beliefs. All the hate mongers mentioned in this thread, even the more subtle ones, have had tacit approval from Government. Not ONE of them lent their considerable influence to the fight for integration in the sixties, and most preached openly against it. Surely that should have been a righteous cause for ANY Christian. Finding old Billy Graham speeches on the net can be chilling. marty |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 15 Sep 01 - 02:04 PM marty-We also get that crap over here in the UK, a few years ago the Chief Constable Of Manchester (sorry I can't remember his name) held similar views to these two nutters, I think he was fired eventually, either that or he was tod to shut up. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Justa Picker Date: 15 Sep 01 - 02:12 PM Can we tie both of them to the first cruise missle launched, and give them a head start since they are obviously both "homesick"? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: SharonA Date: 15 Sep 01 - 02:52 PM Watched a program this morning on ABC where Peter Jennings moderated a discussion/Q&A session with a group of children of various ages, with adults answering some of their questions. One kid asked how to discern which God was "right" in this conflict, and which religion was "right". One Muslim gentleman answered that "Allah" was simply another name for the same God, in a different language (and gave examples of other names in other languages, such as the Spanish "Dios"); he said that Arabic Christians refer to the Christian God as "Allah". An African-American minister said that God is not a respecter of religion. I thought those were great answers. I shudder to think what would've been said if Jerry or Pat were on that panel. I'm glad to see the network had enough sense not to put them there! Having been raised by the sort of people who hang onto (and parrot) every word the Falwells and Robertsons of the world spout, and having been forcefed same, I know from firsthand experience that it is impossible – literally impossible – to make them understand how damaging and destructive and unChristlike such statements as those described by the Washington Post really are. These people are as fanatical as terrorists and, in their way, as dangerous. (Given my upbringing, I'm not sure how I ended up turning my back on it, except that I was raised in the '60s when everything outside my home and my church taught me to at least TRY to keep an open mind and to be respectful and accepting of people who aren't exactly the same as I am.) |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 15 Sep 01 - 03:32 PM This is for people who have never had any contact with a church that is actually getting it right some of the time. Despite a lot of confusion in some areas of my church at the moment (which will take a long time to sort out), I think my denomination has some things that help keep it off the crazy track we have been writing about in this thread-- the craziness of what I call the RRR. Rigid Religious Right. Those skells have had the floor long enough. Every week in Episcopal churches (and I suspect in all Anglican Communion churches as well), a reading from one of the Gospel books of the Bible is read. I am sure it is also read weekly in Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox churches. In our denomination the reading is introduced with, "The Holy Gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ, according to [book cited]." I would bet it's introduced similarly in the other denominations mentioned. It does NOT say "The Holy Gospel of our Lord, Jesus Christ, according to Pat Robertson." It does NOT say "The Holy Gospel of Jerry Falwell and Anyone Stupid Enough to Follow Him." What we try to follow, in these denominations, is Jesus the man and Jesus the God. No one else, no matter how loud or apparently sensible. Not our own whims, either. These denominations take very seriously the idea of what is called "apostolic succession." This means, in simplest terms, that certain people were chosen during Jesus' life to continue His work, and these people then chose others... People who had known the living Jesus and experienced His presence in their lives then introduced to others-- generation by generation, in a direct line of personal experience-- the Risen Christ. I think this is one reason why so many people in these denominations have been able to hold to Jesus' teachings at least well enough to try to LIVE them. Where I live I am surrounded by good models of this at every turn. (Not saying I AM one.) If you want to see a real Christian living in authentic relationship with someone they have chosen to follow as Lord, look to whether they are trying to follow what is laid out in those Gospels. However imperfectly they are succeeding in doing that, this is what you would expect to see them TRYING to do. This makes some of the RRR leaders seem pretty... counterfeit. That Gospel reading I started out discussing also does NOT say, "The Gospel of YOUR Lord, Jesus Christ." In our Baptismal Convenant we promise to "respect the dignity of every human being." This includes the dignity of deciding for oneself what one believes, and what beliefs one chooses to live out on a daily basis. Thus I find it as hard to condemn RRR leaders I think are going the wrong way as I find it difficult to evangelize-at (try to "save") non-Christians. Both the RRR leaders I think are in error, and the non-Christians who do not see what I see, have the right in our free society to say and practice as they believe. That does not relieve any of us of the obligation I think we have to use our minds, hearts, and spirits to discern what is true and right from what is false and wrong. It's easy to use Hitler to point up someone who had enormous evil influence in his time and for long thereafter. But don't we have to hold individuals, who follow blindly, just as accountable? Yes, I know, they can be conditioned into a narrow view.... but when we become adults, aren't we still capable of knowing what our hearts tell us? What I would like to see is not the muzzling of wrong and bad things-- for who could agree on which these are?-- but the strengthening of the ability to discern at the individual level what we face. I'd like to see us each look to our own narrow vision and blind spots, and stop blaming it on the narrowness and blindness of others. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Don Firth Date: 15 Sep 01 - 03:40 PM Well . . . I think a couple of naughty boys just farted in church. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Haruo Date: 15 Sep 01 - 03:44 PM But still, Susan, you must admit that there is much in the gospels that it is easier to turn to evil ends than to good. "I came not to bring peace but a sword." The apparent racism of Jesus' initial comment to the Syro-Phoenician woman. John's (especially) usage vis-à-vis the term "the Jews". Insisting on the breakup of family members and turning close relatives against each other. As a member of a free church with little lectionary experience, I am not sure how you liturgical, apostolic-succession types handle these things in practice, but I know that in the hands of those who want inflammatory texts to dive off of these (and many others, including even more numerous ones in the Hebrew scriptures) are readily available and quite handy. I don't think there is a branch of Christianity that doesn't bear some guilt, and I don't think there's a magic insurance policy in scripture or polity or doctrine that will guard against it. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Don Firth Date: 15 Sep 01 - 04:00 PM Unfortunately, Liland, there is much to what you say. Those who are hell-bent on viciousness and mayhem can usually find justification for their malevolence if they search long enough through the scriptures of whatever religion they belong to. Just a couple of thoughts after listening to author E. L. Doctorow's comments on Scott Simon's program on NPR this morning:-- The whole idea of an Islamic holy warrior going directly to Paradise if killed in a jihad, is a sop to get the gullible to do the bidding of their leader. If those who promulgate this idea really believe what they say, then why don't they wrap themselves in explosives, go stand in the middle of a crowd of "infidels," and blow themselves up? Why suffer the slings and arrows of this dismal existence when you can transport yourself instantly to Paradise and spend the rest of eternity drinking nectar and cavorting with houris in the Garden of Allah? "Fundamentalism?" It isn't fundamental at all, in that it bears no relationship to the fundamental core beliefs and principles of the religion in question. Two more examples of this kind of "fundamentalism" are those escapees from a Saturday Night Live skit, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. According to these two halo-bedecked bozos, since America is packed from border to border and ocean to ocean with gays, lesbians, abortionists, people who think it isn't right to force Jewish children to pray Christian prayers in school, Godless organizations like the ACLU and People for the American Way, etc., etc., ad nauseum, God intends to punish America for its sinful and secular ways and for anything else that disagrees their cockamamie interpretation of "the Word of God." America got what it deserves and there is more to come. The terrorists, willing to murder thousands of men, women, and children (a percentage of whom might very well have been fundamentalist Christians themselves), were -- what? -- angels? Messengers of the Lord? There is ample reason for the weeping of Jesus. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Skeptic Date: 15 Sep 01 - 04:04 PM Susan, I find little of Christianity in the Robertsons or Falwells of the world. The type of Christianity you talk about (with bumps along the way) is much closer to the one I am familiar with. Falwell and his ilk (love that word) are responsible for their actions. Those who follow are responsible for theirs. I attribute (perhaps incorrectly) little real sincerity to Falwell or Robertson. His followers are most probably sincere. I was saddened and troubled that other religious leaders haven't said anything. Silence, as has been noted before, can be as eloquent and damning as any speech. Though not practicing, I was raised as a Presbyterian and was taught that you didn?t ignore Evil. (which I characterize this as) It was to be challenged wherever found. Several prominent Muslim clerics condemned the interpretation of the Quoran that was used to justify the attack Tuesday. Is it unreasonable to expect any less of Christians when it is used to foster hate and divisiveness? I'm not trying (or trying not too?) get into Christian bashing. I think that letting this go as a theological difference might be safe and comforting but isn't acceptable intellectually, emotionally and maybe theologically. Regards John |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Sep 01 - 04:44 PM "Falwell and his ilk (love that word) are responsible for their actions. Those who follow are responsible for theirs. I attribute (perhaps incorrectly) little real sincerity to Falwell or Robertson. His followers are most probably sincere." (Italics and Bold-mine) Couldn't help but want to substitute Bin Laden for Falwell and Robertson.......Not really too different is it? Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 15 Sep 01 - 07:58 PM All images of God are Man's. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Haruo Date: 15 Sep 01 - 08:55 PM And God is reportedly less than thrilled with the quality of the photographs. Indeed, said "Stop it or I'll sue." Liland (reference is to the Ten Commandments' anti-engraving clause) |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Steve in Idaho Date: 15 Sep 01 - 09:45 PM I KNEW this was a Trolling thread - but NO I couldn't leave the Damn thing alone - had to read it. . . . Glad I did cause now spaw is rivaling LH in eloquence!! And Don Firth - you sure you aren't a preacher?? JUST JOKING - - - Too freakin funny - Farted in church - I'm gonna share that one with the crew come Monday - Peace Steve BTW - neither of those two assholes speak for me - |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 15 Sep 01 - 10:21 PM The nice ting about the liturgical churches is that you have to cover ALL of the material... you can't pick and choose your Bible readings to fit the sermon you feel like delivering, and you must preach on these readings as they come around. A pastor in that setting who preaches BS he isn't trying to live, himself, if run out of town pretty quick, as are pastors whose negativity is evident in their preaching-- because they will govern the lay leaders within that same negative paradigm. The positive outlook of the laity long nourished by better pastorates makes for a cognitive dissonance with the badhearted padre's approach. Also, in an apostolic-succession setting you have a counterbalance in the authority vested in the Bish, as well as the long-term deployment processes that mean a parish had ought to know who they are getting and choose with care. I am not saying it's magic or perfect, or that there are not difficult Bible lessons to be covered-- just last week we had "hate yer folks" (love Jesus more). That lesson can't be taken out of context with other material that bears on it, in our setting. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Haruo Date: 15 Sep 01 - 10:30 PM That reminds me to ask (totally offtopic, but oh well), is there a website you can recommend for folks interested in following the Common Lectionary (or whatever one youse guys use) at a distance? Liland |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: kendall Date: 15 Sep 01 - 10:58 PM It's not only the ignorant flange heads that scare me, but, I know some reasonably intelligent people who buy this crock of shit. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Sep 01 - 10:58 PM Personally, I follow the Common Confectionary with an emphasis on Bismarcks. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 15 Sep 01 - 11:24 PM Liland, I think there is. I'll have a look and let you know. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 15 Sep 01 - 11:33 PM Oy, I got lost there in a Google search on COMMON LECTIONARY ONLINE. Lots to choose from-- you pick. I found an Anglican Hymnal online site in there too! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: catspaw49 Date: 15 Sep 01 - 11:38 PM Liland, I hope this is useful. This is the Donut section of the Common Confectionary. The catechism here must be learned before moving on to Creme Puffs and Eclairs: The earliest evidence of the donut as an object of religious significance is the great megalith of Stonehenge, near Salisbury, England. Radiocarbon dating places the first activities at the site at around 2800 BC. At this time the site consisted of little more than a circular ditch with an internal bank, however it was quite recognizably toroidal, or donut-shaped. Around 2100 BC, people of the Beaker Culture erected a double ring of bluestone menhirs (standing stones). This donut-like double circle was oriented toward the summer solstice sunrise. It is thought that the people who erected the monument did not actually possess the donut, but this image clearly shows that they knew of it, and constructed Stonehenge as a primitive astronomical computer to precisely calibrate each years' calendar for the weekly religious observances around the dona-diache (d'uh-o-na-dee-och) or "day of the donut." While there are those who insist that both Stonehenge and the toroidal crop circles which occasionally appear in English fields are the work of advanced extraterrestrials who have been attempting to communicate with mankind through donut symbology for centuries, most respected scholars agree that the people of the Beaker Culture were merely highly prescient. This view is supported by their use of the beaker as an early form of mug, even though its significance and close association with the donut in European religious observances would not be realized until the introduction of coffee in the mid-17th century.
Part 1. Donuts and Religion in Early Civilizations This ancient Egyptian tomb painting (c. 2600 BC) from Deir el-Bahri depicts Anubis, the jackal-headed god, preparing a mummy. Donuts were possibly intended to sustain the departed soul on its journey to the infernal regions. It has been speculated that the glazing of donuts was motivated by the need to preserve them in order that they stay fresh for the mummy's use. The exact formulation of the glazing used by the ancient priests has been lost for centuries, however fragmentary papyrus records suggest that it was extraordinarily tasty.
Part 2. Western Religion and Donuts
Part 3. Donuts and Religion during the Renaissance Leonardo da Vinci's Madonna of the Donuts. c.1500, is the only surviving painting from the Renaissance period in which the halo is portrayed with its true significance. In all other known works the halos of religious figures were subdued in order to misdirect those not of the true faith, thus protecting the "Mystery of the Donut." It is known that Michelangelo's work was closely supervised by Pope Orange Julius II during the creation of the frescoes, and it is likely that he ordered the donut in this scene to be painted over. In "The Creation," one of Michelangelo's ceiling frescos in the Sistine Chapel, Adam is being given a donut by God. c.1508-1512. This painting became the subject of intense public debate during the restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes in the 1980s. In the end, it was decided that the frescoes should be preserved in the form (the One Calorie, Diet Frescoe form) that had become familiar over the centuries, and this highly significant inclusion of the donut has been lost once again.
Part 4. Donuts and the Reformation In fact, one aspect of the Protestant movement which dramatically demonstrates that the basic religious importance of the donut was never in question is the establishment of the tradition in the United States of Thanksgiving Day by the English Separatist Puritans know as the Pilgrims. While Thanksgiving Day has been celebrated on both the 3rd Thursday of November and the 4th at various times in U.S. history, it has always been relegated to Thursday in order that Friday remain inviolate for the observance of Donut Day. (In North America, Donut Day is so important that Canada celebrates Thanksgiving on Monday.)
Part 5. Humanism and Donuts The debate on this point still continues, with the insistence by various religions that Donut Day is a holy observance, while Donut Humanists claim that the the eating of donuts on Friday is an merely an expression of Man's free will. Perhaps the Donuts will have the last laugh. Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 15 Sep 01 - 11:41 PM LOL! Spaw, is that Donut worship thing related to the mammarian worship that Amos has taught on here a time or two? The connection could be through the bagel-- "Bubbelah!" ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Bill D Date: 15 Sep 01 - 11:48 PM this is what I found online during a search about logic & reason (and that ain't even the scary one) |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 15 Sep 01 - 11:55 PM Try THIS instead. The summer "Crosscurrents" issue online happens to be about violence and theology. I just found this site so I do not know enough to endorse it-- interested in others' opinions. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Sep 01 - 01:10 AM I haven't read yours yet Susan, but I did read Bill's and I mean no offense to any real Christians out there, but I gotta' tell ya'..........The donut thing makes infinitely more sense! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Troll Date: 16 Sep 01 - 01:57 AM I dunno 'Spaw. It doesn't seem to take creame-filled donuts into account. I'm not sure I could handle a religion that didn't accept creame-filled donuts. And what about donut holes?troll |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: GUEST,AKRick Date: 16 Sep 01 - 08:11 AM Ahh yes, Falwell and Robertson ... the American taliban, if they had their way. I had planned on hitting this thread with a rant 'till I read thru it. Thankfully, there is this threads kind of humor to help most people keep some sort of perspective. Thanx folks, you've made my morning. ... farted in church ... |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Sep 01 - 10:08 AM Well if you want to REALLY enjoy a church fart you have to be sitting right in front of a real good microphone. *G* The acoustics in our church are pretty good tho, even without a mic. Last night a little lap baby let out the biggest and most resonant eructation I have ever heard... fortunately for the serious nature of the moment it was an oral, not rectal eruption, or I think I'd have lost it. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: katlaughing Date: 16 Sep 01 - 11:00 AM Spawdarlin', I think you owe it to the world to go on a Crusade of the Donut and make your mission of zeal to convert as many as possible, STARTING with these two bozos! LMAO!! Brill! |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Tedham Porterhouse Date: 16 Sep 01 - 11:18 AM According to Norton1: "I KNEW this was a Trolling thread - but NO I couldn't leave the Damn thing alone - had to read it. . . ." No, this was not a trolling thread. I started this thread, with an article taken directly from the Washington Post, to show that those who would pervert religion are not limited to the extremeists of other parts of the world, they include some of the most prominent of American "Christians." The likes of Falwell and Robertson have long been prominent in the ranks of the Republican Party and no Republican of recent memory, not Reagan, not Bush, and not Bush II could have been elected as our president without their support.
|
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Bill D Date: 16 Sep 01 - 11:29 AM That site, Susan, is a subscrtiption site seemingly dedicated to promoting inter-faith cooperation and understanding amnong PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY COMMITTED to a religious perspective. It in no way addresses the problem of irrationality exemplified, but not limited to, sites and attitudes like the one I picked as a semi-scary example. I do NOT intend to use this forum in an ongoing way to vent my frustration with perversions of logic and rationality to support dubious enterprises and positions...{{translation: I ain't gonna go knocking on doors or standing on street corners...RT or VT, handing out pamphlets on athiesm and trying to get people to leave their churches}}...but I may on occasion, when provoked by threads on Falwell and his ilk, try to at least give some suggestions about what the issues and ways of approaching them really are. here is the list of sites I was reading thru when I stumbled on the other one. They are early hits from a search on the phrase "from false premises" http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#slope http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/people_logic.htm http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ383.HTM http://www.csama.org/199805NL.HTM http://www.les.appstate.edu/courses/research/Session3/tsld001.htm http://www.plusroot.com/dbook/22Certain.html http://www.uncanny.net/~wetzel/connection.htm http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/corenotes.htm http://www.gaydeceiver.com/quotes/ oh...sometimes I will show more humor in my posts...donuts & the like. I'm just not in the mood today. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Sep 01 - 11:39 AM Bill, I only offered that as an example that people who pray also are people who think. A search based on the phrase "from false premises" would have been pretty skewed I think-- and that's fine with me: you are coming from one view and should IMO say what you see from there. But I am not going to leave the well-publicized RRR view and the backlash it generates unanswered any more, and I will speak from what I know personally and see on a daily basis to respond when I can with what I think may be sense. What I think is notable abot this thread is that IMO it was NOT started as a troll, it comes from a member we can communicate with privately if that seems necessary, and we are not saying in this thread (I think), "Here is what YOU SHOULD DO, BELIEVE, THINK, SAY...." And instead we are writing about our own views, for a change. To the extent this thread continues in that vein I will participate. If it gets hijacked by ugliness I'm outta there. I would not have started this thread, myself, but I will participate if it is an effort to THINK together. It also is a thread directly related to the PR presence the RRR has built, and I have a lot on my mind about that-- since I deal with the results of it on a daily basis. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: catspaw49 Date: 16 Sep 01 - 11:48 AM oh...sometimes I will show more humor in my posts...donuts & the like. I'm just not in the mood today. The good thing here Bill is that you can. I think different emotions happen to all of us at differing times, especially after events like this past week. I have been alternately morbid, happy, thoughtful, angered, rational, and beyond any form of reasoning. Sometimes the problems we have here are due to the different times we all hit thos peaks valleys. It's always best if I can think who Bill D. really is and then I can always figure the mood and not respond to the instant. Last night in a tension relieving burst of giddiness, I would make a joke of anything and indeed made one I would never have made had I been even halfway thinking. Thanks for the sites BTW.......Some interesting(?) stuff there. I'd comment more but I have only skimmed two since today, in my mood, I just ain't up to it. (:<)) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Steve in Idaho Date: 16 Sep 01 - 11:56 AM Tedham - I was making a joke of the "trolling thread" part. My apologies if I seemed insensitive - And not just my wanting to get my hands on knotheads like these two religious shmucks. My mind and heart, like most others, is mush. I have to find some humor somewhere - and I found it with spaw again. Doughnuts - know how the hole is made?? NEVER mind - that smacks of connection, or is that. . . .!! Peace Steve |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Bill D Date: 16 Sep 01 - 01:07 PM " A search based on the phrase "from false premises" would have been pretty skewed I think-- " yup...skewed towards logical thinking, in the main. Though that is *ahem* inconvenient for some, it is a standard phrase used in the teaching of logic and helping people to understand the differences between **TRUTH** and **VALIDITY** and how to analyze discussions and arguments so as to be aware of whether conclusions are either. This is not a one day exercise, ...the points made about formal and informal fallacies are not all intuitively obvious and require some study, but they ARE important. People all around the world are increasing the level of rhetoric about events and their own opinions, and to put it mildly, the BS levels are astounding! I am afraid that much of the pain in the world today is entwined in religious differences, and the recent INCREASE in pain was both promoted BY and is being responded to BY, appeals to religious principles and ideals. The dangers in this should be obvious....God or Allah, or the "Great I AM" cannot be on all sides in these matters, but armies are being readied in "ITS" name. Those pilots flew those planes believing that they were going directly to Heaven as Martyrs.....and many people believe that they went directly to Hell for their sins................please forgive me for my feeble attempt to point out that it is possible that neither view is necessarily true. It is perfectly possible to live a good, sane, useful, productive, happy, friendly, caring life without accepting ANY tenents based on the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, Ohaspe, The Upanishads, The Urantia Book, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Joseph Smith or the Crocodile god of the Bantus.................that being said, I will defend the right of followers of those paths to gain solice and comfort as they will....but when they USE those writings and attitudes to affect the politics and social fabric of MY life, I have no compunctions about posting little jibes about their distortions of logic. way more than I intended to say, and about 2% of what I needed to say. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Art Thieme Date: 16 Sep 01 - 01:11 PM I think Pat and Jerry are completely wrong and ought to quit playing with people's minds at this very emotional and vulnerable time for weak-minded ones so willing to be led like sheep on thir Crusade.
Mainly, I think they ought to go back to making ice cream. ;-) Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Amos Date: 16 Sep 01 - 01:14 PM claim this is proof that the donut is not of divine origin. This is rampant heresy and should not be tolerated on this thread. Anyway pushing this screwy perverted notion should be taken out and eaten. And no more wisecracks about how they make the Holiest of Holes. Or you'll start yet another Ass Holey War, and wee don't want that!! LOL Spaw, I love your religion. The Temple of the Golden Globes extends its cups in fellowship to donut worshippers everywhere. I would recommend that we plan a series of combined services. We'll bring the Mammaries, you bring the Donuts. And let the wild rumpus BEGIN! On a serious note I think all of the recognized mainstream religions on this planet are just plain silly. No matter whose they are. I'm with Kendall on this one. The very concept of "organizing" a religion is a monstrous oxymoron anyway. And people like Falwell should learn the importance of the separation of Church and State and keep their Goddamned noses out of matters of state. A. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: wysiwyg Date: 16 Sep 01 - 02:14 PM This has become a thread of argument, not sharing information. I love you all dearly but I'm out. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Deckman Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:08 AM These two are doing us a big FAVOR. Now we can see and know clear examples of HATE MONGERING. This week we've seen one horrible result on the East coast. I wonder how many future terrorists are in their congregations. I know Falwells' religion from the inside ... I was raised in it. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: Peg Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:08 PM too right, Deckman. |
|
Subject: RE: According to Falwell From: GUEST,Sonja Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:34 AM In view of several of the comments posted above, as well as the Robertson and Falwell comments that spawned this thread, I've gotta post this old song which I resurrected earlier this year [and, on one verse, just now]. Sorry I can't post the tune, but I don't know how. The Christian Coalition Song © 2001 Sonja W.0ates adapted from The Moral Majority Song © 1983 Sonja Wilde-Oates Well, our country's going down the tubes, for sure -- Free love, women's lib, and other kinds of crime. But the Christian Coalition's on the march To keep every one of you in line. Oh, yes, it's all well, we've got Jerry Falwell And the vigilant Religous Right to run our private lives. Individual freedoms, hey, we don't need 'em, 'Cause when folks are free they may not do The things we think they oughta do, So, we're gonna keep an eye on you, Joe Offer,* Till the judgment day arrives. Well, the Trade Center terror was an awful shame -- Something that should be abhorred--, But Jerry says we oughta blame the liberals and the gays; It's a spanking from the Lord! Oh, yes indeedy, we've got Ralph Reed-y, Gonna legislate morality and keep us going straight. We'll save our kiddoes from their libidoes. If you're a teenage lass, and not a lad, And you try to be safe while you're being bad, We're gonna tell your mom and da-ad, so prepare to procreate. Socialism's not our bag, you should make it on your own. We'll protect your rights till birth--then you're on your own. But happily, we've got Phyllis Schlafly, Telling women we should know our place & teaching right from wrong. We'll save our nation from fornication. We're gonna ban obscenity, take rape and violence off TV & put 'em back in the home, where they oughta be-- We gotta keep the family strong. Jerry wants to save your soul from sin, Sleaze and pornographic trash (like: "The Nation," "Ms.,", "Mother Jones"). Keep those checks and dollars coming in; we take credit cards or cash. But it's all well, we've got Jerry Falwell And his counter-evolutionary crew To teach our nation's youth. Of Darwin's theory we're kinda leary, So we'll teach the Bible's theory 'Cause we don't want to think that we Ever swung from our tails from tree to tree In hairy birthday suits. Peace is overrated. War can be divine 'Long as national interest is the bottom line. Yes, without bias, I say we're pious. We worked our pious fannies off to stop the ERA. Let's have a hand for the things we stand for: It's down with commies, up with nukes, We don't burn bras, we just burn books, We love the right, so we knock the kooks --and fry the crooks!***-- That's the good old American, Moral Majority, Christian Coalition way. *Insert name of your favorite infidel, commie, liberal, etc. **The original verse was, "Well, the aids epidemic is an awful shame-- Something that should be abhorred--, but Jerry says it only strikes the dopers and the gays -- It's a spanking from the Lord." ***Original 1983 lyrics, "... and bomb the gooks!" Sonja |