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
Westboro Baptist Church Thanks God; for London tube bombings
Topic Started: Jul 11 2005, 01:37 AM (3,074 Views)
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Steve Miller
Jul 12 2005, 10:13 PM
What's more, it's pretty plain that Falwell wouldn't care much for YOU either, making you at least partly to blame. :wink:

I know that Falwell wouldn't care much for me.

Falwell is associated with the SBC. I have listened to the President of the SBC speak of Catholics and their chances of salvation and whether they are true Christians. He didn't seem to think God thought too highly of us Catholics, either.

Can you imagine how many people God have would kill if I were Catholic AND gay AND an abortionist AND a feminist AND a member of the ACLU and of the People for the American Way?
[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
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Steve Miller
Jul 13 2005, 01:13 AM
Please note that he later apologized for his statement

I'd like to see the apology. I'd bet he didn't retract his belief.

And as for you, Steve, it seems you have no basis for your opinion other than it's your opinion. I'm curious as to how you formed it. Actually from reading all of your posts on religion in the past I can't remember you ever asserting that you actually believe in God and that Jesus is God's son. Perhaps I'm just mistaken. My memory isn't all that good sometimes. On the other hand, if you don't then why are you getting all upset?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Rick Zimmer
Jul 12 2005, 09:04 PM
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?

No, he did not say that God killed anyone.

Before we can have an intelligent discussion of this, you need to go back and read what the man actually said instead of rewording it to suit your own purpose.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
gryphon
Jul 13 2005, 01:47 AM
Steve Miller
Jul 13 2005, 01:13 AM
Please note that he later apologized for his statement

I'd like to see the apology.

I looked the apology up myself. I got this from a left wing website, but I trust they quoted him accurately.

"When I talked about God lifting the curtain of protection on our nation, I should have made it very clear that no one on this earth knows whether or not that occurred or did not occur."

He further (later) wrote on his website: "...on the 700 Club...I made a statement that I should not have made and which I sincerely regret. I apologize that, during a week when everyone appropriately dropped all labels and no one was seen as liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, religious or secular, I singled out for blame certain groups of Americans."

...the attack on Pagans and others was "uncalled for at the time, and unnecessary as part of the commentary on this destruction. I do not know if the horrific events of September 11 are the judgment of God, but if they are, that judgment is on all of America -- including me and all fellow sinners -- and not on any particular group.

My statements were understandably called divisive by some, including those whom I mentioned by name in the interview. This grieves me, as I had no intention of being divisive.

In conclusion, I blame no one but the hijackers and terrorists for the barbaric happenings of September 11."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
To follow up on his apology, this is just what I said earlier. There is no way of knowing why God allowed this to happen.

God didn't make the terrorists attack us. This is what seems to be confusing Steve (and apparently RZ) so much. There is no Biblical defense for a position like that. One can be made for Falwell's position, however weak or strong you may think it to be, but there is no way of knowing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Falwell quote cited by Steve:
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’.

I'm not particularly interested in the differences between Falwell and Phelps. As far as I'm concerned, one is sane and one is not - nothing theological about it.

I'm still waiting for those on the Christian Right to look in the mirror and notice that they and Bin Laden fault this country in almost the selfsame ways. Substitute "Allah" for "God" and a few other pertinent words, and you've got two theological peas in a pod.

Having waded twice through long FATWAH's of Bin Laden as well as a 16,000 wd. essay about his teacher and inspiration, Al Qutb', I see identity. No, the Religious Right is not sending suicide bombers and not hijacking planes. But we’re killing people from air and ground just the same. “Innocence” – as in “innocent civilian” is a strange concept in conflict, especially with a notion of collective complicity in the acts of a nation – all the more so in a democracy. Many would consider us as or more reprehensible in certain ways (napalm-like weaponry has been demonstrated in use by coalition forces). Civilians ARE getting it on both sides. Yes, I know the targeting is different. For now.

The fixation with secularity rather than decadence per se - this may be hard to believe - is what Al Qutb' faulted in America (where he spend considerable time). Not crime, alcohol, sexual licentiousness, etc. If American changed according to the model of the so-called theo-cons, I am sure this would please the Muslim-Radicals no end. If we'd then leave the Middle East (not saying any of this is going to happen), they not only wouldn't have a bone to pick with us, but they'd probably consider us a major ally (and go try to pressure China, which IS secular and atheist. This would happen, hopefully - from their point of view - with our help).

Gryphon is the only one who replied to my earlier comments (which I thought were rather striking), highlighting similarities between Us and (the Bogie of) Them. I wish someone else would at least acknowledge this troubling issue - the very similar aims and wishes of both Christian Radicals and Muslim Radicals. The use of civilian-targeted terror and the fact that they don't see Christ identically, aren't enough difference for MY comfort zone. I do not doubt that History will comment on this striking irony.

Furthermore, there are an increasingly number of end-justifies-the-means changes in methodology coming from the US to make these tactical differences, into finer and finer points of debate.

I see two groups, both believing themselves to have God/Allah on their side, both feeling they know what's best for the rest of the world - and both claiming a special pipeline to the mind of God. In this case, they both even feel America was in some sense "asking for it" on 9/11! This was because of moral flaws which they even describe similarly.

These quotes I find are NOT random, nor rare. They show. I believe, real communality of thinking and goals. You might even call it theology! That's why I consider both extremes, dangerous to me. Of the two, in fact, I’m sorry to say, that the US comes across much more clearly with arrogant claims not only of MORAL superiority, but also cultural/intellectual/and to a large – though implicit sense – ethnic too. I have heard from more than one of you, that we are entitled to claim resources belonging to the Arab world precisely because of this superiority! You don’t hear the Muslim world claiming they deserve OUR resources.

I hope I don’t hear comments attributing my thinking to treason – but I guess I might as well be prepared to hear either stupidity or treason as my faults. What else is there? (No such thing as having a good point worth thinking about? )
:no:
[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
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Amanda - im in partial agreement. I think that there is great danger in people who believe they are doing god's will, and Christian history is litered with examples. I also see the commonality of complaints about western culture to be ironic.

But I can't agree that the use of civilian-targeted terror isn't a big enough difference. It is THE key difference, in my mind, that makes one tolerable and the other not.



In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Jon, I'm not saying our extremists and their extremists are identical in every respect. Especially not in current tactics employed.

It's the similarity of thinking I see, which scares me - goals for the nation, goals for the World... modelled, forcibly if necessary, after themselves.

The Christian Right is our own Taliban, different in matter of degree rather than type.

Then too, I pointed out that in contrasting this "civilization clash" it is only on our side that I have heard talk of our entitlement to Resources belonging to them - and that, on grounds of our "superiority". That superiority can be simply stated, as such, or justified as "what's good for America is good for the world", or even just blatant, unexcused self-interest. To the victor go the spoils. International social darwinism (ironic!) - Whatever.

I hear ruthlessness in Radical Islam, but I don't hear greed.

I'm not choosing one over the other, mind you. I'm rejecting both. And again, to be clear, I am talking only about a particular mindset here - the "God on our side" folks who also believe that our God is a warrior God who wants America to prevail not just in self-defense, but in spreading OUR way, and to our material advantage.
[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
Amanda
Jul 13 2005, 06:12 AM
The Christian Right is our own Taliban

That's wrong. What's more, it's deeply offensive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
gryphon
Jul 11 2005, 1:20 PM
What Falwell said, which you conveniently left out, is that 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.


gryphon
Jul 12 2005, 11:33 PM
God didn't make the terrorists attack us.... There is no Biblical defense for a position like that. One can be made for Falwell's position, however weak or strong you may think it to be, but there is no way of knowing.

There, see?

You just had your own debate, and you didn't need me.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Saying God lifted his hand of protection is different from saying God made the terrorists attack us. Surely you can see the distinction.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
JBryan
Jul 13 2005, 10:23 AM
Saying God lifted his hand of protection is different from saying God made the terrorists attack us. Surely you can see the distinction.

THey're equally absurd, but there is a distintion.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
JBryan
Jul 13 2005, 07:23 AM
Saying God lifted his hand of protection is different from saying God made the terrorists attack us. Surely you can see the distinction.

Would you feel better about "God allowed the terrorists to attack us" - thereby suggesting that he would not have done so were it not for the various groups Falwell doesn't approve of?
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
The way I read what he said is: "God did not protect us from them because of our immoral behavior" of which homosexuality would only be a small part.

I do not, personally, subscribe to this notion and I am not a defender of Jerry Falwell in general but let us not ride rough shod over what he was actually saying in an attempt to equate it with the kookisms uttered by Fred Phelps.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Steve Miller
Jul 13 2005, 10:56 AM
JBryan
Jul 13 2005, 07:23 AM
Saying God lifted his hand of protection is different from saying God made the terrorists attack us. Surely you can see the distinction.

Would you feel better about "God allowed the terrorists to attack us" - thereby suggesting that he would not have done so were it not for the various groups Falwell doesn't approve of?

So we're back to square one in this thread: Falwell has his opinion, you think he is wrong. Why?

It's becoming rather humorous that you started this line of discussion because you disagreed with him, yet you refuse to state why you think he is wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
JBryan
Jul 13 2005, 08:00 AM
The way I read what he said is: "God did not protect us from them because of our immoral behavior" of which homosexuality would only be a small part.


'tis a very fine line between God allowing something and God causing something.

'tis an equally fine line drawn when trying to determine whether "God Hates Fags" or whether God instead lumps gays in to a larger group; the members of which he does not approve.

Perhaps one of our resident theologians will enlighten us as to the nature of the distinction.
Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Steve,

If I see a cement truck with a full load of mix bearing down on you from behind and I do not warn you or attempt to move you out of the way I see that as being quite distinct from actually driving the truck and doing nothing to prevent running you over.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
gyphon:
Quote:
 
QUOTE (Amanda @ Jul 13 2005, 06:12 AM)
The Christian Right is our own Taliban

That's wrong. What's more, it's deeply offensive.

I'm sorry, gryphon. I did not mean to offend, but of course, ineveitably, I did.
I prefer Christianity way, way over Islam, myself. To me , Christianity represents one of - if not the most - loving escapes in the world, from the trap of empty self-interest and egosm. And Islam - well, I'm frankly pretty ignorant, but it repels for countless reasons.

But looking away for the moment from the content of the religions (however hard that is), how is the vision of the radical Right different in style and goals - from the Taliban?
OK, I can see one thing which to you is probably No 1 - you will say, Christianity is allied with a democratic form of government. That perhaps Islam, is more authoritarian in nature.

Maybe. I don't know if this is inevitable. And I've been hearing a lot of talk in the last years about Conversion to both Christianity and democratic government (Capitalism really) - including conversions by force. I am having a lot of trouble with the notion I increasingly sense from the Christian Right, that they want to rule this country based on their religious principles - no, their own interpretations of Christian religious principles. Sure, it's seen as "for our own good".

But they see it that way too. I don't see how this is different from a Sha'aria except in degree. That's why "True Believers' often have more in common with each other than they do with more moderate members of their own "tribe".

And why so many of these opinions ARE nearly identical - from extreme elements of both Christianity and Islam.
[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
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
JBryan
Jul 13 2005, 08:43 AM
Steve,

If I see a cement truck with a full load of mix bearing down on you from behind and I do not warn you or attempt to move you out of the way I see that as being quite distinct from actually driving the truck and doing nothing to prevent running you over.

But you sir, are not God, and in your example God would be both observer and driver.

Wag more
Bark less
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
If it is your position that all things happen according to God's will then the discussion of him causing terrorists to attack us as opposed to not protecting us from them is moot. He does both.

I happen to believe that there is much that is within our power to change or affect.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Steve Miller
Jul 13 2005, 06:56 AM
JBryan
Jul 13 2005, 07:23 AM
Saying God lifted his hand of protection is different from saying God made the terrorists attack us. Surely you can see the distinction.

Would you feel better about "God allowed the terrorists to attack us" - thereby suggesting that he would not have done so were it not for the various groups Falwell doesn't approve of?

I cannot speak with great authority to the evangelical position, but I think you have it pretty much right.

The idea that God has a "protecting hand" on the nation is part of evangelical "covenant theology" -- wherein God has a covenant with the people and gives them land as a sign of that covenant. A very OT concept -- but still what fuels both America and Israel.

The notion is that God corrects his people through letting bad things happens (such as the Babylonian captivity) and blesses them when they are serving Him. God gave America to the "true Christians" who were driven out of Europe. It is interesting that the early settlers used metaphors of the Exodus. Much of America was shaped by this understanding-- including Manifest Destiny that mandated taking over the whole continent. So next time you patriotically sing "From sea to shining sea" you can reflect on the fact that your patriotism is derived from radical protestantism, and that you are living in the New Canaan which we were entitled to take from the heathen natives.

For a good understanding of the Evangelical mindset concerning America, I would recommend Peter Marshall's "The Light and the Glory". You will see what is at stake for the evangelicals, and why the liberals will have a hard time conquering the country.

Of course, as a Catholic none of this makes sense to me. Christ's covenant is with his Bride the Church. But since the Protestants reject that institution, and in many ways the ongoing new covenental sign of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, they have reverted to an OT paradigm of land and place.

Complex stuff, and I will defer to Reverend Dwain for more clarifications.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Very interesting post Steve. Yes there is an exclusivity to America that few outside can fully appreciate or even comprehend. I am sure that radical protestantism did much shape it. About two of three years ago, Jolly, I believe, posted an article in the OCR regarding the excusivity of America and in particular the USA. Your post recalls some its points.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
ivorythumper
Jul 13 2005, 12:12 PM
Christ's covenant is with his Bride the Church. But since the Protestants reject that institution

Woah, woah, woah...where'd you come up with that notion? That is exactly opposite of the truth (of any church I've ever attended or been a member of--think Billy Graham).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
gryphon
Jul 13 2005, 09:59 AM
ivorythumper
Jul 13 2005, 12:12 PM
Christ's covenant is with his Bride the Church. But since the Protestants reject that institution

Woah, woah, woah...where'd you come up with that notion? That is exactly opposite of the truth (of any church I've ever attended or been a member of--think Billy Graham).

I KNEW I'd get a bite using that bait!

The institutional Church (apostolic) was rejected by Protestants and along with it went the sacramental expression of the union between the Lamb and the Bride. The notion of "church" is still there -- whatever group of two or three gather -- but now takes so many forms that Christ now has a harem of Protestants and Evangelicals. The implicitly nuptial character of the Catholic Eucharist (including among other things a sacramental participation in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb) is simply not found in Protestant services (except perhaps for those "higher" liturgical groups that still retain vestiges of the Catholic Mass).

The convenant theology is there among evangelicals -- but it seems to me that in the instance of the American Evangelical experience it is translated back to a more OT paradigm of land, and not the NT sacramental understanding of marriage (which of course makes sense since you folks don't hold marriage to be an irrevokable sacramental sign of God's unity with humanity).

Of course, as I said, I am no authority on evangelicalism, so I would appreciate your take on this.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Steve Miller
Jul 13 2005, 11:32 AM
'tis a very fine line between God allowing something and God causing something.

Steve, if one believes in God, then by extension one must believe that God either allows, or causes, things to happen. Therefore, I don't fully understand why you are upset.

If God allows or causes things to happen, then we may ponder on the reasons for this. It is probably somewhat an excersize in futility because it is unlikely we will ever know with any certainty. Yet we know God's principles and, by and large, what God wants. At least we agree on most of the larger points.

We know that God punishes entire nations as well as individuals. Yet we also know that not every bad thing that happens is punishment or God's judgment on us. Take Joseph, for example. He wasn't sold into slavery by his brothers, subsequently spending years in prison in Egypt, as punishment. It was God's way of sparing and providing for Jacob and his family (not to mention saving a lot of Egyptian lives as well) during the seven years of famine. Likewise the man born blind that Jesus came upon that I mentioned in a previous post. Take a look at Job as well.

Falwell singled out some groups and said they helped this happen (were not the sole cause of it). In his apology he correctly pointed out, IMO, "I do not know if the horrific events of September 11 are the judgment of God, but if they are, that judgment is on all of America -- including me and all fellow sinners."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply