Falwell: "[T]here's some great and godly men and women in the Congress, but for every one of them, there's a Hillary Clinton ... [and] a Nancy Pelosi"
During his November 5 televised sermon about apostates, Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder and chairman of the Moral Majority Coalition, stated, "[Y]ou go to Washington -- there's some great and godly men and women in the Congress, but for every one of them, there's a Hillary Clinton. For every one of them, there's a Nancy Pelosi." Falwell added: "Imagine 'San Francisco Pelosi' speaker of the House."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the November 2 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Falwell declared that the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) is "not going to discourage any evangelicals I know from voting" because "[w]e lived through Bill Clinton, and this situation with Foley is minuscule in comparison."
During his November 5 sermon, Falwell also stated that in "Hollywood -- oh, there are few believers there. Most of them are loonies or fruitcakes; they're against everything high, holy, and sacred." Falwell has previously described "[m]ovie stars" as "moral pervert[s]" for "having babies" out of wedlock and asserted that "you almost got to be a homosexual to be recognized in the entertainment industry anymore," as Media Matters noted.
From Falwell's November 5 sermon at the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia, where he serves as senior pastor:
FALWELL: We're in the minority, maybe you don't know that. You come here to church full of thousands of people, you think, "Man, we're in the majority." I want to tell you we're in the minority. We, Hollywood -- oh, there are few believers there. Most of them are loonies or fruitcakes; they're against everything high, holy, and sacred. And you go to Washington -- there's some great and godly men and women in the Congress, but for every one of them, there's a Hillary Clinton. For every one of them, there's a Nancy Pelosi. Imagine "San Francisco Pelosi" speaker of the House.
Men like Mark Foley? Denny Hastert? Ted Haggard? Yourself?
"Judgment is MINE!" sayeth the Lord.
Seems this mere mortal has decided to take on GOD's job, and judge who is "Godly" and "Great", and who falls short of His ... that is to say, Falwell's ... favor.
Guess what, Jerry? You AIN'T GOD. And you don't speak FOR God, either. Your hateful and divisive politics, your greed, and your support of political leaders who advocate violence as a substitute for any kind of reasoning, places you solidly in the camp of those who should FEAR judgment themselves.
"What made you think you could JUDGE the Godliness of Pelosi, Clinton, or any other of My children?" God may well ask Falwell. He can have no satisfactory answer, other than his own delusions of spiritual purity ... which may fool the weak minded here on earth ("SEND ME MONEY!"), but cannot hope to snow God Himself.
Great and godly men (in Falwell's mind)
Adolf Hitler Benito Mussolinni Timothy McVeigh
This guy is such a joke. Evangelicals out there, find a better spokesperson because he is making you guys look crazy...
No, Rusty, he means Don Sherwood, Ann Coulter, Laura Schlesinger, Tom Reynolds, Rush Limbaugh etc....
So telling that the two biggest demons to the religious right are women, isn't it?
BUSH ADMINISTRATION posting DETAILED PLANS for a NUCLEAR WEAPON on the "INTERNETS"?
Falwell is of that midieval tradition of suppressing all things feminine. His sense of religion is based not on freeing the human soul, but rather upon accumulation. He seeks to accumulate political power over others. He seeks to accumulate great wealth & material possessions. He seeks to accumulate conformity of thought & expression by the people.
While Clinton & Pelosi certainly aren't any threat to his accumulated wealth, as women they do threaten his position of power & ability to demand conformity within even the religious community. They represent the dilution of traditional power through a much broader inclusion of people than just the white, male Protestants of Falwell's limited mindset. Falwell is no more a true follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ (poverty, love, forgiveness, tolerance, courage, peace, sharing, rejection of materialism, etc) than he is an underwear model.
some great and godly preachers and true men of faith, but for everyone of them, there is probably a Jerry Falwell, a Pat Robertson, a James Dobson, or a Ted Haggard. This fat abomination to humanity should slither into his Lynchburg dwelling for a long time.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
make fun of robertson and falwell all you want but leave dobson alone. you shouldnt lump him in there just because he is a conservative christian. i havent seen the same lust for greed and 1800# flashing from him that ive seen from robertson. i used to listen to him growing up and he really cares about family values and kids. unlike the other two, he has a phd in child development, is a licensed psychologist and even was a professor of pediatrics. one foley flub doesn't lump him with the other two, unless kerry's flub lumps him with military haters.
I would have to disagree.........Dobson's comment about the Foley incident was revealing regarding where politics are concerned within his faith. His dismissiveness of it and the way he injects his personal ideology into politics, even, in my opinion, at the expense of his faith.
He may not say as much of the same inflammatory rhetoric as Robertson or Falwell, but his annointing of himself as some spiritual leader for conservatism is unfounded - at least for this conservative.
Excellent point, Tommy, and excellent example!
I do admire your passion for Dodson and while you demostrated that passion you have admitted that Kerry is in fact NOT a military hater. Thank you. Kerry is not a military hater.
- artvandelay2006 / Monday November 6, 2006 01:49:14 PM EST
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If your buddy spends most his days carrying the Republican crapper, are you going to run and give him a big hug no matter how much crap he gets on ya???
If so; you have made yourself oblivious to the smell, therefore your part of the problem.
Dobson may be polite about what he says towards groups he dislikes (atheists, homosexuals, Darwinists) but he still is guilty of bringing religion into government policy.
Your post raises two issues: one with regard to money. Power is as important to some as is money, and he has incredible power. In addition, his former associate, Alexander-Moegerle, (after being embroiled in litigation with him) published a book in which he has made the following obserations summarized at: [link to www.findarticles.com]
"Dobson maintains his control over Focus on the Family by accepting no salary which makes him impervious to financial leverage by the board. At the same time, Dobson manipulates the organization by retaining all of his books, audiotapes and videos as his own personal intellectual property for which he receives huge royalties -- money earned through the tax-free advertising of his daily broadcasts, which are protected from taxation by virtue of Focus's being a religious enterprise. Alexander-Moegerle claims to have seen Dobson's personal financial statements in the mid-80s and that he was already a multimillionaire."
In addition, he has published at least 17 books ([link to www.google.com] ) , the least of which had sales of 155,000 (see cite below ... he was upset because of sales in the important area of saving children from homosexuals).
The second issue deals with the other side of Dobson: "It had become obvious for several years that homosexual activists and their allies on the far left had crafted an alarming new strategy to gain control of children." "Not since Adolf Hitler prepared a generation of German and Austrian youth for war has so grand a strategy been attempted. " [link to www.focusonthefamily.com]
Your post here causes me to revisit your response on Friday to my post ( [link to mediamatters.org] in which that you wrote: "You seem to be coming from a place of anger and make rash generalizations," and also commented: "No one is trying to injure you or your son and in fact many support civil unions which would give your son plenty benefits and plenty rights."
Dobson is at the forefront of the kind of people who caused my son to leave his home city for an area in which there was a less dominant pattern of out-and-out repression (our small city passed a resolution a number of years ago opposing federal law that would guarantee non-discrimination against gays in employment and housing - you know, so they could get a job and buy a home without discrimination. Our Representative voted against having gays in the military and the resulting policy has led to people decorated for valor being drummed out of their careers. The civil unions about which you write are another of Rove's drums he's beating to get your party's members to the polls to support his agenda: yes, may support them, maybe even a majority, but a majority of voters are passing actual constitutional amendments all over the country to prevent them, and Dobson is at the forefront of that fight, as well.
My son, like so many others, has had to recover from the hatred that was vented against him by his peers, and, as a man who has always loved Jesus, from the condemnation that rained down upon him from the Church. Nothing I wrote in my post was rash, but was rather the product of more than a decade of reading all "sides" of the gay/lesbian issue, study that framed the basis for a technically accurate novel. It rose from being involved in PFLAG - an organization that exists for two reasons - to provide support for parents traumatized by the discovery that their child is not straight, and to work the political process to try to combat the evil being worked by Dobson and his like. It was the product of years of work in which I have had to apply the kind of analytical thinking that I have been trained to do for 37 years. It is the product of having to present as an employment discrimination litigator with 28 years experience in the field, reasoned arguments on behalf of people forced from the churches or their jobs because of their genes It was not generated by hate, but by love - of my son, who at 34 still needs protection from the likes of Rove and Dobson.
Your writing gives the feeling of representing a thoughtful young mind. I encourage you to keep up your work, and leave room for the possibility that not everyone who disagrees with you is accusing you of hate. The accusation may be that you do not see.
I dislike any representative who restricts rights to homosexuals(marriage, joining the military, etc.) and will not vote for anyone who limits them. I honestly believe if more of these so-called conservatives actually got to KNOW a homosexual they would quickly change they tone. I am involved with the interest group FAIR Wisconsin who is working to defeat the ban on gay marriage that is placed on tomorrow's ballet. I hope we do not fail and our volunteers ARE very dedicated to this project. We can all end discrimination together if we work together as Americans and show these Anti-Gay Conservative Christians for the animals they truly are....
that once upon a time, the Republican party was in many ways the party of the people: fiscally responsible but largely color blind, while my southern Democrats were ... well, different. Johnson and the Kennedys represented the culmination of a historic shift in the aspect of which party represented whom. I still remember my American Government teacher in '63/'64 literally spitting as he decried Bobby Kennedy's sending federal troops into what was then my state's big city in Birmingham, and lauded Governor George Wallace for "blocking" the entrance at the University of Alabama until soldiers opened a path for the first black students. Suddenly, while State politics remained solidly Democrat, voters for federal representatives all over the South accepted the invitation of a party that committed its first major sellout for the sake of political power, before it again sold out for the vote of the Religious Right by fostering its terror-based anti-gay agenda. Once the core human values that shaped its character had been ditched, the final sellout of its fiscal responsibility for the sake of corporate deregulation and corporate welfare was easy. Not so suddenly, you Goldwater Republicans became a dying breed, and the concepts that made your party grand were vanquished by the same thing that I say has done to John McCain what the Viet Cong and torture could not: the selling of a soul for political power.
I always enjoy your insights. Keep writing.
This is one of the most articulate and well researched postsw i have read. nicely done
thank yous. You are most kind.
If Dobson sticks his nose in politics, just ask Limbaugh, he has to expect to get his nose bloodied.
There are many honest, moral, and humble religious figures in this country, but for every one of them there seems to be a Ted Haggard or Jerry Falwell.
Actually, he's right about one thing; people who follow the decidedly un-christian, hypocritical blowhards like him are, thankfully, becoming the minority.
They've just been able to scream their non-sense loud enough, and got enough puppits/pundits to mimic their garbage that it only seems like they are, or ever were, a majority.
This is a church sermon.
It is not a media issue.
Where is Media Matters when Islamic Extremists attack the United States and call for the killing of Americans at their so called "churches"?
why is Media Matters chasing enemies within our own ranks before they are going over seas and exposing boogiemen? I would think we would need to be clean of our fascism before we start pointing it out. Afterall I think it is Christian doctrine, isn't it, something to do with the plank in our eye, or glass houses and stones.......
This was on the telly, and most of us consider TV part of the media. You don't?
This was a blatantly political statement (never mind idiotic.) Falwell places himself in the middle of politics. mixes it with his own brand of religious voo-doo, and claims he knows something because he talks to God. What a load of crap.
Anyway, this is one of the more relevant media items that matter to America. Thanks MMFA.
Exactly. MMFA is held to the standard of not introducing religion, yet fat cat introduced Clinton and Pelosi. I do not recall Clinton and Pelosi standing at an altar with a guilty look grin asking for a dollar to save a soul. Anyone? Anyone?????
Furthermore, as far as I know, Clinton and Pelosi are both religious people so his argument against them makes no sense.
Bruce.
... would that be Hillary, or George W.?
When Falwell talks to HIS CHURCH about Jesus, THAT is church business. When he does a televised sermon that talks about POLITICIANS, its political. I agree with the other posters there are good and Godly preachers out there, then there is Rightwing nutbag Fallwell.
has his church been investigated and hounded like the "liberal" church in (I believe) the west or midwest? Why diesn't Falwell's group lose their tax exempt status?
Casac, or is the Borat?
You are "Sorry" after that you lost.
When a Jerry Falwell shops his opinion to the media about Hilary and Nancy regarding their politics, thats is exactly when MMFA is involved.
think alike!
Nope, but we are against hypocrites who like to get HIGH on meth and work against equal rights for all Americans. We're against HOLIER than though fat guys who are so quick to judge everyone who doesn't agree with his bastardized christianity, while he can excuse any behavior, as long as the perp has the initial "R" after his name.
And the thing that we consider most Sacred is The US Constitution. It would be nice if you worshiped that, fat man, rather than the money changers in the temple.
shout the loudest and then are found out to be the most guilty of what they are shouting about.
I can't wait until it is discovered that Bill O Reilly forced some poor woman/girl to have an abortion.
...until O'Reilly is exposed as a sexual predator. Oops, that already happened and he's still on the air. At this point it seems like O'Reilly could force an intern to have an abortion on the air and his audience would still stand by him.
no tapes no victim no dice
invests the most in a cause is actually the anti-thesis of that cause, --see Foley.
For O Reilly, it looks like abortion.
[link to www.kansascity.com]
First of all, I'm not suggesting that he be somehow forcibly removed from his job. Secondly, nothing has been legally proven, because he paid off his accuser in an out of court settlement. My point was that despite being exposed as a sexual predator (and the evidence against him suggests that there were in fact recordings of him sexually harrassing his employees), his audience still tunes in to hear him crusade against sexual predators.
Clinton had a affair, and still eveyone tunes into him. Such is life....
A consensual affair and harrassment are not equivelent.
Hillary approverd of this?
Are you seriously going to pretend to not see the distinction between a consensual relationship and a non-consensual relationship?
No...he was just being sophmoric. I think that's his chosen schtick around here. Every play needs it's Puck. I wasn't going to justify his juvenile response with a comment.
I remember correctly, he is only about 20 years old or so, or maybe I mixing him up with another poster that uses evil in his handle.
Evillib, you are acting like an EvilHilbilly....Back to the mountains...
And personally, I hope Falwell dies so he can meet his maker and be on his way...STRAIGHT TO HELL. He is just jealous that no gay prostitute or your everyday prostitute will have him. Even for the money.
Apparently there is no difference for some. Some appear to see no distinction between a consenting affair and sexual harrassment or even soliciting a minor...makes you wander what constitutes consent in their book. It is disturbing that in the face of sexual harrasment and pedephilia they trot out Clinton's affair where both were adults and both able to consent. These are the peole who make our laws and they fail to see a distinction...scary.
They see the distinction alright. The only distinction that matters to them is the one between Republican and Democrat.
a Reverend actually commenting on the climate of his country in his day from a perspective born out of a faith based belief system!? It's not an Islamic born opinion so where are all you libs that are going to trash him and mock his opinion?? C'mon, this is a christian we're talking about here, I should be able to set my watch to the timing of your labelling and bashing...don't disapoint me.
"Hollywood -- oh, there are few believers there. Most of them are loonies or fruitcakes; they're against everything high, holy, and sacred..."
Didn't someone already say glass houses?
So you're here to defend Falwell's astoundingly close minded interpretation of Christianity? Do you agree 100% with his ideas? If not, you're going to hell just as easily as Clinton or Pelosi.
Who is HE to judge the quality of their hearts that is NOT a faith based position. That is a politically based opinion. Glad to hear from the sheeple demographic though
Falwell doesn't speak for me.
And it would never occur to me that he did. Anymore then Ward Churchill speaks for me. We mostly know there are reasonable and good hearted conservatives.I meet and talk to plenty of them. Then there is Fallwell.
Pick me, pick me!
:0)
Thier are many reasonable, decent conservatives who care about preserving the constitution and U.S.'s integrity. Bruce, Tommy, Jeter, and Evillib are decent individuals who do not use name calling and smearing to prove a point. I may not agree with them 100% of the time (hence me being liberal and them conservative) but at least they listen to our opinion. Try posting something on Free Republic(I did) and see what you get. Definantly not respect...
He is in the minority and we intend to keep it that way. The majority of us do not blame 9-11 on gays, nor do we wish to kill in the name of Jesus. As for Godless Hillary and Pelosi, I think we need a little less God in Congress and a little more reality-based deliberation.
1 - The beginning of the article: "During his November 5 televised sermon... "
Last I checked, television was a medium.
2 - The text of the "Who We Are" that you'll find by clicking on the "About Us" in the menu above.
When you've finished reading, you should have your answers.
Okay?
For every Mark Foley, who abuses his position to prey sexually on minors, there is a Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton, who fulfills the duties of her office respectably. I guess we should be grateful that the Congress isn't comprised entirely of hypocritical Republicans.
Hillary to stand by her cheating husband is hardly a figure to look up to. IMO.
"What God has joined together, let no man put assunder" and don't the marriage vows include a vow "to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part. "
I don't know what form of the vows the Clintons actually used, but it's probably safe to say they included something like these sentences.
How odd that you would denigrate someone for KEEPING HER VOWS AND HER PROMISE.
Personally, I thought her behavior showed great strength of character and commitment.
call it what you want. I would not hang with a spouse cheating scumbag PERIOD.
Nice spin on it though........
"call it what you want. I would not hang with a spouse cheating scumbag PERIOD"
I would not be willing to enter into a "handshake" agreement with those minded like you, then. I'd want it all in writing, attested to, certified and witnessed...with money in escrow to guarantee it. Because you have just said that you cannot be trusted to keep the vows you take.
It would appear that Hilary is a "better man" than you are...she can be trusted to keep her word.
Just curious,evillib1727, did this little tryst of Bill's send 2,800 American soldiers to their graves? give 30,000 other life altering injuries? Piss away 300 billion of taxpayer money? Smear our reputation world wide and ruin our alliances with other countries? Make a budget surplus go bye bye? I really think we need to look at moral equivalences here.
That has absolutely nothing to do with her conduct as a senator.
It perplexes me that many of the conservatives who espouse family values chastise Hillary for staying with a cheating spouse. These issues are addressed biblically and the couple is supposed to undergo spiritual counseling and believe me they are counseled to keep the marriage intact. Maybe you guys aren't as committed to marriage as you pretend to be or maybe the rules are different just because you hate Hillary Clinton.
"Maybe you guys aren't as committed to marriage as you pretend to be or maybe the rules are different just because you hate Hillary Clinton."
And hate Bill, too.
People would stop using religion for politics. Falwell is not pushing religion here, only politics. That is all he does. I don't think he would give a crap about true religion, all he cares about is getting his face on tv and trying to get some fame. If he were a truly religious man he would be helping people in need rather than attacking people for their beliefs.
From what I've heard and read, the Clintons actually did go to Church every Sunday or almost every Sunday when Bill Clinton was president. Apparently they still do, and have been for almost 30 years. This was apparently not covered extensively by the mainstream media. On the other hand, from what I've read and heard, George Bush does not go to Church every Sunday, or at least not as much as Bill Clinton did. Ronald Reagan didn't either, he gave that lame excuse that he "didnt want to endanger others" by being there. I think it was the same with Poppy Bush, he didn't go there as regularly as Clinton either.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Not to defend the Bush's or the Regan's, but one doesn't need to attend church to have faith, or to even have religion. Everyone worships in their own way, and in their own time. For some, that means going to church several times per week. For others, maybe praying at home, having reflective time, and the like. I would assume that with someone (such as Bush) who puts his faith so out there, and makes it part of his persona, he would be at church, every weekend. But alas, he's not. The Clintons are devout Christians as far as I know, and have heard about, and they practice what they preach. Just because they don't want to force religion into a law system that says there shouldn't be religion involved, and because they want to keep it out of government, they are Godless because of this? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Falwell is a joke. There is a special place in Hell for him when he dies I'm sure.
I think it is misguided to try and rate people's faith. However I do question some people's agenda when they fail to realize that faith is a personal issue and faith is a guide to your personal behavior not a way to judge others.
"From what I've heard and read, the Clintons actually did go to Church every Sunday or almost every Sunday when Bill Clinton was president. Apparently they still do, and have been for almost 30 years. This was apparently not covered extensively by the mainstream media."...by NJGuy
=====
Was this BEFORE, DURING or AFTER Bill Clinton committed adultery?
BTW the Clintons were shown quite OFTEN by the MSM attending church. Bill Clinton [whom I like & admire--BUT not because of his church attendance or morals] was photographed and/or filmed numerous times clutching a Bible as he & Hillary left services.
My point is that going to church doesn't make one a better Christian than someone who doesn't. It's how you live your own life and how you treat your fellow human beings.
SOME of the most ardent church-goers [and clergy for that matter] are the BIGGEST sinners among us.
Church attendance rates do not judge who your character is. I know some intelligent and compassionate atheists out their doing as much good as some of the faith based charities. Also I reallize that some of the most religious people (like Falwell for instance) are constantly sinning and using their faith to promote a political agenda. We must understand the morality cannot be found in a book but inside our hearts and minds...
Christian Only In Name
case closed
I LOVE it! Never saw that acronym, so I currently credit you as inventor and wit superlative!
This guy is proof there is no god. For if there were, he would have struck this pharisee dead long ago.
Its that pesky free will thingy. Fallwell is free to be a blowhard who judges the hearts of those he disagrees with politically. He may not be called to account in THIS world by God for it.
Free will and divine plan are incompatible. If there is free will, there is no divine plan, and vice versa.
At the risk of being totally off topic, I would also argue that Free Will is incompatable with a God who knows the future.
That was my point. If god knows exactly what you're going to do, and brings about your existence anyway, isn't anything you do really fulfilling his plan? Also, is the devil really evil? Doesn't he exist with god's consent, after all god could smote him in a second? Also, isn't he simply doing god's will by punishing sinners?
These paradoxes and inconsistencies are the main reason why I'm an atheist.
Ir the nature of time, is it linear, has it already happened, do we experience a single moment of reality AS a linear experience? If you tell your child not to touch a hot stove do we know they will try it out. Perhaps, then they learn what hot means. See it MAY be about learning the hard way and not interfering may be the point, to allow that learning. This is all speculation but taking the limited view of the finite into the infinite isnt necessarily going to give you the answers. I am not trying to convert you. Your views are your own, Personally I dont see the paradoxes you point to as being a problem. You can learn lessons as a child that are small and equate to larger lessons when an adult that serve you well. Its easy for me to see that as an analogy for learning lessons here that serve us in a larger capacity for the next world. Even though I understand there may or may not BE a next world or it may be one that is beyond what I can understand.
God knows the future, and God is infallible, then there is no free will. If He knows what you will do before you do it, then free will is only an illusion; you cannot choose what He does not foresee you choosing. Otherwise, you must allow for the possibility that God could be wrong, in which case He does not know the future.
"If He knows what you will do before you do it, then free will is only an illusion; you cannot choose what He does not foresee you choosing."
That can't be right. You are confusing KNOWING with INFLUENCING. In the world of faith it's perfectly possible for God to KNOW what you are going to do before you do it, but that does not equate at all with God's INFLUENCING you to do it.
Personally, I don't see anything illusory about an all KNOWING God and freewill. You make the choices you make from your freewill and you take the consequences. That is the nature of an all KNOWING, but not an all CONTROLLING God.
"That is the nature of an all KNOWING, but not an all CONTROLLING God."
If he knows you're going to kill, and creates you anyway, then he wanted you to kill. Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.
"If he knows you're going to kill, and creates you anyway, then he wanted you to kill. Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive."
Because WE don't know what God knows. If you kill, that is still your decision...because you can make the decision not to kill. The omniscience of God...any God you believe in...is an article of faith, because there is no way to prove whether God truly is omniscient or not.
Assuming a belief in an omniscient God begs the question: is there anything God CAN'T do? Because whatever God DOESN'T do...such as stop you from killing...is virtually that same as not being able to stop you.
But if you believe that God created you with free will for a purpose, then it is still YOUR responsibility if you abuse that free will.
Let's use your child analogy. As a parent, I can believe that my child burning themselves will keep them from worse harm later in life, but there are no guarantees. I'm regrettably not ominiscient nor omnipotent and thus could never shape my children's outcome to any degree of accuracy.
Many Christians believe in divine plan. I think that's fine. However, in order to do so you have to give up free will. If God knows everything that will happen, then he's complicit in those events. He knows I'm writing this now, in fact he created me knowing that I would someday write this post. Now, if you want free will then you are going to have to give up God's ominscience. Perhaps we can make an excuse for him. Maybe the complexities of the world he created are too great for even he to keep track of. Once we let him off that hook, then we can talk about free will. But then what does that say about Revelations and prophecy in general?
Perhaps, as an all knowing, all seeing God, He can see every future combination of events, much like a master chess player can see various combinations of moves. Only God can do it on a infinitely higher plane.
We humans say it is God's will, only because we only know what actually happened based on our limited awareness. We do know the myriad of possibilities that might have happened but I would suggest our God does.
Wrote a story based on that "seeing all possibilities" - only he applied it to an angel. It's been years since I read it, but if memory serves one of the incidents in the story was a young man drowned rescuing somone else. The angel was taken to task by the youngster's friends and the angel basically told them that he had looked into the young man's future and ALL of the possibilities lead to him being paralyzed for life, except one...and in that one he died.
I may not have that exactly right, but I think you get the idea.
Free will can definitly be part of the divine plan. Zoroaster said it WAS the plan. That we are apprenticing here to take up a specific place in the larger world. That we are here to learn to make right decisions and that free will while ensuring wrong decisions will happen, is the learning experience that is what will allow us to perform the function we are being trained for. Was he right? How would I know, but unless you can define that divine plan neither would you.
You don't address the concept of omnicience. If God is omnicient, then free will is an illusion as Nerzog pointed out. If God isn't omnicient, then that calls into question prophecy and lot of powers God seems to have in the Bible.
I'm not Bible expert, but I have heard the book of revelation was written in a style called apocalyptic.
Apocalyptic literature is a type of literature that flourished in Judaism and early Christianity from roughly 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. The Old Testament Book of Daniel is apocalyptic in style. This kind of writing looks ahead to the end of history and the coming of the New Age, God's kingdom. The central message is that God is in control.
It uses the "end days" as method of describing current events.
However many believe the books are actually prophesies and as such give them too much weight when in reality they were stressing the religious issues of the day. I believe the "Left Behind" series is one that makes this mistake of literally interpreting part of the book of Revelations.
Falwell and his fellow Talibaptists fear women getting any power; thus their fear of Hillary and Pelosi. He probably has no problem with Cruella de Ville Harris, tho...she'd probably lick his shoes on commamd.
I was surprised that Falwell was still in town...thought he'd be in South Africa mourning the death of his close pal P.W Botha...
and P.W. Botha will one day meet up in Hell.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
Gee, if this clown is making political statements, shouldn't the IRS take away his "church's" tax-free status, like they're trying to do to with All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena?
Just a thought...
Let's hope the new Democratic Congress will enforce the rules on non-profits and promotion of candidates.
Now Churches that tell their parishoners how to vote, THAT is crossing the line. They are free to discuss political ISSUES. This could be interpreted THAT way. Working for a candidate or party is what defines that prohibition. There were Churches here that did just that. I had a few people telling me their Priest (Catholic area here) that did just that, and told them they had to vote for George Bush, and they should DEFINITLY lose their tax exempt status
Reverand Jesse Jackson?
ps. My guess is that if the priest were actually calling out George by name, he might be in a bit of hot water himself with the diocese.
I have heard priests myself say they cannot and do not want to tell parishioners how to vote. Some strongly advocate parishioners take a look at which candidate follows the Church's teaching, but the one's I've heard make it clear they leave it up to the concience of each parishioner. They recognize that people of good faith can have different political opinions.
This is the problem with the so called "Religious Right" movement. The faithful are being betrayed by their "leaders" who are more interested in political sniping then in inspiring faith and good works. These "leaders" turn their sermons into political speeches. I hope Falwell doesn't file for the tax exemption churches receive, because he has violated the rules and should have his tax exempt status revoked if he does...as should all these preachers who feel the need to "preach" about their personal political agenda. I have read about a rebelion going on in the movement of some trying to bring it back to religion and leave the politics for outside the "church". I hope they succeed.
Oh.... I see our portly little pal from Lynchburg VA is playing the part of the evangelical version of Ann Coulter...
Hey Jerry... YOU HAVE BECOME IRRLEVENT! Go slither away with your pal the homosexual preacher form Colorado Springs...
Whoops the fire alarm is going off in my building... be back later!
From the IRS (truncated): All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches . . .are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly . . .intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions . . . . or public statements of position (verbal or written) made . . . in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.
Note the sliminess of the Lizard, he never comes out and directly opposes these candidates, just slings mud and innuendo thereby protecting his tax-exempt fleecing of the sheeple. What a scumbag.
Would he label Falwell in such a way? I'm sure Jerry will be judged accordingly.
Jesus would be Son of Godly.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
I remember, debating against Jesse Jackson concerning the war in Iraq, he said, "blow 'em all away, in the name of the Lord."
"Foley scandal is miniscule in comparison."? What? This about a man preying on underage teens and his superiors knowing about it and covering it up.
Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration.
FIRE CONGRESS!
Wow...first Pete and now Repeat. You're posting the same nonsense on two different threads. Where'd you copy an paste it from, by the way?
Sorry. I simply read the item and posted the first thing that came to mind. I hadn't read any comments yet.
The post was a response to evillib, who posted the same tripe on two different threads.
Hustler's "Asshole of the Month".
FALWELL: Hollywood -- oh, there are few believers there. Most of them are loonies or fruitcakes; they're against everything high, holy, and sacred. And you go to Washington -- there's some great and godly men and women in the Congress, but for every one of them, there's a Hillary Clinton. For every one of them, there's a Nancy Pelosi. Imagine "San Francisco Pelosi" speaker of the House.
SAM: I'll go to church with Hillary or Nancy any day, but not with Falwell, to worship his False God. What an ugly and evil man with an ugly personality and doing the devils work. He's meddling in War and Politics. He wants to blow all Arabs away in the name of his false Lord God. When the likes of Falwell arrive at the pearly gates of heaven he will surely be rejected to burn in the everlasting fires of hell.
The real god will put Falwell in his rightful place (In Hell ) We have the Falwell religious crazies and we have he Arab religious crazies, and they both worship false gods and start false wars. Wars like The Iraq and Vietnam Wars. GWB is the worst,most frightful, and most powerful religious radical alive today. GWB doesn't care what we the people want, when it comes to the Iraq War. He's a dictator, he's the "Decider" and he believes god is on his side. So to hell with what his subjects want.
Highest Regards ..... Take Care ..... Sam
Falwell's Hell will not be the tradition fiery pits, rather, I think a more fitting one.
He will stand before God. God will say to him, "Why hast thou persecuted my children? You know them not." Falwell will then be cast into the personal hell that God has created for hime. It will look just like Heaven, but he will spend eternity surrounded by gay men.
If this is Falwell's hell, then its equally hell for these gay men. After all, wouldn't they be condemned to listening to Falwell's droning moralizing for all eternity?
Their sins would have to be great to deserve a hell like that!
These christobigot fat cats should start paying some taxes if they are going to continue to preach politics. Even if Falwell isn't directly mentioning a candidate he is taking sides with the obvious slander of the mentioned members of Congress and that in itself seems to be a form of advocating a political persuasion.
Here we have a guy who should lose any tax-exempt status for his so-called church for pushing politics under the guise of God. He wraps himself in the flag AND the cross. Let him and his SHEEP pay taxes like the rest of us.
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves," (Matthew 7:15). Enough said.
So Foley going after teen pages is better than Bill Clinton's sexual contact with an adult! Truly amazing for an ostensible man of the cloth and the Leader of the Moral Majority. It is also curiously interesting that his "god" encourages him to denegrate people like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. What ever happened to the so-called righteous teachings, like "Love thy neighbour". Sadly, for all those good and decent Christians of all denominations, these rotten eggs like Falwell and Robertson, oh! now we have Haggard give religion a bad name!
This is the sick idiot that thought Ollie North (you know, Ollie the Felon) should be canonized.
Well on one subject he's right: they're in the minority (Thank God!)
I would think this would enable someone to challenge Falwell's church's tax exempt status. He used his sermon to single out certain politicians.
Any lawyers out there?
"The Internal Revenue Code bars all non-profit groups that hold 501 (c)(3) tax status from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office or intervening in partisan elections." Read more at [link to www.projectfairplay.org]
Falwell is, at the very least, on the line here. Nothing new - he has always played fast and loose with the tax laws.