Falwell, murdering gays and "God's Grace"

falwell, like most other religious fanatics, has serious psychological problems.

my own 'anecdotal' interpretation is that so much of what their 'god' and religion have told them to believe flies in the face of common sense, human decency, and obvious right and wrong, that the synapses in their brains actually start to short-circuit, and they are like a tilted pinball machine all the time.

 

What gay man would look at him? I wonder, he said he would never marry a man...I wonder if he'd date one?

This is an angry person is living in his own private hell, and frankly...I wouldn't want to join him. The bible also says a lot about adultry, genocide, divorce, violating sabbath, racism (yes, Moses married a black woman, and when his children complained they were turned wicked white, temporarily. I think God does have a sense of humor.), capital punishment, intolerence, theft and the list goes on. But I you don't see these bible thumpers touching on these subjects. Nothing wrong with slavery, rape, murder, stealing land so long as you say grace. :guns:

I think these people are afraid of homosexuality because they are afraid to embrace that part of us that is feminine or masculine. It scares the shee-ot out of them. They are so spoon fed what a man is "supposed" to be...what a woman is "supposed" to be that any deviation throws their little brains into a tailspin. :cussing:

Their fear, years ago, was that their children would come home with a Black lover, their fear now is that their son will come home with a boy or their girl a girl. (I am not equating the two, just saying they are irrational fears) Who knows, 30 years from now, it could be a poor lover. There is no shortage of things to hate. As long as you add "...but we love them and want to see them saved" at the end of it.

:mrgreen:
"White washed tombs,"

 

I'm not sure whether your poll questions is "I agree/disagree with Falwell" or "I agree/disagree that Falwell is an nice person."

But there is already a (very long) thread on gay marriage right here in Fred's House of Pancakes.

I agree with Falwell that I'm not interested in marrying a man. But if a man did ask me to marry him I'd be flattered, and tell him so, and try to let him down as gently as I could. Then I'd invite him to join my church, as we are a "Welcoming Congregation" where people of all races, nationalities, sexual orientations, etc., are welcomed and affirmed. So I disagree with Falwell about killing someone for "looking at me that way."

I'd be surprised if anyone looked at me that way. I'm not as ugly as Falwell, but I'm no great shakes. However, I belong to a gym, where I work out, and take a steam bath and a shower afterwards. And we all know some percentage of those guys are gay. (Probably somewhere between 3% and 10%, depending on who you believe.) So between 3 and 10 out of a hundred of the guys in that shower room are looking around at the scenery, and enjoying at least some of it. :wink:

 

I think he really want's to do it. He is a latent homosexual and all this talk is a cover up. His will probably has him buried in a dress and heals. Me think he doth protest too much.

 

The issues during the civil rights struggles were slightly different, but black men were being lynched for allegedly looking "wrong" at white women. And I think remarks like "If a [black man] looks at my daughter I'll kill him" were not all that uncommon.

The parallels between the civil rights issues of the 50's and 60's, and the gay rights issues today, are strikingly parallel. The treatment of mixed-race couples then and gay couples now; the arguments based on pure, unthinking hatred; and especially the religious component of the opposition to equality, are all virtually identical.

Maybe the only real difference is that a homosexual can choose to "pass" as straight, and a black person could not "pass" as white, unless she or he was very light-skinned.

 

hdrygas hit the nail on the head. David Drier, Ed Schrock, Karl Rove, and the like - many are known to be serious closet homosexuals that have deals with the party - protect our secret about being gay, and we'll support and introduce legislation that's anti-gay, just like you want. But, their forced outings (at least on the first two so far, anyways) to prove their utter hypocracy and idotic ways of dealing with their self hatred will hopefully be a warning to others.

The religious nuts, all they can do is talk whats on their mind. And, quite obvioulsy, they often think about homosexual sex as proven by their intimate discussions about it.

It's ok to let priests molest children, but gays having sex?! God will kill us all!

-m.

 

Nah! They didn't have to get together to decide that child molestation is bad. They had to get together to decide how to put the best spin on it, how to cover up the ones that have not yet come to light, how to prevent the scandal from spreading to other countries, where you know darn well the same stuff happens but has not come out in the press yet, etc.

The historical behavior of bishops, when their priests molest children, demonstrates that they are very concerned over maintaining the reputation of the Church, and they could not care less about the victims, or about stopping the priests from victimizing more kids.

It would be easy for the Vatican to clean up the Church. It could be done without any grand meetings. But keeping everything under wraps (where it has not yet come to light), that's the hard one. That needs the combined intelligence of all the cardinals, bishops, etc.

As for Protestants, IMHO bombing churches is not less evil than molesting children. (Though we need to be careful about taring everyone with the same brush: Not all catholic priests are child-molesters, and not all protestants join the lynch mobs.)

As for Jerry Falwell and his ilk, I don't think he really has any opinion about homosexuality one way or another. Falwell and GW and all the rest of them are nothing but hypocrites who are using this issue for personal gain: GW for votes, and Falwell to bring in monetary donations.

 

I read elsewhere that the original quote was not from Jerry Falwell but from Jimmy Swaggart.

 

You're correct, Lew - Jimmy Swaggart is the one who said this. Sometimes it's hard to tell the crazies apart.

-m.

 

Why can't I own a Canadian?

This is a copy of a Dr. Laura email that went around the internet. When I first read it I did a fact check on the verses that this email quoted and found the interpretations extremely credible.

I bring it up to remind the Christians out there Jesus himself had problems with some of the books in the Old Testament. So lets be careful when we use the Bible to support extreme positions.

Here is the email.

_______________________

Dr Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet.

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that (Leviticus 18:22) clearly states it to be an abomination.

End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in (Exodus 21:7). In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. (Lev. 25:44) states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. (Exodus 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. (Lev. 21:20) states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by (Lev.19:27). How should they die?

9. I know from (Lev.11:6-8) that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates (Lev. 19:19) by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan, Jim


___________________________________

I particularly like the part about owning Canadians. Lev 25:44.

Mark

 

That thing has been circulating on the internet for a very long time. It is as amusing (and as relevant) now as it was the first time I read it. Thanks for reminding us of this one.

Bible-thumpers love to pick and choose which verses to cling to, and which verses to reject. They always have such lovely little arbitrary arguments for rejecting the ones they don't like.

A fundy once told me (with a straight face!) that since Jesus spoke in parables we cannot really ever know what he was talking about, and therefore we should ignore every word attributed to him. This fundy asserted that we were to obey Paul instead.

 

I saw the recent comments by the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart and found myself as strongly in disagreement with him as I could possibly be.

In fact, I a member of the minority group that he has threatened to murder.

One of my many websites was created just for wingnut types like the Reverend. http://4morewars.com.

I think my position on this matter should be fairly clear.

I don't have my Prius yet, but I signed a sales contract yesterday.

GreenSteve