Least we think only Islam is subject to perversion...

[happyheathen]

Friday September 14 5:35 PM ET

Robertson, Falwell: U.S. Vulnerable
By CHRIS KAHN, Associated Press Writer

The Rev. Jerry Falwell and religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said the United States was vulnerable to this week's terrorist attacks because the nation has insulted God and lost divine protection.

``God Almighty is lifting his protection from us,'' Robertson said in a four-page statement issued Thursday by his Christian Broadcasting Network.

``We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit of ... health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality.''

Falwell, a Baptist minister and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., said Thursday on Robertson's religious TV program ``The 700 Club'' that he blames the attacks on pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union and the 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,''' Falwell said.

He added later, ``God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.''

``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.''

Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, said Friday the comments of Falwell and Robertson ``were stunning. They were beyond contempt. They were irresponsible at best, and a deliberate attempt to manipulate the nation's anger at worst.''

Robertson, who founded the Christian Coalition and unsuccessfully ran for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination, said in his statement Thursday that Americans have insulted God by allowing abortion and ``rampant Internet pornography.'' He also chided the U.S. Supreme Court for, among other things, limiting prayer in public schools.

``We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye,'' Robertson wrote. ``We have insulted God at the highest level of our government. Then, we say, 'Why does this happen?'''

Robertson was among conservative religious figures who backed President Bush in last year's election. A White House official called the remarks ``inappropriate'' and added, ``the president does not share those views.''

Falwell said Friday that he didn't mean to blame any one group.

``But I'd say this is a wake up call from God,'' Falwell told The Associated Press. ``I feel our spiritual defenses are down. If we don't repent, then more events might happen in the future.''

Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School in Winston-Salem, N.C., compared Falwell's and Robertson's comments with militant Islamic rhetoric that has been condemned worldwide.

``It trivializes theology. It trivializes the dead,'' Leonard said.

[I.R Joey]

interesting...

[Psycho Fox]

That is complete crap we could all have been good little people and go to chuch every day and this would have still happened. God does not pull our stings or anyone elses we have the choice to be good and to be evil.

[happyheathen]

I just wish he had used the word 'heathen' instead of 'pagan':rolleyes:

[Zebi]

This disgusts me. And I take personal offense to this, considering that I am Wiccan (Wicca being a Pagan religion).

What happened on Tuesday is horrible, but to blame groups other than the terrorists who are responsible is just stupid.

The groups mentioned had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on Tuesday. These men are just lashing out at groups they don't agree with - which is just plain wrong. And they certainly aren't acting like Christians.

[Vigo Sprax]

Essentially what they're saying then is that bin Laden and his group of terrorists must be doing the work of God, therefore bin Laden must be on the same level as people like Moses or David. I can't wait for the New, New Testament, that these wondeful examples of Men of the clothe, will write - exaplaining how God punished all the wicked people. :rolleyes:

[RockItShipper]

I heard some of Falwell's statements quoted during a memorial service near my apartment and was very very happy that the priest paused before adding "Bull!"


:)

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Vigo Sprax
Essentially what they're saying then is that bin Laden and his group of terrorists must be doing the work of God, therefore bin Laden must be on the same level as people like Moses or David. I can't wait for the New, New Testament, that these wondeful examples of Men of the clothe, will write - exaplaining how God punished all the wicked people. :rolleyes: I agree, they would change their tune if they were one of the injured.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

I'm with you all-this is bull. These people are saying that God has been insulted? I'm sure He's also insulted by people like these "high-ranking" church officials who use His name to insult, threaten, and beat on every group they do not like. How Christian...

And I thought the pursuit of health at least was a good thing!

[Calhoun07]

Reading that made me sick to my stomach. This is just further evidence that these men are false prophets, wolves in sheeps clothing. If they were preaching the truth, they would have said this, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be children of your Father which is in Heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

God is no respecter of persons.

[I.R Joey]

Well as a born again Christinan I can see where he's coming from. Right now in the wake of this tradgedy many, many people are turning to God, but not wanting to repent of their sins. However, like the Bible verse says.

"God is light and in him is no darkness."

Therefor if we have darkness within us, and we want to be with God then that's just not going to happen. One may ask how a righteous God can be so intolerant, but then I always say how can a righteous God turn his back on...and completly ignore our sins.

Also I think some of your points are a little of skew. I just saw Robertson talking on the 700th club (which I haven't watched in a long time) and while I didn't agree with everything he said, (it does seem like he's trying to turn it into an Islam vs. Christian thing) I find myself to be in agrement on some key things. BTW, when he said that America was vulnerable because of how much we've falllen, he didn't mean that we (as Christians) are cared about or loved more by God. Heck, he even said that he himself was a little guilty for this.

And it is true that America is being a little hypocritical when is says one nation under God (yes you may say which God, but obviously that pledge was forged implying the Christian one) yet continue to descend into a crapload of immorality rivaling Sodom and Gamora. It is hypocricy.

I don't think he's saying that Bin Laden is doing God's will either, as hard as this may be for you to believe I am actually praying that God would forgive the people who did this. Trying to show the love of Christ that we Christians are suppouse to (but to often fail miserably at.) all the time. I believe my history teacher said it best when he said that "This did not take God by suprise, he is still on his throne." IE, we need not be scared because God is still in control of the world. He pointed me to a verse that has really helped me keep my cool, that verse being
Phillipians 4:7,

"This is the day that the Lord has made I will rejoice and be glad in it."

Once we allow the terrorists to steal our joy, then we have truely become victims, I personally refuse to let that happen.


In return I read the 91st psalm to the class out loud, focusing on the parts about not fearing all the stuff that happends around you, and God sending his Angels to protect those who trust in him.



Oh well, so in conclusion I kind of agree with him on some points.

[happyheathen]

i generally respect all peoples' gods.

those who promote hatred, on the other hand, are not worthy of respect, let alone worship (IMO)

[Failure]

Hey, it's Jerry Fallwell, what else would you expect from the "gay teletubby" guy? His existence is a complete joke. The only reason people pay attention to what he says is because it's so ludicrous it's downright comedy. Don't know much about Robertson, so I wont comment on him.

[Singin' Stray Cat]

Originally posted by happyheathen


...Falwell, a Baptist minister and chancellor of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., said Thursday on Robertson's religious TV program ``The 700 Club'' that he blames the attacks on pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals, the American Civil Liberties Union and the 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,''' Falwell said.

He added later, ``God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.''
[etc, etc...]



My initial reaction to this was, ".......WHAT?!?:confused:" Every time Falwell speaks, I get so mad I can't see straight. Please, please, guys, don't think all Christians are like him. Believe me, they aren't. Probably a better term for Falwell would be "Pharisee," after the men in the Bible who adhered to every little detail in their laws (and shunned those who didn't), but missed the really big issues of forgiveness, love, and understanding.

The attacks on Tuesday were surprise attacks - no one saw them coming. Now Falwell doesn't have to approve of or agree with the practices or beliefs of every group, but to blame those he doesn't like for something of this magnitude, for such a flimsy reason, is just plain stupid. He should let the FBI deduce who is responsible for what happened Tuesday. (I wonder if anyone's told him that whenever you point a finger at someone, three fingers are pointing right back at you?)

I also wonder when was the last time Falwell worked in a soup kitchen, or bought Christmas presents for children whose parents couldn't afford them. Sometimes I think he'd do much more for the gospel if he kept his mouth shut, cancelled his TV show, dropped out of the media's sight (as best he could), and lived in the real world for a while.

Sorry about the ranting, guys. Like I said at first, people like Mr. Falwell disgust me, mainly because his comments just reinforce the stereotype that Christians are bigoted, loud, obnoxious people that explode every time they see or hear something they don't like, and whose leaders do nothing except thump their pulpit and ask for money. Yes, there are people like that - you'll always find them in any institution made up of fallible human beings, and I'd be extremely naive to think such people don't exist. But not every believer, in fact I dare say the vast majority of them, is like that stereotype.

Shoot, I feel like apologizing again - for preaching to the choir. Many of you probably knew all of the above already. But the whole thing just bothers me so much - not all the time, but after reading stuff like that...uggh, I can't describe how...:mad: Actually, from now on I think I'm going to adopt Failure's attitude (if he doesn't mind, that is) about Falwell's comments. The ones about the Teletubbies were pretty hilarious :D Robertson may be a bit more respectable, but I don't know that for sure...so I'll keep mum about him as well. Besides, I think I've rambled too much already!

Let the REAL intelligent discussion continue!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Singin' Stray Cat


My initial reaction to this was, ".......WHAT?!?:confused:" Every time Falwell speaks, I get so mad I can't see straight. Please, please, guys, don't think all Christians are like him. Believe me, they aren't. Probably a better term for Falwell would be "Pharisee," after the men in the Bible who adhered to every little detail in their laws (and shunned those who didn't), but missed the really big issues of forgiveness, love, and understanding.
I know Christians are not like that, Falwell is only one man and I know their is pure goodness still in people just look at NY Firefighters some from across the border risking their life to try and safe other lives. IMHO it is less important beliving in God then practising what God stands for. Love,kindness and goodness.

[Maxie Zeus]

This is a perversion of Christianity that these are preaching, just as it is a perversion of Islam that is at the root of bin-Laden's hatred.

One awful consequence of all this perversion, as Singin' Stray Cat has observed, is that all religions come to look bad. In fact, I have heard some hard-core atheists of my acquaintance come right to the edge of saying that all religions need to be outlawed. (Proof that even atheism can be perverted by hatred.)

[Maxie Zeus]

Filmmaker Michael Moore:

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

Some people are so viciously partisan that they look on this as a missed opportunity: If someone has to die, please God, let it be people who voted for the other guy. . . .

:mad:

[I.R Joey]

I don't view Christianity as my religion, I view it as the way I see and interact with the world. Being a Christinan is not taking communion, being baptised, or going to Church (though I participate in them) Being a Christian is simply a matter of accepting God's gift of grace instead of trying to "be" the perfect human being, which none of us can do.

[Singin' Stray Cat]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
Filmmaker Michael Moore:

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

Some people are so viciously partisan that they look on this as a missed opportunity: If someone has to die, please God, let it be people who voted for the other guy. . . .

:mad:

Whoa...there's another "....WHAT?!?" :confused: :confused: Talk about your die-hard partisans...


I know Christians are not like that, Falwell is only one man and I know their is pure goodness still in people just look at NY Firefighters some from across the border risking their life to try and safe other lives. IMHO it is less important beliving in God then practising what God stands for. Love,kindness and goodness.


Thanks, Psycho Fox. :) And again I apologize, I just had to get that long rant out of my system. Now that it IS out, hopefully I can go back to posting stuff that's less emotionally charged.

[DR. BELCH]

The pastor of my Lutheran church said it best: "Living a moral and upright life and not expecting sin to enter it is like expecting the bull not to charge and gore you just because you're a vegetarian." True, I believe this country has lost its moral compass somewhat, and it's suffering some internal strife, but I don't think that's what brought this tragedy upon us. Falwell's god may demand blood offerings and believe in killing a few thousand of us every once in a while to keep us on the straight and narrow, but I hope mine doesn't. I wouldn't worship such a creature!
Technically it was one of Falwell's underlings that made the remark about the purple Teletubby being that way, but I never heard the reverend publicly censure this individual.
Of course, for those who want to believe that God has turned his back on us, consider this:
http://www.snopes.com/spoons/photos/wtcface.htm

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
Filmmaker Michael Moore:

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

Some people are so viciously partisan that they look on this as a missed opportunity: If someone has to die, please God, let it be people who voted for the other guy. . . .

:mad:

even's things out, I guess - my fav is John Connally (OK right-wingers - correct the spelling) comment on the JFK assasination:

'It's just a shame that it had to happen in Dallas'

(this guy made a serious run for the GOP presidential nomination somewhere in the 80's)

[I.R Joey]

Just thought of something.

Anyone read the book of Job here? The parts about How we should be quite about saying God did these bad things, when it was infact the work of
"the" bad guy.

Job's freinds kept on telling him to repent, but he insisted that he had done nothing wrong, and as it turns out he was right, and God came down hard on his freinds. Again, as A Born again Christian I'm not saying that this country isn't a morally depraved lot (I think it is and that God "will" deal with us,) but to say that God did this isn't right.

[bushnader666]

"Reverend" Falwell and Robinson have lowered themselves to the level of these terrorists in their hate spewing rants against American people.

It is this very type of religious fanaticism that drove these terrorists the do these heinous acts that Falwell and Robinson have displayed.

They are hypocrites. Portraying themselves as good Christians, they have disgraced themselves and denounced their very own religion, just as the terrorists had done.

If this doesn't kill the religious right and stop people from giving $700 to the "Give $700 club," nothing will.

[The Mad Hatter]

That's Falwell for you. He once blamed a hurricane in Florida on God's wrath against homosexuals. Shee... this guy is about as bad as Bin Ladin.

If God did indeed trigger the attacks, then God's a jerk. My God is not a jerk.

[RockItShipper]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH

Of course, for those who want to believe that God has turned his back on us, consider this:
http://www.snopes.com/spoons/photos/wtcface.htm

The picture on the left looked like a Duros, one of the aliens in the SW cantina scene.

[DR. BELCH]

It's subjective. I mean, if someone suggests to you that it's the devil's face, that's what you'll see. You see a Duros...at any given time, if I maybe squint or change my angle a bit, I can see either the Joker, the face of Zeus, or a caricature of '30's-era movie actor Ned Sparks....

[Calhoun07]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH
It's subjective. I mean, if someone suggests to you that it's the devil's face, that's what you'll see. You see a Duros...at any given time, if I maybe squint or change my angle a bit, I can see either the Joker, the face of Zeus, or a caricature of '30's-era movie actor Ned Sparks....

I find my eyes picking out faces and things in the texture on my cieling when I am laying in bed and the light hits it just right. This kind of thing is very subjective, and the stuff tabloids are made out of.

[optimal321]

Huh. All the points i wanted to make have already been said (like about Falwell being a loud, obnoxious, prejudiced, arrogant, hypocritical blowhole) so i'll leave it at that :D

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
Filmmaker Michael Moore:

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes’ destination of California — these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

Some people are so viciously partisan that they look on this as a missed opportunity: If someone has to die, please God, let it be people who voted for the other guy. . . .

:mad:

I don't think that was a serious point. Tasteless, maybe. Satirical and ironic, certainly.

His point (as I see it) being, out of all the Americans who voted for Bush, a President of enormous unpopularity throughout the world for his aggressive foreign policy, the terrorists hit areas which effectively didn't vote for him. Whether one finds that a funny or relevant remark, I certainly think it's superficially interesting and not quite worth bracketing with the out spoken 'Christian' remarks.... IMO :)

[The Old Maid]

Originally posted by I.R Joey
Anyone read the book of Job here? And how we should be quiet about saying God did these bad things, when it was in fact the work of "the" bad guy. I'm not saying that this country isn't a morally depraved lot (I think it is and that God "will" deal with us,) but to say that God did this isn't right.

"For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust." (Matt. 5:45b)

Seems to me the preachers are trying to mingle two themes in Scripture. One -- which is fair -- is that God won't necessarily rescue us from what we do to ourselves. He promised to stay with us no matter what, but that's not the same as cleaning up our mess with no imput from us. You robbed a bank? You go to jail. Don't like it? Then don't rob banks anymore. Better yet, sit down with God and have a nice long talk about why you became that kind person in the first place.

Then there's the other theme. Using this one against people is unfair.

"There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay ; but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

"Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay ; but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:1-5)

They were doing what we're doing, discussing the news! And the point that was made is this : God did not single out these people for suffering. We are mortals living in an imperfect world. People get hurt. Therefore consider NOW what kind of person you want to be. We are none of us promised tomorrow.

A rabbi and his student were discussing repentence. Said the student, "Rabbi, what is the best day to repent?" Said his teacher, "The best day to repent is the last day of your life." Then the student asked, "How shall I know which is the last day of my life?" Said his teacher, "Repent every day."

These are a long way from saying "God is angry at the USA and we are getting what we deserve." God wasn't out to "get" Job and I don't think He was out to "get" the States. Alternately, if He is angry (and this planet certainly gives reason), I question whether this is the way He would express it.

What I am hearing from these preachers sounds too close to gloating. "I told you so." Gloating doesn't come from God.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by SJJ


I don't think that was a serious point. Tasteless, maybe. Satirical and ironic, certainly.

His point (as I see it) being, out of all the Americans who voted for Bush, a President of enormous unpopularity throughout the world for his aggressive foreign policy, the terrorists hit areas which effectively didn't vote for him. Whether one finds that a funny or relevant remark, I certainly think it's superficially interesting and not quite worth bracketing with the out spoken 'Christian' remarks.... IMO :)

Falwell's first instinct is to reach for a transcendent meaning, and concludes (horrifiyingly) that God wanted these people dead. The instinct, before it ends in a nauseating conclusion, is at least laudable. If anyone has a right to take life on this scale, it is God, which is why intelligent theologians (among whom Falwell and Robertson certainly are not to be counted) emphasize that it is a right He never invokes.

On the other hand, Moore's first instinct is to reach for a partisan meaning, and concludes that the mass murder of Bush-voters is preferable to the mass murder of Gore-voters. In this case, both the instinct and the conclusion revolt. Who here parcels out his regret on learning of the death of another human being on the basis of his party affiliation? Or on any basis, except as the judgement of some well-constituted court of justice? Will anyone here admit that their first reaction to a natural disaster is: Please God, let them be Republicans (or Democrats, or homosexuals, or Texans, or Pokemon fans) who are dying? Is there anyone here who would admit that, all other things being equal, they would prefer the violent and casual death of those they don't share a voter registration with (or a sexual identity, or state residence, etc.) to the violent and casual death of those whom they do?

The only "superficially interesting" thing I can see in Moore's comment is the implication that if you disagree with a political leader, then the indiscriminate mass murder of his supporters is a perfectly understandable (indeed, plausible) response. But if the death of one man (the leader himself in an assassination) is thought beyond the pale of civilized behavior, why is it less horrible to contemplate the death of thousands simply for voting for him? (Brecht on anti-government protests in East Germany: "The government needs to dissolve the electorate and choose a new one.") Do numbers sanctify?

If this is satire, it is self-satire, the unwitting revelation of a mind that hates unto the grave those that disagree with it politically.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


If anyone has a right to take life on this scale, it is God, which is why intelligent theologians ...emphasize that it is a right He never invokes.


let's see... Sodom and what'sitsname, the flood, the 'fire next time'...

as I recall, the judeo-christian god is quite capable of mass destruction - both he and allah are/were gods of vengeance



Is there anyone here who would admit that, all other things being equal, they would prefer the violent and casual death of those they don't share (pick a characteristic) to the violent and casual death of those whom they do?


is there anyone here who can, honestly, say they don't have such a group in mind?

[don Jaime]

Hate to do this, but I think it's become necessary. Does anyone have a cite for the Moore quote? I've seen them for Falwell and Robertson, as well as Democratic Congressman Meehan of Massachusetts, the idiot who thought Bush should fly back to DC while planes were still unaccounted for. Those three are getting new ones ripped for their stupidity, but I've not heard a peep about Moore, so I'm wondering if the quote's legit.

[I.R Joey]

Indeed may I never think that the Lord isn't capable of destruction on a massive scale. I believe that the big squishy teddy bear image of God that we've come to attain is incorrect. Yes he is loving,, but he is also just, and also a God of wrath. People may say that this is wrong, but to them I ask...

1. Who are we to question God.

2. Can a righteous God turn his back on our evil?

[James]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


The only "superficially interesting" thing I can see in Moore's comment is the implication that if you disagree with a political leader, then the indiscriminate mass murder of his supporters is a perfectly understandable (indeed, plausible) response. But if the death of one man (the leader himself in an assassination) is thought beyond the pale of civilized behavior, why is it less horrible to contemplate the death of thousands simply for voting for him? (Brecht on anti-government protests in East Germany: "The government needs to dissolve the electorate and choose a new one.") Do numbers sanctify?

If this is satire, it is self-satire, the unwitting revelation of a mind that hates unto the grave those that disagree with it politically.

Fair point, providing that is what Moore truely believes. I think the comment is a purely superficial one and not one that Moore would expect to have taken so literally. Satire often sends up or exaggerates topical opinion. I still don't think any harm or vindictiveness was meant here - however there is certainly no doubt that so close to the attack, it is rather tasteless.

[sun]

Which view of God do you want to believe in?
l. A vicious God that sends his wrath down on us, for some
prescribed act, or actions .

2. A God who is love, that enables people to survive, feel
for others and survive the acts of individuals who act in
insain ways.
People who say that God causes hurricanes to" punish" a group, in my opinion miss the point, no matter who they are. God does not, in my opinion, sit around and figure out who to punish and when. IT is the love that heals, gives comfort, and helps us to recover, that IS God. I believe, perhaps you will argue that we saw God's work in the rescue work and recovery in this tragedy, not in any other aspect. This concept is from a book called, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People", and analizes the whole idea of what , and who God is, and what he, she, or it, does. I am sorry, I do not remember the author...It is available in any library or book store...I had to add this, because saying any evil act, is an act of God, even though there may be quotes from the bible to that point, upset me.. What rediculous statements that people make, does not surprise me at all. We need to see who is making them. Thank you for reading this

[Calhoun07]

God doesn't make these bad things happen. These things happen for many reasons, but the fault in the wrongs with this world come back to the doorstep of man kind, and man's ancestors. Adam was the first to sin and fall, and that put a curse on the whole world and basically from that point on were were going on free will. Under free will, God cannot intervene or that would negate the concept of free will. And the nations also started in Genesis, and everything we are seeing now is a direct result of blessings and curses that were placed upon the fathers of those nations. God didn't allow Esau's descendants to attack New York City because we are bad or evil people. We may have gotten slack in our security measures at airports, but that's on us, not on God. Esau's descendants attacked New York because they have a curse on their lives that they cannot change and it goes beyond Sept 11, way beyond. This goes back thousands of years.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by don Jaime
Hate to do this, but I think it's become necessary. Does anyone have a cite for the Moore quote? I've seen them for Falwell and Robertson, as well as Democratic Congressman Meehan of Massachusetts, the idiot who thought Bush should fly back to DC while planes were still unaccounted for. Those three are getting new ones ripped for their stupidity, but I've not heard a peep about Moore, so I'm wondering if the quote's legit.

The quotation was on Moore's personal website, which I found after several news sources linked to it. He has since, apparently, taken the quotation down.

[don Jaime]

Thanks, Maxie. There went my opinion of him. What a moron.

[sun]

If he is the same person(film director) who tried to interview the President of General Motors, when they were closing down the Flint Mich factory, and put thousands out of work. It is interesting, that someone who really did make a fine movie, with a decent folllow up, could come up with something so stupid.
A comparison comes to mind.. Ralph Nader, who actually lead the consumer movement in this country, and did so in a really great way, said some awfully stupid things during the last election. I couldn't believe some things he said..They were outright lies, when his whole reputation was based on truth.
So stupidity is not limited to people who are not smart. Stupidity is among many, we think are very intelligent. It has been said, "Often to be thought of as a fool, then to open ones mouth and prove it."

[The Old Maid]

Originally posted by oldtoonguy
I believe, perhaps you will argue that we saw God's work in the rescue work and recovery in this tragedy, not in any other aspect. This concept is from a book called, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People", and analyzes the whole idea of what, and who God is, and what he, she, or it, does. I am sorry, I do not remember the author.

It was written by Rabbi Harold Kushner.

I might add to the list "Where is God when it hurts" by Philip Yancey. He read that book while working on his own.

All these astonishing quotes by supposed pillars of Christian faith ought to alarm us laity (i.e. guys-on-the-street). It's natural in tragedy to ponder who we are, what we're doing here ... whether our lives have beauty and meaning or whether the universe has played a cruel joke on us. That is why the quality of the messenger is crucial.

I say there is nothing wrong with admitting, "I don't know the answer, but let's look it up. Let's try to find out together." Many people cannot say the words "I don't know." I don't mean the victims, but the proverbial comforters of Job too. In a way, people try to create God in their own image. They assume God thinks as they do -- and that's a huge problem since it means God can't be smarter than them. Then they spread that message to others, and it colors one's view of the God they claim to represent.

When people look at Billy Graham, they form certain opinions of him. Is he honest and honorable? Does he walk his talk? Does he have something that makes people say, "I want what he's got, what he's found." Whether people like what they see is going to influence whether they give God a chance.

People point to tragedies and say this proves/disproves the existence of God. I'll say this : a tragedy may convince shaky believers and undecided voters NOT to believe in God. Who's want a God who, like an abusive parent, looks for excuses to beat us up? Who needs that in their lives? To stop believing ... clearly that would be something an enemy would want, not God.

[I.R Joey]

That's one of the things I'm learning in my Bible class right now, how to develop a high view of God when we see the relationship between God and man like this...


God
--------
Man

We are mistaken. We imply that God is only one level above us, therefor that he thinks like us, and therefor that he is only one level above us. However, as a staunch believer in the Bible I say that a God that we can understand, and grasp is not a God worth worshiping instead we should see God many levels above us. Therefor, he can see the universe unbound by space and time, and I know in my heart he will do what is right, and that his will shall be done.

[The Old Maid]

In the case of Job, God never did answer his question. Instead He challenged the humans to do any better. It's a question of trust. "If I can handle these other things, trust me to handle this too."

I've heard many people say they wish the world was fair. A writer in Christian Century said he thought that too, when his family was killed by a drunk driver. (The driver was a repeat offender.) But what does fair mean? He said, "Maybe I didn't deserve to lose my family. But maybe I didn't deserve to have them either."

In a world of perfect fairness, evil would be punished promptly. Good would be rewarded promptly. But think about the paradox here : in a world of perfect fairness, Evil would still endure. It would be possible to do evil even knowing the punishment ; therefore Evil would still exist for its own sake. Good as we know it would be reduced to stimulus-response. You see, Good is something you do for its own sake, not for the reward. In a fair world it becomes physically impossible to do Good for its own sake, for the reward always follows. Good as we know it would cease to exist.

In this world, the world of grace, people are visited by sufferings they did not earn, but they also receive gifts they didn't earn either. Did we earn our families or our lives? Were they owed to us? I find that more comforting than assuming suffering must have a reason.

"Wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair and all the terrible things that happen to us happen because we really deserved it?" --J.M. Stracynzski

We really don't know what options were available to God when the world was made. What we do know is that a world of fairness would look very different when we're on the receiving end. Yes, we see pain we did not earn, but we also see joys we never would have had otherwise. That's life in the world of grace. You get more out of it.

[I.R Joey]

Yes, but I was trying to say how it wasn't God who did those things to Job, but Satan. And still Job didn't curse God. And you're right if God was fair he would have done reduced the Earth to cinders, but instead like the Bible says he gave us a way to salvation in Christ.

[happyheathen]

As we have a mix of Christian faiths here, perhaps I can get an old question answered:

What/who, exactly, is 'the Holy Spirit' (or whatever term you use for the third diety of the Christian faith)?

[James]

Originally posted by oldtoonguy
If he is the same person(film director) who tried to interview the President of General Motors, when they were closing down the Flint Mich factory, and put thousands out of work. It is interesting, that someone who really did make a fine movie, with a decent folllow up, could come up with something so stupid.
A comparison comes to mind.. Ralph Nader, who actually lead the consumer movement in this country, and did so in a really great way, said some awfully stupid things during the last election. I couldn't believe some things he said..They were outright lies, when his whole reputation was based on truth.
So stupidity is not limited to people who are not smart. Stupidity is among many, we think are very intelligent. It has been said, "Often to be thought of as a fool, then to open ones mouth and prove it."

I don't understand why this comment has had such indepth analysis. I think it was a clever light comment that has been taken way to seriously. His timing may be ponderous - if we take the offense it has created on this thread as a cross section - but the point to me is neither partisan or intentionally nasty. Unlike the religious commentary which has motive behind it, this has none, being there to in no way to affect people's opinion of the disaster.

Peace, ladies and gentlemen.

[The Old Maid]

Originally posted by happyheathen
As we have a mix of Christian faiths here, perhaps I can get an old question answered:

What/who, exactly, is 'the Holy Spirit' (or whatever term you use for the third deity of the Christian faith)?

In our church, the understanding (if one can use such a word about God) is that the Holy Spirit is the connection formed by the love of the Father and the Son, to the point of becoming living too. After all, First John says God is Love. Christians believe the Holy Spirit is the voice who has spoken through the prophets (Nevim). "Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon me ..."

Don't worry if it makes you scratch your head. The Spirit has always been the hardest to grasp. But in the end it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that worry me ... it's the parts I do.

Sometimes I try to look at it as I do at me (though of course I'm a crude example of an infinitely more sophisticated state of being). I could say that I am three people. I am a woman. I am a certain color. I am a college graduate. What part of me you see reflects who you are or where you stand, not necessarily who I am in my entire being. If, for example, you see me going down a dark alley, but can't see anything else of me, you'd say, "That's a woman going down that dark alley." If you see me in a foreign country, what you'd notice is that I don't have the same skin color as the people living there. But if you see me at a work-related function, the thing you'd most likely notice is whether I know what I'm doing or not. Your perceptions don't change me. And they don't make me into multiple beings. They do influence how you see me, though.

But feel free to check it out against the source. People can lie, or just plain make mistakes. Those killers out there? I'm guessing they didn't check the source, and innocent people paid for it with their lives. Either that, or those persons don't actually have a religious agenda ; it's just a line they know we'll fall for.

[I.R Joey]

The Holy Spirit is kind of hard to understand, to try and explain it in mere normal terms is foolish. Anyway, I'll try to touch on it. I myself believe in a Triune God, made up of.

God the Father : That is to say Yhwh, Jehovah, the sovreign of the universe.

God the Son: That is Jesus Christ, who we believe was both man and God (another thing that would cause our brain to explode if we tried to understand it.)

And the Holy Spirit: Who we will begin to touch on right now. Well then according to Jesus, would be a teacher he would send. People have tried to define the Holy spirit as the will of God, and as sort of a "Star wars force" like thing. I don't think any of these are truely accurate, the Holy Spirit is like an anomally, yet the Holy spirit is definately a person. He isn't as prominant in the Bible as the first to figures in the Trinity, as many times the prescence of the Holy spirit is implied (IE the start of Acts.) But he/it was very much at work in the days of the Bible (and still very much so today.) And though alot of times the prescence of the holy spirit is implied in the Bible, there are other times where apostles distinctly say, "the spirit of the Lord spoke to me saying...." What is the spirit of the Lord? For me to define it would be to hard, and for me to try to explain it in full, would be impossible. So I will leave it at that, for I believe that this general thing is the closest we'll ever get to defining him/it.

[PlopKat]

Through Mark Evanier's site, P.O.V. Online (http://www.povonline.com), I found this link to Michael Moore's article:


http://www.michaelmoore.com/2001_0912.html

Hope it still works for anyone interested.

-PlopKat

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by happyheathen
As we have a mix of Christian faiths here, perhaps I can get an old question answered:

What/who, exactly, is 'the Holy Spirit' (or whatever term you use for the third diety of the Christian faith)?

The kind of question only a metaphysician can answer, and only a metaphysician would want to answer. This, by the way, was one of those questions endlessly debated in ecclesiastical councils during the first Christian centuries, and was responsible for many schisms, denunciations, heresies and persecutions. Indeed, the theological conundrums arising from trying to make God out to be both One Thing and Three at the same time was a prime reason that Islam (religion theologically related to both Judaism and Christianity) spread so rapidly in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire; it was a lot easier to keep straight the nature of one God and only one God.

If you're asking "who" the Holy Spirit is, I suppose the best answer is, The member of the Trinity (co-equal with the Father and Son) sent to aid, guide and comfort believers after the resurrection and annunciation. That should not be a difficult concept--or, at least, no more difficult than the concept of any immaterial God.

The real problem is in figuring out the relation of the members of the Trinity to each other--that is, how can one God be three Persons? One theory I've seen (but I'm not an expert on medieval philosophy, and only received a glancing introduction to it in grad school) is that the Trinity represents a three-way division of the same substance. The Incarnation and the sending forth of the Holy Spirit represent God's ability to divide Himself, in just the same way that you can divide a single substance (like water) into different containers. It is one thing (water; God) of the same essential kind, but separated into non-overlapping identities (this puddle of water; this member of the Trinity).

Of course, how an immaterial substance can be "divided" is a grave ontological puzzle which led many serious theologians into rejecting the above theory in favor of other ones. . . .

And I hope we can keep this discussion focused on the informative.

[happyheathen]

you just had to go and mention heresies...

a. Thanks to those who took time to explain the concept of the 'Holy Spirit'.

b. I hope that all understand that there are differences in faiths, and that one's belief does not give one the right to denounce the beliefs of others.

Now for another Q re. Christian theology - the early years:

How when did the 'Manequien Heresy' originate, and, also, how is it spelled?

thanks

dave

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by happyheathen
Now for another Q re. Christian theology - the early years:

How when did the 'Manequien Heresy' originate, and, also, how is it spelled?

thanks

dave

"Manichean," I believe. Unless someone beats me to the punch, I'll have to go back and consult some of my books for the details. I am pretty sure it posits a deep and irresolvable struggle between forces of good and evil in which both sides are more or less evenly matched. If that is so (and this is subject to later correction and hedging) then it is "heretical" in that it denies God's ultimate ability to triumph, and (as a consequence) denies His omnipotence.

I know that early in his career St. Augustine was an avowed Manichean, and that some commentators have blamed many of the more, um, "unpleasant" aspects of Christianity on a pronounced Manichee strain that he introduced into its doctrines. (I.e., what some have tried to blame on St. Paul is more likely than not a Manichee influence ascribable to Augustine.)

Manicheanism, Arianism, monophysitism . . . so many out there to keep track of when you have a passing interest in these things. . . . :rolleyes:

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


"Manichean," I believe. Unless someone beats me to the punch, I'll have to go back and consult some of my books for the details. I am pretty sure it posits a deep and irresolvable struggle between forces of good and evil in which both sides are more or less evenly matched. If that is so (and this is subject to later correction and hedging) then it is "heretical" in that it denies God's ultimate ability to triumph, and (as a consequence) denies His omnipotence.

I know that early in his career St. Augustine was an avowed Manichean, and that some commentators have blamed many of the more, um, "unpleasant" aspects of Christianity on a pronounced Manichee strain that he introduced into its doctrines. (I.e., what some have tried to blame on St. Paul is more likely than not a Manichee influence ascribable to Augustine.)

Manicheanism, Arianism, monophysitism . . . so many out there to keep track of when you have a passing interest in these things. . . . :rolleyes:


Your recollection aligns with mine...

OK class:

compare/contrast Manicheanism and the Chinese/Taoist Yin/Yang

http://chinesefortunecalendar.com/images/yingyang2.gif

[Maxie Zeus]

I would be very impressed with anyone who knew enough about both the Manichean and Taoist positions to comment on both.

I know virtually nothing about the unsuperficial elements of Taoism, and so can't say anything about the nature of yin and yang. I also discovered that my books on medieval philosophy and the history of Judaism and Christianity are packed away, so I can't add anything to what I said about the Manichees. But I strongly suspect the two "dualisms" are not the same, that "yin and yang" much more closely resembles Aristotelean reflections on the "golden mean," whereby opposites or contradictories are held to interact in ways that lead to a good greater than each one by itself. Whereas the Manichees, I believe, held that one dualism held all "goods" within itself while the other held all "evils," such that any interaction would only weaken or corrupt the other.

Again, that's just to the best of my (very hazy) memory. :rolleyes:

[The Old Maid]

Originally posted by happyheathen
Now for another Q re. Christian theology - the early years:

How when did the 'Manichean Heresy' originate? Thanks.

Well, I haven't brushed up on the heresies lately, so like Maxie, I'm open to more accurate information.

Mani lived in South Babylon and began preaching circa 204 C.E. From what I gather he travelled the Persian empire and possibly as far as India. This is why he's accused of having gnostic (from the West) and Buddhist (from the East) influences. He was a dualist who proposed that Jesus, the prophets, Buddha, and himself were sent to help release the light which had been trapped by dark. He was killed when a hostile government came to power. The Coptic Church has much of the documentation on him. A few more survived in ancient Persian, ancient Greek, and supposedly even a little Chinese.

I'd agree with Maxie that if Mani proposed any sort of balance between light and dark, the mainstream churches would reject him, since monotheists follow a revelation-based system that believes good is stronger than evil.

Taoism, interesting you should mention that. Again, from what I gather the yin-yang belief did not originate in Taoism but was adopted by them, where has been preserved ever since.

Taoist believe that that which can be expressed by words is not the true Tao. It is eternal and too vast for human comprehension. Painting and dance are considered better ways of expressing Tao than words, though still inadequate. It also promotes non-action and non-being as higher states of action and being. I've heard Tao compared to water. Water yields, falls, seeks the low path, but nurtures more life the lower it goes.

So the monotheists would have some problems with that because of the belief that God is a distinct personality who makes distinct requests/demands which lead to humans taking action. Just my muddled thoughts at this late hour ...

[happyheathen]

Thanks again - my take is that, while good/evil can be contained in the yin/yang, the depth of Tao is beyond the comprehension of the western religious traditions. Someday I'll try to follow it - it is the most appealing religion I've come across.

Now for another Q:

as I understand it, the early Christian church 'experimented' with mysticism - so:

a. I'm guessing this was also deemed a heresy - if so, what is its name?

b. are the Gregorian chants a remnant of mysticism?

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Is this another 'answer the question?' If so, here're my guesses:

A. Last rights or sacrements...
B. I would guess so.

Christain stuff isn't my forte...ah, well.

Ooh, Taoism. I remember studying that a year ago. Quite interesting.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by happyheathen
Now for another Q:

as I understand it, the early Christian church 'experimented' with mysticism - so:


"Mysticism" can mean anything. (The sacrament is 'mystical'.) You'll have to be more specific.

[The Mad Hatter]

Not sure what Happyheathen meant, but Christianity did indeed "experiment with mysticism" in an attempt to draw pagans into their fold. As an example, many pagans had their key rituals timed with the length of the days... on the winter and summer solstices, and the equinoxes. To draw pagans, early Christians would try to combine these pagan elements into their religion. That's why Christmas is celebrated on December 25th (near the winter solstice), instead of June (many scholars believe the historic Jesus was born in June). I also know that the Christmas Tree was originally a pagan totem that was adopted by Christians in order to bring more pagans into the fold.

None of these were ever deemed heresys (obviously). I'm not sure about the Gregorian Chants, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had pagan roots.

By the way, if anyone wants a good, easy-to-understand guide to the basics of Taoism, pick up The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff. It's a great read.

[Nightflower]

My turn! I'll give a stab at the Gregorian Chant...I'm nowhere as knowledgeable as you guys all are, but I took Musical History at Ottawa U, and we covered Gregorian Chants.

The origin of Gregorian Chants (I think) was basically because the Catholic Church was getting annoyed (Everything annoyed them) because people didn't seem as interested as they should in being enlightened by the Scripture. So they decided to make it slightly interesting by putting them to (very basic) melodies. At first, it was a plainsong drone accompanied by an organ (The only instrument the Church sanctioned; anything else, they believed to obstruct "the word of God"), but eventually gained a second voice, and made way to the invention of polyphony. That's how I understood it; I never read anything about Pagan roots, but I didn't pay much attention in the class -_-