Jerry "I am Retarded" Fallwell
 

I subscibe to the Jerry Falweel Newsletter moslty for entertainment. I am, however a believer, but find Falwell a little over the top. Here is the latest letter from him.

Below is the letter I wrote to Mr. Falwell. I think I am right on, but this guy is kind of a under supported Hilter type. Wow Could you imagine the world if this guy had his way.
BYe Bye TFP


I just finished reading your letter about the CDS show Two and a Half Men. I have to say I found the article and the claim to be rather over the top. Did you miss the part where Kandy, another character in the show, changed the words of Jingle Bells? Do you think the writer of the original song may be offended? I doubt it. I am a regular viewer of the show and have found that this particular show is actually rather tame compared to some other shows on primetime. To get offended at something like this simply because you feel that this would not be done with another belief or with other civil liberties leader’s words is ridiculous. I don’t think that Muslims celebrate Christmas since it is a celebration of a God they do not believe existed, so then why would CBS choose to throw something about the Koran in an episode that was about a Christmas party that was never supposed to happen. You also have to understand that Christmas is the predominate celebration this time of year and to quote saying about Kwanza or Islam or Buddha would most likely not be understood or humorous to the demographic that watches Two and a Half Men. I believe there is a war on Christmas and I believe that Christians are losing. More should be done. It is not your responsibility to speak for millions of Christians nationwide. Doing that would result in the Conservative coalition becoming little more than a Christian ACLU or NAACP. Understand that all of these organizations believe that their ideas are correct and are willing to fight for it. This ideal is not unlike yours. I doubt that every idea the ACLU has is supported by every liberal or that every black person supports every idea that the NAACP throws out there. This idea you have about Two and a Half Men is not much unlike that. Two and a Half Men is a comedy television Show and is not to be taken seriously. It was meant to be funny and make people laugh. To think that the writers at CBS are attacking Christianity is a little big-headed. Get over yourself and grow up. Reach the world. Oh yeah if you did actually watch the show and this little bit of the song offended you, then maybe you should pay attention to the rest of the show. It gets much worse.

Anyway what do y'all think?

Wait, wait....people watch Two and a Half Men?

Yes, Jerry is another of the over the top, religious drama queen. Everything he does screams, "LOOK AT ME and God". Remember that this is the pro-Israel, anti-Clinton (have you read The Clinton Chronicles? Hahaha), attacker of innocent news and entertainment magazines, Penthouse and Hustler, and homophobic televangalist. He's the man that said of 9/11, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen." He said of homosexuality, "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals." He is just another religious hypocrite, who's words are meaningless. Even if I were a die hard christian, I'd reject his words as those of a hypocrite. Hating people becuase they are different or becuase they live lifestyles that Christianity may not agree with is quite the opposite of what Jesus taught. Jesus dinned with tax collecters and prostitutes to show that Christianity is about inclusion, acceptance, understanding, and setting aside differences. At least it used to be.

I wonder if he has read the bible.

I think that if jerry fallwell existed during the time of christ he would have led the charge to have jesus crucified.

As a quick aside to the OP, Muslims do believe in exactly the same god as Jews and Christians. They, however, do not believe that Jesus was the savior and follow Muhammed as The Great Prophet. I'm not extremely well versed in the differences, but they are fewer than most people think.

xeph.

the largest difference is that muslims accept jesus, not as god incarnate/son of god, but rather a prophet to humanity and that mohammad is came with the final revelation the quran.


as for jerry.. i think a stint on jerry springer wouldnt be out of the question.. they should call it "they're killing christmas"

*Gasp* Goodness, you mean he feels like his religion is being picked on? Say it aint so! Karma, sweet thing! Heres a mini version of what Puritans like Fallwell did to the Pagan religion(s). I think its fabulous he feels that way. How could I rub salt in his wound...

Tell him this:
That tends to bother christians.

Maybe Comedy Central refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network because of all the silly backlash known to happen? Xians seem to love all sorts of decoration, and to not have such thin skins.
I once reviled JF, but now I only disrespect him. He's too silly to hate.

As I Christian, I find my faith strengthened by the assault on it's symbols. Jesus warned us this would happen. Why do so many preachers not seem to know Jesus' position on these kinds of things?

I'd be willing to bet a sizeable sum of money that many christian preachers either don't know, or understand the bible and its teachings. Its like a blind person driving a car.

It's not that. Religious leaders have been cherry picking from the bible since Gutenberg first printed it.

"Hey the bible says gay sex is a sin!"
And the same section also condones slavery. Funny how the religious leaders don't advocate that.

"The bible says God is all knowing"
And yet for some reason he constantly needs to test us, even though if he's all knowing he already knows what the results will be. The bible tells us that when God told Abraham to kill his own son, it was to test his faith. But since he's all knowing and therefore knows if Abraham is faithful or not, the only logical conclusion is that God is a sadistic jerk who's playing cruel mind games with poor Abraham. Combine that with modern day "tests of faith" (kids born with horrendous birth defects, little girls getting raped, etc etc) and the only logical conclusion is that either the bible is full of shit, or God is an asshole. I'm gonna go with option 1 there, considering the bible was passed down orally for hundreds of years before finally being written down. So even if god DID dictate the bible to the select scholars who were hidden from general society and could offer no conclusive proof that what they were saying was real beyond the fact that they said it was real (catching the sarcasm here?), human error has certainly twisted the original word of "god" into something with an entirely different meaning.

Retarded people are far better than JF...they have an excuse for the dumb stuff they do....

That's an argument I have to make constantly. It proves that many parts of the bible are dated, and thus should have been adapted to the times. Sexism is another biggy.
This is an interesting one. Back when I was being indoctrinated, I always figured that God tested us for our benifit. One of the fundamental concepts behind spirituality and philosophy is to know yourself. The reason that many dieties will test their followers is not necessarily for their own divine edification, but in order to help their followers reach a more enlightened state, being aware of all the facets of their self. How do you know how faithful you are? Well, God asks you to go murder your own son in cold blood for no reason. Yes, God comes off as a sick son of a...well sick, but Abrraham was able to place his faith ahead of his family and even reason. He discovered that day what it means to be a religous fanatic, and he could now prove that those traits exist in himself. While most wouldn't call religous devotion to this degree as enlightened, the idea is that Abraham was able to reconcile any doubts in his mind about his faith. If you're ready to kill your kid for God, youir faith is pretty much unshakable.

Nope, doesn't work. Sorry ;) How do you explain severely retarded people? What benefit do they get from being unable to grasp the benefits?
An all powerful god can bestow the same end conditions (enlightened state) without torturing his subjects.

Exactly my point. God supposedly designs us with brains that can reason and then says we must not reason, rather accept everything on faith and do whatever he supposedly tells us even though there's no reasonable explanation for it. That simply doesn't make sense. If god wanted a race of enlightened beings, then he's going about it the wrong way. Enlightened beings are capable of thinking for themselves and critically analyzing facts to reach their conclusion. Following the bible demands the exact opposite. It simply doesn't make sense.

Or you're a total psychopath and/or idiot who puts the demands of a cruel, twisted being above the welfare of your children.

I meant in the case of Abraham (or Jonus, Jesus?, Matthew, John, Jobe, etc.). Biblical stuff.
Hardship builds character, and that's according to the rules God set when he created the human psychi...if you believe in such things.
That's why I left the faith.
That's why I used the label religous fanatic. No reaosnable person could kill their own son at the request of a figment of their imagination. That takes the type of devotion that any church seeks out, but any reasonable person would dismiss as madness.

Well... You left out one teeny tiny tidbit.

The Bible doesn't condemn slavery, but it commands slave owners to treat their slaves as they would their own kin. The accepted slavery depicted in the Bible was/is vastly different to the concept of slavery that exists today.

Funny how you forgot to mention that.

The statement in the bible assumes that slavery is acceptable, and no where in the bible does it explicetly say that slavery is wrong. While I don't really follow the bible anymore, I am familiar with it:

- "And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." (Exodus 21:5-6) God not only condones slavery, but advocates violence against them.

The bible condones slavery (real slavery, with violence and misteatment) because it was written by slave owners. It'd be nice if the OT were written this way to be more palatbable to the times, but if God wrote this, he had to know it would be around for thousands of years and it's implications would be far reaching. The only conclusions to draw are: slavery is okay, or God doesn't exist.

What? I must be misunderstanding the context here or something. There's at least two other possible -and obvious - conclusions: (1)the Bible doesn't 100% accurately represent the thoughts of God, or (2)the Bible doesn't represent the thoughts of God.

Well the idea that the bible is falable completly undermines the existence of God. God is God because of the words of the bible. If those words are called into question, so also are the words that explain God. Why would God allow there to be screw ups in the bible? So again, either the bible is 100% right, and slavery is okay....or the bible isn't 100% right, and the whole thing has to be called into question. When you call the bible into question, in other words when you allow reason or logic to be applied to the bible, the whole thing falls apart.

Either slavery is okay or God doesn't exist.

Uhm, called into question != debunked. And perhaps God allowed an imperfect Bible for the same reason - often given - for all other forms of deception in the world, hell, the same reason given for all imperfections in the world: it's another test, another trial, designed to make us stronger. You don't have to buy it, but it's buyable and your dichotomy's false.

Besides, there's other versions of God that don't require the bible at all. Deism, for one.

You're leaping.

When applied to reason, the books that form the bible can each be explained away as exaggeration, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and intentional indoctrination for the purpouses of control. I recall there being a blow-by-blow thread somewhere in the depths of philosophy, maybe I'll look for it later. Bottom line: the bible is the story of the supernatural. In order to really believe in the supernatural, you must have faith more powerful than reason. If you find out that your faith is placed in something falable, what reason is there to keep your faith? Also, when I say "called into question", I mean applied to science and logic. The bible automatically fails that test.
Not at all. That's the same thing as the "we can't understand God" argument. It's not an argument, it's a supernatural excuse, and all circular arguments about the supernatural end the same way: the faithful say "it's a matter of faith", and the non-faithful say, "I win".
Well this thread is about radical Christian Jerry Falwell, so the bible is a good place to start.

I didn't mention it because it's irrelevant. Presumably this means "don't torture them." Well, not beating the hell out of them does not mean that it's OK to own them. That the bible dictates how one should treat one's slaves indicates that the author of the bible (presumably god) condones slavery. If the bible didn't condone slavery, it would say "don't HAVE slaves."

It's not irrelevant by any means.

You're still not acknowledging the fact that Biblical slavery is/was vastly different than the definition of slavery in which we hold today. Biblical slavery usually consisted of one person willingly selling themselves to another in order to pay off their debts or to provide for their families. Rarely, if ever, did Israel take slaves when they conquered a neighboring group of people (They were typically commanded not to). So yes, the Bible condones slavery but it does so within certain parameters. However, to make a blanket statement that the Bible condones all types of slavery is faulty. The type of slavery (Racial prejudice) which occurred the last two hundred or so years would is not condoned anywhere in the Bible.

And, to Will, I quote Ephesians 6: 5-9;

<i>5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.

9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.</i>

And Collosians 4: 1;

<i>1Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.</i>

I'm not sure showing how the bible contradicts itself makes a good case for Christians. The verses you quoted don't negate the Exodus verse I posted, they are simply more mythology created by different authors and story tellers that accedenally contradicts itself. Mythology is useful in showing us our roots and our own nature, but trying to defend it as reasonable is the problem....and even worse using it as a weapon against those you fear or hate like our pal Jerry Falwell is disgusting.

I can't really think of a good answer to this, except to say that people find a reason. There are plenty of non-literalists who still hold to the Bible to some degree. They find a reason. Even if it's, deep down, something as unimpressive as wish fulfillment or something as vague as historical context. (But maybe IL has a clearer idea of such a context.)

You say "supernatural excuse" as if it's not a viable conclusion. I never said it was a logical conclusion. Neither is "the bible is infallible and slavery is okay", but you offered that as a possibility.

But more importantly, I'm not seeing how my "supernatural excuse" isn't an argument. It's an argument for a possible interpretation of this world with the assumption of an omnibenevolent/potent/scient being. You can evaluate it for internal logic - and I think it checks out - and then stop short of giving the God assumption a stamp of approval.

You want to argue that there is no logical proof for God that works? Cool, start a new thread, and it'll be a short one because I'll agree with it. But this is something different, and something perfectly counterarguable. It's an excuse involving the supernatural, but there's nothing supernatural about its workings.

But you'll need to go much further than just the start in order to justify an incredible statement like "either slavery is okay, or God doesn't exist".

So as long as you owe me money it's OK for me to enslave you? I think you'll find yourself in the global minority with this outlook.


Yep, that's just what god should be condoning - slaves that are afraid of their masters. But remember, he's a just god who loves you. Slavery in any form, for any reason, is unacceptable. Arguing otherwise does not help your position regarding the bible. Let's not forget that many Africans sold their relatives to the US in order to pay off debts. According to your biblical argument, that means slavery was OK, except that you seem to have only one other problem with it - that being the racial differences between the slaves and masters.

Are you trying to tell me US slavery would have been OK if we had only raided a poor white country for slaves?

The majority of people condone slavery everyday with their actions and spending habits. People call it capitolism and it is way too common. To say slavery is wrong is useless. I can sit in my chair all day and say thatfast food is bad for me, but it goes outthe window the next time I order a Big Mac.

Really. So if I buy something I'm advocating slavery? Would you care to explain the logic underlying that conclusion?

OKay lets take clothing for example. Well woudl you not consider people who work in east sian sweat shops or sweat shops in general slaves? Or buying fruit that was picked by somebody who was working to pay the coyotes who smuggled their families into the country. Human trafficing is the worst form of slavery that can be accomplished. It is a problem in this country and in most. Simply by buying some of the things we have to buy we are unknowingly and accidentaly supporting slavery and human traffikers.

~~

Salvery is awful I agree, but what does this really have to do with Jerry Falwell? If y ou quote bible verses though you should really take them into context and quote the whole verse. I can quote half verses all day and get them to say all kinds of wonderful things that I can now do.

Example ... Commit adultery. Hosea 4:13

Back to dumd-ass falwell.

~~

It's not all right for me to go out and actively enslave you if you owe me money (No one has ever said that), but you if you want to willingly indebt yourself to me then go right ahead. It happens quite a lot in our common day society, you know.

In the Bible the word fear is used to denote reverence (Especially toward God). It doesn't mean that one is to be literally afraid of someone (Or something) else.

Slavery in any form, for any reason, is unacceptable and arguing otherwise doesn't help my position on the Bible? Per chance, have you ever read it? The Bible doesn't condone slavery as a whole, but there are certain parameters under which it's permissable and which it isn't.

Biblical slavery involved selling yourself to another, not selling someone else to another. There's a fundamental difference between the two.

No, because:

1.) People were sold into slavery against their will. There's a difference between indebting yourself to another and selling someone else into slavery.

2.) Present slavery is/was based largely off race whereas, in Biblical times, accepted slavery was based off of economic status.

Nope, and for the reasons stated above.

yeah, in fact i'm making car payments right now. But I'm not a slave to the bank.



"Do you not FEAR me? Do you not TREMBLE before me?"

That is not a description of reverence. If it is, God needs a new editor.

If it's permissible in a book that tells you what you are and are not allowed to do, then it's condoned. God, if he's the all powerful lord of everything the bible makes him out to be, would not permit something he did not approve of.


As for slavery in biblical times referring to selling yourself instead of being sold into slavery, you've forgotten the story of Joseph, who's brothers sold him into slavery. Clearly then, at least some times, slaves were sold by and to others.

Plain and simple...... Bible written (or inspired by God) with a "New Testament".

Some guy named Jesus says on taxes "Give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, worry not about building a wealth that can be destroyed on Earth but lay up yourselves treasures in Heaven, for where your treasure is so be your heart"

To which the vast majority of "Christians" today say, "Down with taxes, I need more, more, more. Get a job you Bum" and the leaders say, "God told me to raise $3Million or he was calling me home." "We need an amusement park." "We need the biggest fanciest church in town."

Guy named Jesus says on judging others "Judge not lest ye be judged, worry not about the splinter in your neighbor's eye when you have a log", "Pray for your enemies."

Whereupon today's "Christians" and the leaders say, "You don't believe like we do you're gonna go to Hell." "They are attacking us and we need to fight back" "The evil press and liberals want to destroy us, we need to take more rights away."

And Finally, from what IMHO is the most important speech Jesus gave The Sermon on the Mount" I close with:
I would rather read my Bible, Tora, Qu'aran and live my life the way Jesus taught on the Mount, than listen and sell my soul to politically mad, greedy, what's in it for them dumbfucks that want to tell you how to believe and what to believe.... cause in the end Falwell, Robertson, the Pope, the Imams, the Holiest of rabbis..... all use religion to control, dictate THEIR beliefs and give excuses to hate, fear and kill others......

And yet I know of not 1 religion that truly tells anyone to kill, fear or hate anyone.

It looks to me like you're oversimplifying his argument at the cost of crucial accuracy. From what I understood - IL, correct me if I get it wrong - he's making a distinction between slavery and indentured servitude, claiming that the latter is the only one condoned in the Bible, and asserting that the latter is okay.

Indentured servatuve assumes eventual release. Slavery is slavery. Not only that, but the Exodus quote I posted earlier proves that violent abuse is okey, too.

Define slavery as narrowly as you wish. This merely shifts the debate from "are Bible-condoned types of slavery wrong?" to "does the Bible condone slavery?". (Again, IL can correct me if I'm misrepresenting him.)

IL does seem to be facing a bit of a challenge in this thread.

Well if you need to decide what a word means, it must be defined. I usually just go to the dictionary for such things.
Complete ownership is different than working off a debt through servatude.

If by narrow you mean accurate, then thank you, we shall. ;)

Definitions change all the time. There are no inherently accurate word usages, just ones that better correspond to the most popular usages of the day.

But if the Bible's using the word in a different way than that listed in the dictionary, then referencing the dictionary is a mistake. The dictionary isn't necessarily helpful here.

The definition of "slavery" has not changed until some in this thread attempted to change it. There is a difference between slavery and indentured servitude.



in that case perhaps it's using a different definition of the word "lie" and therefore to "lie with another man as with one's wife" might not mean sex at all, meaning the bible does not in fact condemn homosexuality.

While we're at it, let's just redefine "god" to be whatever we want as well. For the last 2 millenia people have been redefining and changing the bible to fit whatever they want to do, why not continue the trend?

Sure, that's possible as far as I know. I think I remember a GLBT website arguing something like that. (But I'm not the one to ask, I've limited knowledge on the subject.)

It's not a matter of redefining to one's liking, it's a matter of redefining to fit how the word was used in those times. Maybe there's more than one valid interpretation. As far as I know, slavery back then could've possibly included indentured servitude. And obviously it wasn't in english, so slavery/slaves weren't even the exact words used. Burden of proof's certainly on the one making the claim - assuming that I haven't misinterpreted IL's arguments - but I think there's some misunderstanding due to differing definitions. A little effort can easily demolish such a roadblock.

That's an interesting thought that never occoured to me. As I remember, the NKJ bible was completed in 1982 and the NIV bible was completed in 1985. The definition of slavery has not changed since then. I can only conclude that when the word slavery is used in the bible I read, it is meant to convey the same definition that can be read in our dictionaries.

I didn't just, as you would like to put it, decide to up and change the definition of slavery. Rather, I attempted to show that the broad generalization you made concerning the Bible and slavery was, indeed, false.

Fact: We know that God rarely, if ever, commanded the Israelites to go out and make slaves out of their neighbours.

Fact: We know that slavery during Biblical times was more economical than racial, as many people willingly sold themselves to another to pay off debts or to provide for their families.

As I'm sure you're well aware, people have dedicated their entire lives to studying the Bible and other such religious texts. The idea that we have of slavery today is a far cry from the Biblical institution of slavery. Funny thing... As time progresses the meaning of words change, so it's sometimes hard to ascertain a words true meaning-- Hence why we have hermeneutics. Through the use of hermeneutics, we're able to determine the meaning behind just about any ancient text (Though some are harder than others).

Which is why we have hermeneutics and exegesis of the Scripture. There are literally thousands of articles written on the subject, and I've been over this argument before. We could most certainly go down this road again, if you like ;)

Go for it. There are already thousands of different interpretations of the word "God". I'm pretty sure one more couldn't hurt!

Hey y'all! I read this whole thread, and came to nowhere. There is no logic in faith but faith has a certain "tilted" logic to it. God came out of primitive fears and hopes is what I believe. Good luck to the "reverend" Falwell & may he burn in the Hell of his choosing. (Did I say that out loud?)

Or the translations in 82/85 were flawed. I remember hearing that one version of the bible actually uses the word 'homosexuality', even though the term is a recent invention and often/usually is used to refer to the characteristic, not the choice. Translations deserve a skeptical eye, especially translations of highly debated books like the Bible.

What about the translation of "walks on water"? What if it was actually "walks by water"?

Either the bible is 100% true or it's not. If it is, then science and reason are a silly game being controled by an omnipotent super-being. If it's not, then why only question the meaning of the word "slavery"? Why not question why Jesus has all the common characteristics of mythological figuires that preceded him?

Sure, why not? I won't stand in your way.

But questioning whether slavery meant the same thing back then isn't the same as questioning whether the bible's 100% true. You give the choice of a fallible bible or "slavery is okay", but you're ignoring at least two other possibilities: fallible translations and fallible interpreters.

But Christians swear that the bible is 100% true and correct. Fallible translations and interpreters makes the bible fallible. If the word slavery appears in the bible and is wrong, then part of the bible is wrong, which negates the perfect bible theory.

Some christians do. A whole lot of christians don't for a whole lot of different reasons.

The problem with arguing with one person about a topic that is really a composite of many different perspectives is that you don't actually get a good idea of what is actually going on. It's like arguing with one black person about what it means to be black. One person's opinion and experiences cannot possibly describe the opinion and experiences of a large group of people.

If the word slavery appears in a translation of the bible and is wrong, the translation is bad. Not necessarily that part of the original text. If I translated the original text of The Will to Power into english in a way that advocated anti-semitism, that's my fault, not Nietzsche's.

And while a bad interpretation could possibly reflect upon the work being interpreted, it could also be entirely the fault of the interpreter.

And the Christians who do are cherrypicking the ideas they like out of the bible while saying those they don't (slavery for one) are mistranslated or inaccurate. If we're going to play that game, then we have to admit that we have absolutely no clue what's out there, what created all of creation, and most frighteningly, what will happen to us (assuming we don't just cease to exist) when we die. If you admit that the bible CAN have inaccuracies, then you have no way of knowing where those inaccuracies are, and therefore you don't really KNOW anything about anything that's in the bible. And if you don't know anything that's in the bible, it's rather stupid to use it to justify or condemn anything, isn't it.

Why stop with the bible? We know that science is inaccurate. Any scientist who is honest will tell you that all science is justs an approximation based on experiment. Science does get things flat-out wrong. If we admit that science can be wrong, then we have no way of knowing where it is wrong, and therefore we don't really KNOW anything about anything. And if we don't know anything about anything then it's rather stupid to use anything to justify anything.

Besides that, the bible was written by people, presumably on behalf of god, or about their experiences with god, or whatever. The important thing is that is was written by people who most likely didn't have the whole story when it comes to god's divine plan. It's not exactly like god was holding their hand while they wrote, and it is probable that they added their own perspective a bit too.

As someone who make his living in the journalism trade you must be aware that the broad context in which you exist shapes the information you convey, regardless of who is telling you to share that information. I don't see how there is anything wrong with trying to examine the bible while taking into account the context in which it was written.

There is also a certain portion of christians who believe that god is still a relevant force in the world beyond just being embodied in a really old book. Shit, the pope speaks on behalf of god for the vast majority of catholics everywhere and he can change dogma at will. The notion that everything god ever needed to say to humanity was written in a book that's already a couple thousand years old seems a bit off to me.

Nice try, but this one's gonna fail. In the first place, you mentioned the most important part of my counter argument already. Science is honest, religion is not. If there's an error or an inaccuracy that science discovers, that fact is made known. Religion simply chalks it off as "god's plan" or some other such nonsense.

Then there's the small fact that while it's true that bleeding-edge science often finds that its theories are inaccurate, that doesn't change the established scientific dogma. What I mean by that is, whether exotic theoretical physics concepts like string theory or multiple parallel universes are or are not true, the established science (for example, the theory of gravity) will in all likelihood not change. If scientists conclude that string theory, for example, is not a valid theory, we will not suddenly float away from the planet.

Additionally science is peer-reviewed. That is, there's automatic error checking and continuing discovery built in to science. Science by definition questions itself constantly. By contrast, the bible is the bible, there's nothing to back it up, and we're simply expected to believe it because it says we should. I see a significant difference between science and the bible here, don't you?

Fourth, again using the theory of gravity, we are not simply told that gravity exists and we must believe in it because some guy we never met (Newton) SAID it's true. We are provided with mountains of concrete evidence of its existance. We fall, things drop, we don't fly off the planet, etc. We have absolutely no concrete evidence of god, Jesus's divinity, or any other religious idea. None. At all. All we've got is this book that swears it's telling the truth.

Now, given the choice between well established scientific theories which have a lot of evidence to back them up, or a book that swears it's telling the truth, which will you pick? I'll give you something to chew on before you answer: there's also a book out there that swears it's telling the truth, and describes alien autopsies performed at Area 51. There's another book out there that swears it's telling the truth that says Bigfoot roams North America throwing rocks at innocent hikers. And there's yet another book that swears it's telling the truth that says black people are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than white people.




Exactly my point. The bible is a bunch of claims made by men who 1) didn't have any secondary source to confirm what they were saying (who was up there with Moses on Mt. Sinai? Correct, nobody) and 2) stood to gain quite a bit if they could convince people that a wrathful god wanted the masses to listen to them (hey guys, God just gave me a bunch of rules and he sent ME down to tell you about them, and if you don't listen up he'll set you on fire forever).

Of course there's nothing wrong with that. Where we have the problem is when we start using the bible to justify whatever we want to do, despite the fact that we have no evidence to back the bible up. You mentioned my journalism career - one tenet of journalism is that you never go to press with only one source. Watergate could have been written in the first couple of weeks, except that the Washington Post needed more than just one guy telling them the president was a crook. By the same token, using one source and only one source to justify things like making discriminatory laws (no gay marriage), etc, is irresponsible. Examine the bible all you want, but don't expect everyone to believe what you say about it just because the bible says it's real.


And who can offer not one shred of physical evidence to back this up.

Or perhaps the pope speaks on behalf of himself and his organization and is able to change dogma because people BELIEVE he speaks on behalf of an all powerful being who can torture them forever if they piss him off.

Well yes, to me too, but the trouble is that we don't exactly have fireside chats with God now do we, and so it's rather difficult to decide what exactly god is, if he is anything at all.

What this all boils down to is that, barring solid evidence that god exists and is our master and wants us to do certain things, we should not impose those beliefs on others. If Falwell wants to avoid gay relationships, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that. That's his personal choice.

If he wants to impose his anti-gay morality on gay couples who are not in any way harming Falwell, we have a problem. Obviously the gay couple do not believe that what they want to do is wrong, and since God has been so oddly silent these past two millenia, it is not possible for any person to say whether Falwell is right, or the gay couple is right, as far as whether homosexuality is wrong or not. Therefore, to attempt to use your personal religion to force someone else to behave the way your morals dictate that you behave is an indefensible action. In short, if it's not hurting anyone else, people should be able to do it without having to worry about some jackass using a 2,000 year old unproven book to stop them.

I don't think that we need another science vs. religion thread. With that being said, science is not a silver bullet. Science is just what we can sense and it has nothing to say about spiritual matters beyond a shrug and a mumble. There is no reason one must pick science or religion. Science and religion can complement each other quite nicely seeing how neither one should have any sort of relevance in the evaluation of the validity of the other.

I don't know how many people took part in writing the various different things that got collected together and called the bible. I do know that it was more than two. Whether people stood to benefit from writing that shit down depends on the person. You should look up Job and see what an enticing image of god it makes.

I personally wouldn't use the bible to justify all the things i do, but i don't think it is any more unreasonable to use the bible to justify your actions that it is to use any other sort of code of ethics. I also don't think that you are very realistic in your demands for evidence. It would seem that your idea of what constitutes evidence would effectively eliminate a whole lot of recorded history from any sort of relevance.

Yeah, maybe. I don't know. Nobody knows except the pope and he isn't saying anything.

I think that many people who are faithful feel like they talk to god all the time. Not that they could ever prove it.

Well, falwell thinks he's right. I think he's a douchebag, and i agree that it is against the spirit of our country to attempt to prohibit certain activities that aren't innately harmful to nonconsenting parties. None of this is to say that i think that nothing in the bible has any relevance to what is going on today.

Your position seems to be that nobody has any reasonable justification for finding any kind of specific motivational content in the bible because no one has the "right" interpretation of what the bible means. I disagree.

Nope, my position is, don't use the bible as an excuse to persecute people you don't like. If you don't want to have a homosexual wedding, that's fine. Don't. But don't forbid other people to do it using the bible as your reason. Find a REAL reason if you want to outlaw it - namely, one that shows how gay marriage hurts others who are not in the marriage. And since two guys getting married isn't going to hurt anyone, don't forbid them to do it.

My other position is, if you're going to live by the bible, then live by the whole bible. Don't cherrypick the ideas you want to live by and then try to force other people to live by the same carefully selected ideas. This whole gay marriage debate could be ended if the "religious" side would follow the advice of their own book and "judge not lest ye be judged." But for some strange reason that's not a very commonly followed mandate, even though it's in the bible. I would postulate that it's not followed very much because it's a lot more fun to judge everybody else and to believe yourself to be superior.

Really? I guess when you said this:

You threw me off.

I think that people have every right to cherrypick whatever they want from the bible as long as they have some sort of justification beyond "well, i do like this part" for your cherrypicking. That's basically the process by which one makes sense of the world. You take in information, you decide what is relevant, and you disregard the rest. It isn't always an intellectually honest process, but it is pretty standard.

I think you're mistaken if you think that religious thought is the only thing standing in the way of legal gay marriage. Right here on the tfp there have been 100+ post threads on that very subject without religion coming up at all. People don't need religion to justify their disfavor towards gay marriage. They can use perspectives based on interpretations of economics, biology and sociology. Despite being more "honest" than religion, these disciplines are easily commandeered for the purpose of denying gays the right to marry. Do you think the fact that certain sociological theories can be used to justify the continued denial of gay rights should mean that any argument based on sociological theory is automatically unfounded?

I'm not sure why. I specifically said at the end of that paragraph that it's stupid to use the bible to justify *or condemn* anything.


People have the right to do whatever they want regarding religion, provided that what they want to do does not trample the rights of others. If you want to only read every 3rd word in the bible and call THAT the truth, that's OK by me. I really don't care. If you start trying to force ME to acknowledge it as the truth, or start trying to pass laws limiting MY freedom based on this truth that YOU believe, that's where we start having issues.

It's not the only thing, but it's a very big thing.

That's fine because an honest debate can ensue from an argument based on those branches of thought. Additionally if you think the majority of those opposed to gay marriage feel that way for anything BUT religious convictions, you are mistaken.


No. You seem to be trying to get me to admit that I feel that anything which is the opposite of what I want is automatically unfounded. That isn't true, however. What I AM saying is that if you want to ban gay marriage, you'd better have a damn good reason for it, and you'd better be able to back it up. Even a selfish and morally bankrupt reason such as "well I don't want gays to have the same tax advantages as everyone else does when they marry" is better than "the invisible man in the sky told me not to do it."

Shakran, this is becoming a waste of time.

So when you said that you think that the mere existence of a part of the bible that is open to intepretation effectively negates all of christianity all you were really saying is that using the bible to justify the denial of gay marriage is wrong?

Okay, i guess i see how that could've been confusing for me.

In an ideal world, probably. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. The world we do live in is full of people who disagree about different things for reasons that somebody, somewhere thinks are stupid. Most people are not open to changing their deeply held beliefs based unless the shit seriously hits the fan. Some people are willing to question their beliefs if given the right information in the right way.

If you want people of the biblical persuasion to think thoughtfully about what you're saying (provided they are in the minority of humanity that is open to questioning their fundamental beliefs) you must first come up with something more compelling than, "Your holy book contains information of questionable veracity therefore everything in it is unreliable and insufficient for any sort of proper decisionmaking." Why? Because it is a pretty obvious critique of the bible for anyone who would be open to the thought of questioning their beliefs. Probably they've already thought of it and asked their pastor and have been told either a)that the bible is the word of god and that questioning it's accuracy means going to hell, or b) that the bible is a historical document and, as with all historical documents, requires a certain knowledge of context to make proper sense of it. A pastor giving answer b might also make the questioner aware of the idea that there is some stuff in the bible (like genesis) that most likely didn't actually happen.

I think answer a often ends up bringing about the watershed moment where a person either becomes a blind follower or an athiest. Answer b is more compelling, and also more honest. It's also a good reason why your critique of the bible is pretty much useless as a means of changing the mind of a christian.

Do you have two independent sources to back up that claim? I've never seen statistics concerning the justifications given for opposing gay marriage by percentage.

Honest debate can ensue from arguments based on religion just as easily as it can ensue from arguments based on vague notions of what science says. All honest debate requires is that the people involved must share mutual respect and must have open minds; these things are often nowhere to be found when the subject of religion comes up.

Well, i've known you a while through this board and i must say that you generally seem to come across like you're pretty convinced that any idea opposite yours is unfounded.

What i'm saying is that just because the bible isn't necessarily a completely consistent and coherent piece of work doesn't mean that it is automatically a worthless source of information and motivation. See how we aren't really even talking about the same thing?

All this debate about gay marriage is irrelevant to my role in this thread and i won't talk about it anymore. I could frankly care less about your standards for what does and does not constitute a sufficient reason to ban gay marriage. Unless you're on the supreme court it doesn't matter to me.

I'm still trying to figure out why i am arguing about christianity and gay marriage with you when the only reason i said anything in this thread was to point out that will was making inaccurate assumptions about the role of the bible in christianity.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you can't FoolThemAll.