Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9
Westboro Baptist Church Thanks God; for London tube bombings
Topic Started: Jul 11 2005, 01:37 AM (3,075 Views)
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
gryphon
Jul 11 2005, 04:29 PM
Steve, let's take this in two parts.

Part 1: Phelps said he was happy that London was bombed, and he wishes more had been killed. You are ascribing equal comments to Falwell when he in fact made no such comments.

This is wrong on your part.

Part 2: You disagree with Falwell on his theology.

That is fine.

So you agree with Falwell? If you do, you may be the first person I have ever met who actually admitted it. Do you also agree with his "AIDS is God's curse" pronouncement?

And if you agree with Falwell, why wouldn't you agree with Phelps when he says that Londoners were killed because they support Sodomites?
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Thumpy: "If there is no God, there is no objective morality. It would be all subjective (either to the individual or the collective -- it hardly matters). Nothing other than some imputed Social Contract theory and the threat of punishment from an organized force greater than the weaker to dictate what is acceptable or not acceptable human behavior. No real argument against murder or rape or child molestation if you can get away with it. After all, it would be all purely mechanical forces at work any way -- no such thing as true justice or human dignity apart from whatever the individual or collective ascribed it as. "

Strawman alert!! Remember folks, if there is no RCC, there is no morality! You heard it here first! Forget several thousand years of philosophy. LOL.

By the way, Plato proved in the Euthyphro about 2500 years ago that the existence of a god was logically irrelevant to morality. I suggest you read it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Jolly:
Quote:
 

What Falwell expressed was what many of us (including me sometimes) thought about 9/11, and the punishment of America (the New Israel, perhaps?) by a just God. A bit too rooted in the Old Testament, perhaps, but certainly not looney bin material....


Gryphon:
Quote:
 
...history has shown that when a nation turns away from God, He lifts his hand of protection. This has been shown time and time again in OT Israel, for example. This was his larger point, and by way of explanation he said that what we were doing wrong was the killing of babies via abortion, etc.

You may not agree with him, but theologically he was sound….

God hates evil.


Exactly what Al-Qaeda says! That they were the instruments of God’s will – and for precisely the reasons stated. Forget just the fag business (you know how much they like that anyhow). It’s about decadence and evil-doers getting punished.

Think on that, brethren.

And you guys laugh at Liberals for supposedly blaming the victims!

[size=5]
We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[/size]

"Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
So is Falwell theologically wrong? That is where the argument lies. He's allowed to believe what he wants, is he not? And you are free to show him where he is in error. Falwell isn't bombing innocent civilians, in case you hadn't noticed Ariel. He's not breaking any laws.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
garrett
Middle Aged Carp
Phelps is a stones throw away from being dangerous (he lack a substantial following).

Falwell wouldn't even know which way to throw the stone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Steve Miller
Jul 11 2005, 11:38 PM
gryphon
Jul 11 2005, 04:29 PM
Steve, let's take this in two parts.

Part 1: Phelps said he was happy that London was bombed, and he wishes more had been killed. You are ascribing equal comments to Falwell when he in fact made no such comments.

This is wrong on your part.

Part 2: You disagree with Falwell on his theology.

That is fine.

So you agree with Falwell? If you do, you may be the first person I have ever met who actually admitted it. Do you also agree with his "AIDS is God's curse" pronouncement?

And if you agree with Falwell, why wouldn't you agree with Phelps when he says that Londoners were killed because they support Sodomites?

Steve, you keep running away from what you said. Phelps said he was happy that London was bombed, and he wishes more had been killed, and Falwell believes the same.

I won't bring it up again. I know you won't address it because you can't defend your position.

As to the second point, do I think Falwell was right? I don't know. I am reminded of the man born blind. People wondered why, and Jesus said that he was born blind so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. God's reasons may not be apparent to us. The best we can do is simply look at what God has said and done, and using this criteria, is it possible that Falwell was right? Absolutely. God reproves nations that turn away from Him. This I believe. Is that what happened on 9/11? I have no way of knowing.

(I don't know anything about the aids statement).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
gryphon
Jul 11 2005, 09:41 PM
Steve, you keep running away from what you said. Phelps said he was happy that London was bombed, and he wishes more had been killed, and Falwell believes the same.

I won't bring it up again. I know you won't address it because you can't defend your position.


OK, now I see where you are going with this. You're focusing on the glee.

Phelps said God killed innocent people in the subways of London and he is happy about it. Falwell said that God killed innocent people in the WTC because of gays and does not say he is happy about it.

To you, these are two different statements. To me, they are not. They are the same statement, except one includes a particularly nasty bit of glee about it while the other doesn't mention it. We're left to decide whether Falwell feels any glee over it - maybe he does, maybe not.

Either way, both statements are completely reprehensible, undefendable in any way and contrary to everything that is and ever was representative of the teaching of Christ.

And everyone seems to be going out of their way not to mention it.

Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Steve, I've talked about both of your points. I am not trying to steer the conversation anywhere that you did not bring up yourself. You made two points. The first was that Phelps was happy it happened and wished more were killed. The second was that it could be God's punishment.

I don't know if it was God removing his hand of protection from us for our evil deeds. This has happened in the past. As I said, look at Israel. Whenever as a nation they turned away from God they were overtaken by another nation. When they got themselves right and called to God for help they were delivered. It was a clear repeating cycle. I think Falwell has a theological basis for his argument. You think he doesn't, but you haven't explained your reasoning.

(By the way, I also believe in what God told Abraham: I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.")

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Steve, you are minimizing one side and maximizing the other. I'm no Falwell fan, but to be fair, it isn't just that "he didn't mention" being gleeful. Phelps said what he said because he was glad it happened, as you've agreed. Falwell said what he said, not because he was glad it happened, a point not to be dismissed simply because he didn't say it, but because it makes him unhappy - exactly the opposite of Phelps.

Phelps sees the issue and takes pleasure from it. Falwell sees it and is saddened by it. Phelps' point is "nya nya boo boo you got what you deserve". Falwell's point is "this shouldn't be, and I have a solution".

Whether you or I agree with or even believe his solution is beside the point - you're trying to portray his statement as being the same as Phelps' by dismissing the lack of "glee" in Falwell's statement as simply an omission of words but he really meant the same thing. That's just not the case. His reason for saying what he said was completely opposite of Phelps' reason.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Larry
Jul 11 2005, 11:21 PM
Phelps sees the issue and takes pleasure from it. Falwell sees it and is saddened by it. Phelps' point is "nya nya boo boo you got what you deserve". Falwell's point is "this shouldn't be, and I have a solution".

A fair assessment - overly charitable perhaps, but fair.

The question then becomes, do you agree with him? And having heard his statement, do you feel comfortable with Jerry Falwell as spokesman for Christians in America?
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 11 2005, 07:42 PM
Thumpy: "If there is no God, there is no objective morality. It would be all subjective (either to the individual or the collective -- it hardly matters). Nothing other than some imputed Social Contract theory and the threat of punishment from an organized force greater than the weaker to dictate what is acceptable or not acceptable human behavior. No real argument against murder or rape or child molestation if you can get away with it. After all, it would be all purely mechanical forces at work any way -- no such thing as true justice or human dignity apart from whatever the individual or collective ascribed it as. "

    Strawman alert!!  Remember folks, if there is no RCC, there is no morality! You heard it here first!  Forget several thousand years of philosophy.  LOL.

    By the way, Plato proved in the Euthyphro about 2500 years ago that the existence of a god was logically irrelevant to morality.  I suggest you read it.

Jeffrey:

With all due respect, it is this sort of rhetoric that makes it hard for me to believe that you ever studied philosophy, let alone hold a doctorate in it, let alone presumed to teach it.

In Euthyphro, which I have read on several occassions in the past, Plato does no such thing as prove that "that the existence of a god was logically irrelevant to morality." Rather, he has Socrates looking to Euthyphro as an examination for the relationship between piety and action. (He is looking for justification against the charges against himself for impiety which would condemn him to death). Socrates asks the famous question of Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”. This dialogue has engendered the "Euthyphro Dilemma", [“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” ] which is posited (incorrectly in my estimation, since the question does not account for telos among other factors) as a refutation of Divine Command theory, but this question is neither actually found in the Euthyphro dialogue nor is it answered in the dialogue.

In the end, Euth finds reason to leave and Socrates must be resigned to his fate since he cannot find justification from his indictment. Hardly what you portray the dialogue to prove.

Really, Jeff, you would flunk any college level philosophy course with the drivel that you asserted to Euthyphro.

But, for amusement, go ahead and try to assert an objective moral argument without grounding it in a transcendent view of the cosmos. I doubt I would need to appeal to the RCC or the Incarnation.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Steve Miller
Jul 12 2005, 12:54 AM
both statements are completely reprehensible, undefendable in any way and contrary to everything that is and ever was representative of the teaching of Christ.

Okay, Steve, you make this assertion. What basis do you have for it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Steve Miller
Jul 12 2005, 02:45 AM
The question then becomes, do you agree with him?  And having heard his statement, do you feel comfortable with Jerry Falwell as spokesman for Christians in America?

No, you haven't gone beyond your initial question. The question still is if you don't believe Falwell, where is he wrong? (He may be, but why do you think your opinion is right and his isn't?)

I don't think Falwell is a spokesman for Christians any more than the pope is a spokesman for Christians. There are some that would feel comfortable with either being a spokesman for them, not others. Is Jesse Jackson a spokesman for blacks?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Jul 11 2005, 10:45 PM
Larry
Jul 11 2005, 11:21 PM
Phelps sees the issue and takes pleasure from it. Falwell sees it and is saddened by it. Phelps' point is "nya nya boo boo you got what you deserve". Falwell's point is "this shouldn't be, and I have a solution".

A fair assessment - overly charitable perhaps, but fair.

The question then becomes, do you agree with him? And having heard his statement, do you feel comfortable with Jerry Falwell as spokesman for Christians in America?

Falwell is only a spokesman for himself, and what he believes.

Having said that, however, there are a lot of Falwells down here. There aren't many Phelps.

Liberty Road (if I remember correctly) is still affiliated with the SBC. If not, a large part of Falwell's theology would be right at home in the seminary in New Orleans, but not so much in Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary (which produced Bill Moyers). There is a Left Wing and a Right Wing within the SBC. It's part of the fun of being Baptist...don't like the message? Start your own church.

It's how Baptists divide, and conquer. :biggrin:
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
"This dialogue has engendered the "Euthyphro Dilemma", [“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?” ]..."

Not sure what the fuss is; the answer to this question is simply "yes."

;)
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
gryphon
Jul 12 2005, 07:49 AM
Steve Miller
Jul 12 2005, 02:45 AM
The question then becomes, do you agree with him?  And having heard his statement, do you feel comfortable with Jerry Falwell as spokesman for Christians in America?

No, you haven't gone beyond your initial question. The question still is if you don't believe Falwell, where is he wrong? (He may be, but why do you think your opinion is right and his isn't?)

I don't think Falwell is a spokesman for Christians any more than the pope is a spokesman for Christians. There are some that would feel comfortable with either being a spokesman for them, not others. Is Jesse Jackson a spokesman for blacks?

Steve?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
gryphon
Jul 12 2005, 08:48 PM
Steve?

Not going there.

In order to continue this discussion, we have to exchange ideas about which parts of the the Bible we believe and which parts we don't. We've had these discussions before.

What will happen is that someone will come up with a blanket statement that all parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and they believe every word. Then some wag will trot out the Dr. Laura letter, pointing out the absurditity of such a position. Insults will ensue, followed by oaths of retribution and at least one member vowing never to post again.

Who needs the grief?



Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Now wait a minute. You posted an opinion by Falwell. You said you thought he was wrong, but you refuse to say why he was wrong. Why is your opinion any better than his?

Nobody has to get angry. I don't see anyone flying off the handle here. How can you say you don't want to discuss the opinions? You started the topic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
gryphon
Jul 12 2005, 09:13 PM
Now wait a minute. You posted an opinion by Falwell. You said you thought he was wrong, but you refuse to say why he was wrong. Why is your opinion any better than his?

Nobody has to get angry. I don't see anyone flying off the handle here.

The only way Fallwell can be right is if Phelps is right -- that "God hates fags" so much that if a country moves towards giving homosexuals civil rights God's anger becomes so inflamed that He is willing to kill 3000 innocent people who had nothing to do with the rights being given to homosexuals just to make a point.

[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
That's ridiculous, Rick.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Jul 12 2005, 09:38 PM
That's ridiculous, Rick.

I agree Larry. I think linking God to 911 as Falwell did, saying it was because of homosexuals and abortion, is ridiculous.

But if Rev Falwell is serious that 911 occurred because God was angry about homosexual rights, then what I laid out is the only way Falwell can be correct -- that God "hates fags" so much that He gets angry enough to have 3000 innocent people killed because this country is moving to acceptance of homosexuals and beginning to give them their civil rights.

What else would you say Falwell's comments say about the mind of God?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Rick, Falwell didn't say "God hates fags". And if you don't have any better grasp of the theological statement he was making than you appear to have, you shouldn't even be stating an opinion, because you aren't equipped for the discussion.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Larry
Jul 12 2005, 09:56 PM
Rick, Falwell didn't say "God hates fags". And if you don't have any better grasp of the theological statement he was making than you appear to have, you shouldn't even be stating an opinion, because you aren't equipped for the discussion.

Pray Larry, what is the theological point you believe Falwell was making?
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Larry
Jul 12 2005, 09:56 PM
Rick, Falwell didn't say "God hates fags". And if you don't have any better grasp of the theological statement he was making than you appear to have, you shouldn't even be stating an opinion, because you aren't equipped for the discussion.

No he did not say that. However, he did say that God killed 3000 innocent people to punish this country for accepting homosexuals.

Such level of anger can only come from hatred. Where else would it come from?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jul 12 2005, 10:04 PM
However, he did say that God killed 3000 innocent people to punish this country for accepting homosexuals.


Sorry, Rick. Larry has you on this one. Falwell did not say God killed 3000 innocent people because of fags.

Falwell said God killed 3000 innocent people because of pagans, abortionists, feminists, lesbians, the ACLU, People for the American Way, people who have tried to secularize America AND fags.

What's more, it's pretty plain that Falwell wouldn't care much for YOU either, making you at least partly to blame. :wink:

The quote's right here:

Quote:
 
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’.


Please note that he later apologized for his statement (made on the 700 Club TV show) and (very important) at no time did he seem particularly happy about it.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9