All Comments (122)

Umm ma'am with all due respect please do not put a bad name on Christians and say that you are one... you don't seem to be too teribly worried about your sin as a lesbian... which is clerly a sin and although God is a God of love He is a God of wrath also! Since you are a "Christian" I'm sure you know the story of Noah and the ark... by that point, God just wipped away everyone that was not living right and He is not afraid to do it again...I think He wanted to wake US up!! I would love to see you responce...

Umm ma'am with all due respect please do not put a bad name on Christians and say that you are one... you don't seem to be too teribly worried about your sin as a lesbian... which is clerly a sin and although God is a God of love He is a God of wrath also! Since you are a "Christian" I'm sure you know the story of Noah and the ark... by that point, God just wipped away everyone that was not living right and He is not afraid to do it again...I think He wanted to wake US up!! I would love to see you responce...

Diana,

You're statement "lifelong Christian" is incorrect about Falwell. He would not agree that he was a lifelong Christian. The implication is that he was "born" into Christianity. He would argue that everyone is born into a state of "non-faith" and has to make a decision about what to believe about Jesus Christ.

I am fine with the scientific method, but let's apply it to a bigger topic--can the scientific method prove the truth or validity of the scientific method?

You are close to my point when you acknowledge that the presuppositions of both sides keep them from accepting the "proof" of the other. Which truth claims should I accept? You say I should accept yours because it has the support of the scientific method, they say I should accept their view because it comes from God. Oh, and you reject the other side's "proofs" just as readily as they reject yours. Is it because you don't accept their proofs as proof? Is it because they don't line up with your chosen authority--the scientific method?

That is the problem isn't it--you deem Jerry Falwell to be a "bad" person because of his belief in what you claim is "fiction." He and his followers say the same thing about you.

Where does the concept of "bad" and "good" originate?

How do we determine something to be right or wrong?

That is the heart of the problem, isn't it?

The last sentence of my last post should have read:

"Wouldn't it be closer to the truth to say that anti-theists offer plenty of logical and empirical proof to support their beliefs..."

Thales -

You are correct - I don't believe in the supernatural.

You ask for "proof" for the anti-theist argument, saying that we anti-theists never offer any. OK. If you want to throw out the argument from authority (you have your authors, I have mine), then we're down to the only "proof" that has ever been designed to eliminate opinion and determine, to the best of our ability, fact - the scientific method.

Are you willing to subject proof of god to the scientific method?

I have no problem with religionists judging the "fiction" of my life if that fiction is reality and scientifically based. That's really what we're talking about here, isn't it? Reality v fiction? Or reality v an active imagination?

I think you're actually saying two different things here. First, you complain that anti-theists never offer any proof for their beliefs ("they offer no substantial proof (logically or empirically) to prove their views."). Then, you seem to say that it's impossible to offer such proof ("Your presupposition is that miracles and supernatural events are not possible. Other people on this board have the opposite presupposition. Can either of you prove your point?").

Wouldn't it be closer to the truth to say that anti-theists offer plenty of logical and empirical proof to support their (including lengthy bibliographies and even scientific studies), but that you simply don't accept that proof as proof?

Help me out here.

Nice bibliography, Mr. Mark, if you are only reading one side of the argument. Did you think to check out any opposing views or do you only want to verify your assumptions? You may start with Van Voorst's Jesus Outside of the New Testament that lists some "independent" records that mention Jesus' life.

By the way, I have read several of the books you list, it was kind of required in my graduate studies. I have also read books on the other side of the argument. Isn't this citation of works a kind of argument from authority like those who quote Scripture on this board that irritate you so?

Your statements make it clear that you are an anti-supernaturalist. Your presupposition is that miracles and supernatural events are not possible. Other people on this board have the opposite presupposition. Can either of you prove your point? No doubt your opponents could give me a lengthy bibliography to read that supports their view. What would that prove? It would prove that both sides have scholars to support them, that's what.

I guess the bottom line is that you have judged a man's life based on your belief that his religion is fiction. Would it be justified for others to judge your life in a similar fashion? How accurate would they be?

Oh, and ignorance is bliss for those who refuse to think. I think we would both agree on that part. Calling me ignorant to try to "make" your point only shows your own arrogance that you "know" the truth in its entirety. No person is so deluded as the one who refuses to question his or her own presuppositions. Pursue truth, Mr. Mark, don't assume you have exhausted it. And don't assume you "know" what side I am on until you get to know me personally.

Thales writes:
"Mr. Mark and his ilk like to talk about the "fiction" of the Bible, yet they offer no substantial proof (logically or empirically) to prove their views. Then they castigate those who disagree with them for not offering "proof" of their view. Do I sense a double standard?"

Ah, ignorance is bliss.

How about the archeaological evidence that disproves the myths of the Bible - the Exodus, the "slavery" of the Jews in Egypt, and the hundreds if not thousands of historical assertations that are unsupported in the archaeological record? How substantial does it have to be before it's accepted as being true, Thales?

Thales doesn't even bother to avail himself of the disproof of the Bible that has come from Biblical scholars. In fact, most of the disproof has come from so-called Biblical archaeologists who have plied their trade in hopes of confirming the Bible myths, only to have the overwhelming evidence of disproof staring them in the face.

The fact is that many, many Biblical scholars now admit that the major players in the Bible - Moses, David, Daniel, Solomon - are mythical archetypes who were based on even earlier mythical archetypes. There's not even independent verification outside of the Bible for Jesus' existence, even though the Romans and Jews kept copious records of just about everything and every person of import.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a list of suggested reading that covers the (dis)proof qute nicely (it's not like guys of my "ilk" came up with this proof on our own):

Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994)
R. E. Witt, Isis in the Ancient World (John Hopkins UP, 1971)
Alison Roberts, Hathor Rising-The Serpent Power of Ancient Egypt (Northgate, 1995)
Barbara Watterson, The Egyptians (Blackwell, 1997)
P. H. Newby, Warrior Pharaohs (Faber & Faber, 1980)
Edward Gibbon, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire (1799)
Michael Walsh, Roots of Christianity (Grafton, 1986)
Malachi Martin, The Decline & Fall of the Roman Church (Secker & Warburg, 1981)
Michael Parenti, History as Mystery (City Lights, 1999)
Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988)
Alan Hall, History of the Papacy (PRC, 1998)
Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History (Morning Star & Lark, 1995)
John G. Jackson, Christianity Before Christ (American Atheist Press, 1985)
S. Angus, The Mystery Religions (Kessinger Publishing, 2003)
Antonia Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic Roman Age (Eerdmans,2002)
David Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (OUP, 1991)
Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003)

Get back to me after you've cracked a few of those books, Thales. Then, we can chat...

Oh - as far as logical disproof: let's start with virgin births and resurrections. Virgin births don't happen, unless you happen to be a godman like Buddha, Dionysis, Montezuma, Mithras, Huitzilopochtli, Julius Ceasar - oh, and Jesus, too. Resurrections don't hapen either, unless you're Mithras, Osiris, Isis, Horus, Tammuz, and a host of others...like Jesus.

Mr. Mark and his ilk like to talk about the "fiction" of the Bible, yet they offer no substantial proof (logically or empirically) to prove their views. Then they castigate those who disagree with them for not offering "proof" of their view. Do I sense a double standard?

Where has the search for Truth gone?

Where is logic?

Where are the notions of respectful dialogue?

If the Bible is wrong, prove it. No evidence has been offered to show that the Bible is "fiction," only bald assertions to that fact. An ounce of evidence is worth a pound of assertion.

If I said that Mr. Mark's opinions are based on fiction, I would be offering a version of his argument. I should prove that his view are fiction, not assert it.

But proof is hard to come by, huh?

God help us!

Sam writes:
"Where the story comes from isn't the point, it's the metaphor. When he states, "He who is free of sin cast the first stone..." it was only he who was free of sin, not anyone else. The metaphor of the christ as redeemer and tolerant forgiver is the point"

In short, the story of the adulterous woman is pure fiction, but it still tells us something about Jesus, even if he never spoke the words that the story quotes, so it's to be believed for its metaphoric value?

And you Xians call it "truth."

Yikes! What if Jesus actually said the opposite: "she's guilty, go ahead and stone her?" As the Bible story is fiction, the opposite take on the story has just as much claim to veracity. What if Jesus' true nature came down on the "go ahead and stone her...I wrote the law myself" side of the ledger?

How about this: neither is true, so they cancel out each other.

I'll give you this - the adulterous woman story has as much basis in fact as does the rest of the Bible...which is to say, "none."

Your life is based on fictions from the Bronze Age. Enjoy!

The definition of irony--a pluralist telling someone that their truth claims are wrong. Or does pluralism only mean that we accept those who agree with us?

Wow!

On the posting above at 10:53 AM I forgot to put my name in sorry about that.

To E Favorite: Actually God is a being of Pure Love which I suppose if you haven't met Him is impossible to put into any other words. He is not a loving God but Love itself. When I say that God wins and satan loses a tie is unacceptable what I mean is that those in hell and spiritual death will get out. If someone would happen to die and wake up in hell they would realize that they had built it themselves and they would not know they are ever going to get out of it but they will. Another thing a lot of people that call themselves christians seem to be condemning and judging everybody else rather then looking at their ownselves. Jesus never condemned anyone. Hell is not a seperation from God but going to God and seeing and experiencing all the wrongs and judgementalism and condemnations that we may wish on others when in fact we have all done wrong. A lot of people don't know or believe that God is real but they are closer to God in their hearts for the fact that they do or try to do what is right for the simple reason that it is the right thing to do. I can't and don't try to speak for anybody else but I definitely have a fallen nature and if anyone would look out at the world well what do you see? When Jesus said He who is without sin cast the first stone, He did not say He who is with lesser sin cast the first stone. When I said that God is a searcher of hearts and minds not religious affiliations or lack thereof I really don't know how to put it any simpler, what people do and why they do it is important, we are all God's children and we are also all God's brothers and sisters considering that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity became a human being and became our brother and He also asked permission and Mary said yes. It seems like so many people try to put God in a box of their preconceived notions. God is a lot nicer and forgiving than a lot of people seem to want Him to be. God created absolutely everything and for a reason only He knows all of the details, I am just a messenger, Thank You. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Where the story comes from isn't the point, it's the metaphor. When he states, "He who is free of sin cast the first stone..." it was only he who was free of sin, not anyone else. The metaphor of the christ as redeemer and tolerant forgiver is the point.

Thomas Baum - I find your writing very hard to understand. It seems garbled and grandiose. I would think if God had come into your heart, he would make it possible for you to speak more clearly to others, but then, what do I know of God?

To E Favorite and the rest of the world. Actually I have met God the Father and when He came into my heart He didn't say a word He didn't have to. If anyone is spewing out hatred in God's Name then they don't know anything about God they might know the bible from cover to cover but that is about it. I didn't ask to be me and no one else that has been on this earth has asked to be who they are except for Jesus Himself. If God was anything like a lot of christians, of any persuation, say that He is you would have to be pretty unchristian, so to speak to be thankful for the egotistical, hateful, revengeful piece of garbage that they present Him to be. Some people think that knowing God's name is the ticket so to speak, God does look at what you do and also why you do what you do but he is not the big authoritative cop in the sky. He is Love and one day everyone will know it because God's plan covers all of His children, that actually is what being a christian is. Like I said God is a searcher of hearts and minds not a searcher of religious affiliations or lack thereof. Vengeance is mine says the Lord not revenge which means that no one gets away with anything even though it may look that way. We are all equal in God's Eyes and we are all His children whether we like it or not, is God's family dysfunctional or what? God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. I have also met satan and he is not nice and he is also a loser, a sore loser at that but that is his problem not mine. When Michael the Archangel and satan were battling over the body of my predecessor, Michael said may God rebuke you well if that is good enough for Michael than it is good enough for me. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dear Sam -

Most scholars believe that the story of the adulterous woman was a later addition to the Bible as 1) it does not appear in the earliest and best manuscripts that are extant for the Gospel of John, and, 2) the story appears in none of the other gospels.

In short, it's a latter-day forgery.

As a Christian, the emphasis is on the Gospels and the new relationship after the sacrifice of the Christ. Jesus certainly did point at sin and especially at hypocrites; however,he also showed great tolerance when dealing with others--- the story of the adulterous woman being an example.
Mr. Falwell did not see injustice and try to fix it (he supported segregationists quite strongly if i recall) he did not see suffering and try to heal it ( he was ratherunkind when dealing with those of other sexual orientations) and he certainly didn't take care of the body God gave him, the body being a temple and vehicle for the worship of the Christ, and for that he paid for it. But what best exemplifies his life is his failure to comprehend the passage of the Bible in which jesus points out, " it is't what goes in your mouth which defiles it, but what comes out of it..."
Cheers. Fine article, Diana.

It is not a "logical" discussion if all your proofs depend on cobbled-together quotes from the Bible, which can be pulled randomly, strung together any which way, and which most of the people in the conversation either are not familiar with, do not understand, or just plain on principle, do not believe. If you want to have a logical argument, then be logical. If you want to have a Bible study, in which you analyse line by line, the Bible, and what it all could mean, then join with a group of like-minded people and pursue that. Otherwise, this Bible-quoting is rude at best, but is often a bad and scary sign of religious paranoia, Jesus-mania, and even worse, psychosis and insanity.

Of course, Dr. Fallwell actually "believed" the Bible. He did not spend his
life trying to explain away its teachings. The Bible is not that subtle
when it comes to homosexuality (see verses below). Nor is the Bible subtle
when it comes to judgment for sexual sin (See the account of "The Flood",
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the many captivities of Israel
because of immorality, idolatry, and apostasy.) Dr Fallwell's comments
accurately describe the non-nuanced interpretation of the Bible--apostasy
will be judged, and that judgment can come in the form of foreign
attackers.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous [1] will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually
immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
[2] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9
understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the
lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and
profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10
the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, [1] liars,
perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound [2] doctrine, 11 in
accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I
have been entrusted.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to
death; their blood shall be upon them.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself
therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto:
it is confusion. 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in
all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the
lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between
themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which
was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which
are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,
wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate,
deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,
proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which
commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them.

Chris - Thanks - that was beautiful - I wish you could preach it this Sunday from every pulpit in the land.

Hey - you could -- with a big conference call and a bunch of loud speakers!

Peter,

I never said he outlawed marriage but as a mouthpiece of divine inspiration, I would think his opinion should carry immense weight on the topic. The current "family values" gang advertise marriage as god's ideal plan for christians. I've never heard anyone state in a public/political forum that eternal celibacy is actually the perfect goal.

I missed the verse that deliniates which parts of the Paul's epistles are god's law and which parts are merely "good advice." Is the part about women should keep quiet in church god's law? Or braiding hair?

My initial point was actually the very fact that people pick and choose which parts of the bible are important and which are "no longer relevant." Organized religions have a tendency to develop Pharisee-types keeping the letter of the law but not the spirit.

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

I just wish the public heard more about the second commandment of loving others instead of the mountains of molehills about the hot-topics of the day.

Jerry Farwell = George Bush !!!!! . . . . . . By their FRUITS, ye shall know them.

Tim, Paul delineates clearly what is his own opinion "as one who is trustworthy" and what he received from God directly. So his prohibition on divorce is from the Lord, but his recommendation to stay single is from his own opinion. Clearly Paul outlines that "the best option" is to remain single, but he never outlaws marriage outright; he simply recommends against it. He mentions that he gives this advice in "the present time," which could mean any day, but which could (more likely) mean specific circumstances for the Corinthians in which marriage could be a liability.

Why anyone would waste their time believing in the unbelievable and rationalising the irrational is completely beyond me. Thousands of years of historical evidence point to the absence of a loving god from any religion. Gerry Falwell was simply a bigot masquerading as preacher (and haven't we seen a few of those over the years) with a philosophy that is as far away from the noble ideals of Christianity as it is possible to get.
Let's keep it simple folks. Be nice to everybody regardless of color, creed , ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, socioeconomic status. Don't carry guns - you don't need them. Any expression of love whether it is same sex couples or not is better than any expression of hate by anyone including the "Godly".
Remember, the Bible was written 2000 years or so ago by people who had never seen an airplane, a motor car, a computer, never contemplated space travel, never heard of the big bang, read a newspaper, performed surgery, founded the Red Cross, Medicines sans Frontiere or any other charitable institution. In other words it's not relevant to the modern world and any attempt to to try and shoehorn those writings into the complexities of todays world are doomed to failure.
If you want to see miracles, look into the sky and watch 300 tonne machines flying, think about the absence of smallpox, talk to a friend thousands of miles away - all of these were done by human beings working together to create something new and wonderful. God had nothing to do with it.

". He looked that way –as if one would like a big bear hug from him."

Are you serious!? The guy looked like an overfed, oily stuffed shirt! Just his picture is enough to give you a bad taste in your mouth.

Although raised in by fundamental parents who taught that every word in the King James Version was the word of god, I still don't understand how some people cling to certain verses of the Old Testament but readily discard others. How many people condemn homosexuality but eat shellfish, braid their hair, or don't stone their children for disobedience though the verses are in the same passages.

Paul clearly states that celibacy is the best choice for godly people and only if they can't control themselves should they marry.

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Clearly marriage is not the christian ideal according to Paul. However, if marriage is the only way you can avoid fornication, he'll let you choose one, and only one, spouse.

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband. But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."

So the prohibition on divorce is as clear as his prohibition on homosexuality. Yet, do you hear any tirades about outlawing divorce? Wonder why that is? Could it be that religious leaders only pick minority targets as enemies in order to focus their followers and maintain control?

If god told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply but Paul told the Corinthians to be celibate, and all parts of the scriptures are to be applied to everybody over the ages, we seem to have a little problem with consistency. Did God change his mind? The Old Testament and the Gospels do seem light-years away in many aspects, don't they?

Or is it possible that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally and that god expects people to use the brains he gave them?

Robert Heinlein said it best: "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."

Thomas Baum, says “God has a Plan and it is coming to fruition in God's time and that time is upon us.”

Derek Taylor says, “when [homosexuality] is celebrated by a culture, it is a sign that the culture has become estranged from God and has abandoned its conscience.”

How is it that you two guys know the mind of God? That’s amazing. You not only know that there is a God, you know what he’s thinking!

Roger Smith – your posting of May 16, 2007 5:20 PM:

I understand how you could find the passages you listed as offensive at first blush. But I believe that if you look more deeply and keep the passages in their proper context, i.e., the context in which they were written, you can find the actual meaning.

In Matthew 10, Christ is describing to His disciples (followers) the cost of following Him. He is telling them that they will be abandoned, even by their family or those who profess to love them. He tells them that they will be hated, persecuted and even killed for their beliefs and commitment to Christ. The truth of what Christ taught can be seen clearly in the obvious division between Christ’s followers and those who don’t follow Him or even hate Him as is evidenced by the postings on this site.

In Luke 12, Christ is again speaking to His disciples. Here He is describing the consequences of professing to follow Him but not being faithful servants. Christ is making it clear to His disciples that there is a cost to following Him and likewise a cost to abandoning following Him once committed to doing so. In both passages there are examples of the rewards that Christ will give to His faithful followers.

In Deuteronomy 20, God is giving laws concerning how Israel is to wage war. God is perfectly all things good. This means He is perfectly just. When nations persecuted Israel or fought against them or killed their people or took their land, God’s means of delivery for Israel was for Israel to conquer their enemy. Israel accomplished victory by God’s hand. God used Israel to meet out justice and avenge His Name and His people.

Christ most certainly did proclaim that He is God. One of the clearest examples is in John 10:22-33. Here, Christ answers the Jews in the temple who are pressing Him to declare whether or not He is the Christ. Here is what He said and how the Jews reacted:

(25) Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me.

(26) “But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.

(27) “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

(28) “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.

(29) “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all: and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand.

(30) “I and My Father are one.”

(31) Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him.

(32) Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”

(33) The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

They knew exactly what Christ was saying and they know who He declared Himself to be.

I believe that Jesus Christ is precisely who He said He is – the Son of God and Savior of His people.

Gasmonkey:

I think it is necessary to remember that context in the Bible as in any other book exists beyond the immediate sentence or paragraph. So, when Christ tells Peter to feed His sheep, it’s logical to accept “sheep” in that context as the same “sheep” as in all the other places where Christ refers to His people as sheep. For instance, refer to the passage above from John 10. In addition, there are places where Christ commands His people to care for the poor, sick, needy, prisoners, etc. without referring to them as His sheep. If all of these instances are looked at objectively, the context and meaning become clear.

I hope this is of some help to those who are seeking to understand.

I'm not gay and I find the concept somewhat repugnant, but I must say this: At least gays are TRYING to love, not hate. This is a helluva lot more than I can say for Falwell. And 50 million gays couldn't out-do one Dick Cheney for sheer debauchery and immorality.

Doug, if you can't have multiple meanings, then on what basis can you veer from the plain meaning of Jesus's words? How do you know He didn't mean "feed my children?" What is the basis for you to know exactly what Jesus meant? Some preacher told you? Come on, that's gone into the absurd. I suppose when He said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he really meant "let's eat lunch; I'm buying!" It's a hard God indeed who would have you preach to people while you let them starve.

"By their fruits, you will know them."

Poison fruit doesn't come from a good person. Pleasant and good are not the same.

He was Elmer Gantry without the pizazz.
He spoke crap to the gullible and they ate it up.
Unfortunately the gullible are everywhere,and religion is a safe peddle.
People want to believe. More than anything people want to believe that death isn't true,
(Say it isn't so Jerry.Tell me again about heaven)
I too would love to believe that death is not really the end. But I would have to be stupid to believe that.Because the evidence is everywhere all the time.
Death is death.
There is no supernatural world.
Its time we grew up before the religiously insane
destroy us all;not just with their intolerance and generally wacky ideas,but with their bombs.
Falwell was as wacky as they come.

For those of us who have believed the bible to be the inspired and indisputable word of God and have never examined any other point of view regarding our role in this experience of humankind and how we should relate to other people, this question should give you some pause. Keep in mind that the bible has been used to justify bigotry and hatered of people who do not adhere to principles of "Christian" doctrine and has influenced how we as a nation regard Christianity as the only true experience of God and wish that all other beliefs would just go away. Now, we all know that the authors of the books of the bible were Hebrew, Greek and Arabic in origin. Why then are disciples and the books of the infallible bible named:
Mathew Mark Luke John Ruth Phillip Thomas.
Seems like somebody decided it would be in our best interest to change a few things,eh?

Regardless of what has been said about him. I don't think the world will any better, or any worse without him and his beliefs

Regardless of what has been said about him. I don't think the world will any better, or any worse without him and his beliefs

Consider the following passage from the Bible Jerry Falwell's source of hate is nothing to this,, how do you expect him a better man? read this passages,, credited to his human God - free love, this can not be God of Abraham or Moses or true God of Jesus that sent him as a human and a prophet not a son or part of trinity 3 godhead all are man made lies.

Kings James version.....

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

and this:

"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49-53)

A prescription for internecine warfare and martyrdom!

Couple it with 300 years of war against "infidels," 350 years of choice between conversion or a date with the Iron Maiden, the burning or drowning of witches and heretics, Srebrenica and the genocide in Bosnia…But no one asks, "Is Christianity a violent religion?"

Consider this:

(10) When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

(11) And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

(12) And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

(13) And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

(14) But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy)

Yes Bible - the one you all have is man made and the God you worship Jesus is man made God, he never procaimed God himself rather a slave or servant or prophet of God.

In reality, there are 3 Jesus's of Nazareth.
____________

The first is the Historical Jesus, namely the Jesus that can be reconstructed from what is correctly or otherwise written about him, preferably using methods one can find set forth in books like [a] Bart D. Ehrman, MISQUOTING JESUS -- The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (2005) HarperSanFrancisco [b] John P. Meier, A MARGINAL JEW -- Rethinking the Historical Jesus [Multi-volume](1991, et. seq.) Doubleday-Anchor Bible Reference Library [c] John Dominic Crossan, THE HISTORICAL JESUS -- The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant [Multi-volume] (1991, et. seq.) HarperSanFrancisco [d] John Davidson, THE GOSPEL OF JESUS -- In Search of his Original Teachings (1995) Element Books Ltd., Rockport, Ma. [e] Raymond E. Brown, THE DEATH OF THE MESSIAH -- A commentary on the Passion Narratives [Multi-volume] (1994) Doubleday.

The second is the Jesus of faith which would include the Jesus as preached from the pulpit, [fire and brimstone, etc.] or as seen in the heart or conscience of the beholder, though that Jesus can be at considerable variance, for what someone BELIEVES is very, very important [be it 'correct' or otherwise.]

The third Jesus is the Real Jesus, [the Jesus that is arguably impossible to know, for we were not there] the very same Jesus who walked in person teaching, healing and causing considerable chaos for the existing ruling Jewish elite, the Sanhedrin.

Of course Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi and while he clearly challenged the authorities of his day, this commentator personally sees no evidence that he came [to Earth] for the express purpose of creating a religion separate and distinct from his native Judaism. That would occur only after the crucifixion and especially after the death of Stephen the Martyr.

When most Christians speak of Jesus, they BELIEVE they are talking about Jesus #3 [the Real Jesus], but in fact they are usually speaking of Jesus #2 [the Jesus of faith -- as they BELIEVE] which is probably the MAJOR REASON why there is so much disagreement among Christians about WHO JESUS WAS and/or WHO THEY WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE JESUS WAS.
___________________________________________

So, when I am asked WHO WAS JESUS OF NAZARETH, I like to ask WHICH JESUS OF NAZARETH do you mean?
___________________________________________

Rest in peace Jerry Falwell.

In reality, there are 3 Jesus's of Nazareth.
____________

The first is the Historical Jesus, namely the Jesus that can be reconstructed from what is correctly or otherwise written about him, preferably using methods one can find set forth in books like [a] Bart D. Ehrman, MISQUOTING JESUS -- The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (2005) HarperSanFrancisco [b] John P. Meier, A MARGINAL JEW -- Rethinking the Historical Jesus [Multi-volume](1991, et. seq.) Doubleday-Anchor Bible Reference Library [c] John Dominic Crossan, THE HISTORICAL JESUS -- The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant [Multi-volume] (1991, et. seq.) HarperSanFrancisco [d] John Davidson, THE GOSPEL OF JESUS -- In Search of his Original Teachings (1995) Element Books Ltd., Rockport, Ma. [e] Raymond E. Brown, THE DEATH OF THE MESSIAH -- A commentary on the Passion Narratives [Multi-volume] (1994) Doubleday.

The second is the Jesus of faith which would include the Jesus as preached from the pulpit, [fire and brimstone, etc.] or as seen in the heart or conscience of the beholder, though that Jesus can be at considerable variance, for what someone BELIEVES is very, very important [be it 'correct' or otherwise.]

The third Jesus is the Real Jesus, [the Jesus that is arguably impossible to know, for we were not there] the very same Jesus who walked in person teaching, healing and causing considerable chaos for the existing ruling Jewish elite, the Sanhedrin.

Of course Jesus was a Jew and a Rabbi and while he clearly challenged the authorities of his day, this commentator personally sees no evidence that he came [to Earth] for the express purpose of creating a religion separate and distinct from his native Judaism. That would occur only after the crucifixion and especially after the death of Stephen the Martyr.

When most Christians speak of Jesus, they BELIEVE they are talking about Jesus #3 [the Real Jesus], but in fact they are usually speaking of Jesus #2 [the Jesus of faith -- as they BELIEVE] which is probably the MAJOR REASON why there is so much disagreement among Christians about WHO JESUS WAS and/or WHO THEY WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE JESUS WAS.
___________________________________________

So, when I am asked WHO WAS JESUS OF NAZARETH, I like to ask WHICH JESUS OF NAZARETH do you mean?
___________________________________________

Rest in peace Jerry Falwell.

Your tone of tolerance and love is itself a blessing. Thank you.

Um:
That whooshing sound you hear was the sarcasm going over my head - sometimes it doesn't come through on message boards - too bad WaPo doesn't have smilies....

MH, "A major doctrine of Protestant churches, at the time of the Reformation and continuing to today, is that salvation is obtained only through faith in Christ."

You are correct here, except for the continuation of your statement that suggests that this view is in conflict with Matthew 25.

The disagreement with Rome by the Protestants was not over salvation, per se. It was over "justification" which is only a part of salvation. Other parts would be election, predestination, effectual calling, regeneration, sanctification, glorification, etc.

Rome believed that justification was the act of God making a believer righteous through the believer participating in the sacraments. The Protestants believed that justification was more of a forensic declaration, whereby God declared a sinner righteous while they were still in a state of sin, based on the righteousness of Christ which was applied to them through faith.

That's a long statement, but bear with me! To a Protestant, justification was by faith alone, but never by a faith that is alone. A Protestant view is that faith that brings justification will always necessarily result in works. Therefore, a truly saved person will increase in holiness and love for both God and fellow man. But that is not the basis for their salvation, it is the result of their salvation.

Lepidopteryx...that was my failed attempt at sarcasm. I thought your post was a great point, and your follow up even better!

Frank Collins - In your post about Catholic-bashing, I hope you're not talking about my recent post concerning Catholic and Protestant theologies. I want to be clear that I was not bashing Catholics or anyone else - I was offering an objective (at least it was meant to be) examination of why Christ's directive to care for the needy seems to get overlooked. My statement that the pre-reformation Catholic church was "hardly liberal" was also not meant as a judgement; I meant it in the context that the Church at that time was holding on to the existing order - the status quo - which in today's understanding would be conservative rather than liberal.
For the record, I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, or perhaps I am both -- I am Episcopalian. We consider ourselves heirs of both traditions. As recent news has highlighted, there's a sometimes-wide theological diversity among Episcopalians. I'm sure some ascribe to Sola Fide. Myself, I stand on the Catholic end of the spectrum when it comes to the importance of good works.

Um:
Straight-bashing? Not at all. I happen to be a straight woman with BGLT friends and relatives. My point was simply that a romantic relationship is not dysfunctional simply because the participants cannot perpetuate their DNA as a result of it.

JERRY FALWELL WAS A SILLY OLD PIG!

uh oh, are we now straight bashing anonymous??!! I mean, us gays can be so vicious! LOL

To the anon who commented on gay couples not being able to breed:

Not all heterosexual erotic encounters are capable of or intended to bring forth progeny. Love is about more than spawning.

Doug, I hope you will re-read the passages you cited in your criticism of my earlier comment, "... I'm still looking for the page in my New Testament describing a finger pointing Jesus....”

You’ve missed their point entirely. In each of the instances described in Matthew 23:13-36; John 2:14-17 and John 8, Jesus condemned the leaders of the religious establishment of his day. His comments were aimed at the keepers of the law and temple, not the kinds of people Jerry Falwell routinely condemned such as those he condemned in his post-9/11 conversation with Pat Robertson.

My problem is not with the scriptures of the Old and New Testament as you suggest. My problem is with the kind of self-righteous, religious bigots who judge people and use religion for their own self-promotion that Jesus condemned in the passages you cited.

As for “hating the sin and loving the sinner,” it is curious that people who say that condemn, for example, homosexuals as often if not more than homosexuality. Hardly the example Jesus of Jesus toward the adulterous woman in John 8!

I think you can some up everything that Paganplace said with the word "BOOSH". Used mainly when you just shot someone down so hard their grandmother felt it. The point is that Jerry Falwell did represent exactly the same kind of concept that Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, and the like represented - to destroy those who followed a lifestyle or belief with which he did not agree. It's fine of you don't agree with the gay lifestyle, but as long as gays exist (and pay taxes), they deserve the same rights as everyone else. After all, God did create us all equal. One thing I must question though. If you are an adulterer or a liar and you are saved yet still continue to sin, will you go to hell? I mean, Christians sin all the time even though they are "forgiven", so if a gay man is gay up until his death, but he is "forgiven", does he go to hell? Technically if Newt Gingrich died while he was cheating on his wife, he would go to hell since he was an adulterer (which is the commandment which Christians throw out against gays). It sounds like you are skewing what is in the Bible to something that suits you...just my observation.

Frank Collins - I hope you're not referring to my post in your statement about Catholic-bashing - so I want to make clear that I'm not bashing Catholics or anyone else. My recent post, about the differences in Catholic and Protestant theology, was an objective - at least it was meant to be - examination of why Christ's directive to feed the poor seems to get overlooked. And in saying the pre-Reformation RC church was hardly liberal - well some people would say that a good thing and some would say it's bad! I was thinking of how the pre-