Jerry Falwell

sedohre

I've posted this link because I have been angered by what I've read about this man, he's dead now.

Thank God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell

cotwold

Wikipedia wrote:

American evangelical Christian pastor and televangelist

More than enough to know i'm not gonna like him.

Frei

There's plenty more where he came from. The disturbing reality of America is that is becoming more and more polarised in it's political and social views.

cotwold

Yeah the whole rise of evangelicalism and christian "fundamentalism" really scares me.


Especially whenever channel 4 do some tell all espose on it.:pac:

KnifeWRENCH

Wikipedia wrote:

Comments about LGBT people
Falwell has condemned homosexuality as forbidden by the Bible. Pro gay-rights groups called Falwell an "agent of intolerance" and "the founder of the anti-gay industry" for statements he has made and for campaigning against LGBT social movements.[25][2][26] Falwell supported Anita Bryant's 1977 "Save Our Children" campaign to overturn a Florida ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and a similar movement in California.[2] In urging the repeal of the ordinance, Falwell told one crowd, "Gay folks would just as soon kill you as look at you."[27] When the mostly gay Metropolitan Community Church was almost accepted into the World Council of Churches, Falwell called them "brute beasts" and stated, "this vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven."[28] He later denied this, but was successfully sued over the remark.[29] Falwell also regularly linked the AIDS pandemic to LGBT issues and stated, “AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”[30] Amongst many remarks over the years he is probably most known for statements attributed to him about a Teletubby being a gay role model for homosexual recruitment and stating that gays and lesbians were amongst those in some way responsible for the September 11 attacks.[31][32][33]

After Ellen DeGeneres came out as a lesbian, televangelist Jerry Falwell referred to her in a sermon as "Ellen DeGenerate." DeGeneres responded by saying "Really, he called me that? Ellen DeGenerate? I've been getting that since the fourth grade. I guess I'm happy I could give him work."[34]

Charming fellow, wasn't he?

Still, as Frei said there are plenty like him in the evangelical conservative Bible belt of America, Fred and Shirley Phelps being the most obvious examples. It's difficult to gauge how much influence they actually have though - pretty much everyone writes off the Phelps' as being nutters but others like this Falwell guy may have more impact on your average Joe Christian. (Obviously not all Christians are homophobic, I'm just referring to those that are)

I did lol at Ellen's quote though. I like her, even if she does dance far more than a normal person should. :pac:

Aard

Yeah Ellen DeGeneres not taking him seriously helps - it stops people legitimising his statements and realise how absurd it all is.

LegacyUser

cotwold wrote: »

Yeah the whole rise of evangelicalism and christian "fundamentalism" really scares me.


Especially whenever channel 4 do some tell all espose on it.:pac:

Speaking of evangelicalism anyone here been down to that Christian church at the bottom of the peoples park in Dun Laoghaire? I got bad vibes off that place.

Boston

Hold on a second, 9/11? Seriously? He partly attributes 9/11, an attack carried out by Muslim religious zealots to homosexuals. If I believed in a heaven or a hell, then the thought of him burning right now would be of great comfort.

jady88

Boston wrote: »

Hold on a second, 9/11? Seriously? He partly attributes 9/11, an attack carried out by Muslim religious zealots to homosexuals. If I believed in a heaven or a hell, then the thought of him burning right now would be of great comfort.

Well it might make sense if you believe in that kind of god.

jeckle

It’s a pity someone didn’t get to ask Mr. Falwell a few questions before he popped his clogs, for example:


·[font=&quot] I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

[/font]
·[font=&quot]I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.:o

[/font]
·[font=&quot]Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Scottish & Welsh people, but not English people. Can you clarify? Why can't I own English people?:mad:

[/font]
·[font=&quot]I have a neighbour who insists on working in BT2 on Sundays (the Sabbath). In the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?:eek:

[/font]
·[font=&quot]A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't know. Can you settle this?:)

[/font]
·[font=&quot]Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some leeway here?;)

[/font]
·[font=&quot]Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?:D

[/font]
·[font=&quot]I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?:pac:

[/font]
·[font=&quot]My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).:cool:


[/font]

JupiterKid

As Colm O'Gorman wrote in this month's edition of GCN, hatred of gay people, like that from religious fundamentalists (like Jerry Falwell and some posters on boards.ie that we all know) comes in degrees, from torture and murder of gay men in Iraq to banning of Pride events in Eastern Europe -

- to the lack of full equality here in Ireland and the backward-influenced thinking that is still very prevalent in this little isle of ours.

Let's not kid ourselves here - Ireland is one of the least socially progressive countries in Western Europe and we still have quite a way to go to achieve full equality. The media in this country is very much dominated by conservatives.:(

Falwell represented a monstrous group of hatred filled and nonsense filled people who would like nothing more that to destroy the LGBT community. These religious opponents of gay rights are, in my opinion, my enemy and I'll have no truck with their hatred - no matter how much they try to couch it as "compassion.":mad:

nozzferrahhtoo

I think Hitchens summed up Falwell better than anyone I have heard yet. Basically he said:

If you gave Falwell an Enema, you could have buried him in a match box. People like that deserve to be out on the streets yelling verses from the bible and selling pencils from a cup. It is a pity I do not believe in a hell for him to go to.

KnifeWRENCH

jeckle's post reminds me of that great scene from The West Wing where Bartlet owns Jenna Jacobs. It was posted here on another thread not so long ago, but it's worth watching again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvQqhkd--a0

Bottle_of_Smoke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4

cotwold

The perils of the fox network den

philologos

jeckle: If homosexuality was only prohibited in the Old Testament, I might understand your point. However, it is mentioned in the New Testament also. Your points are all readily explicable, your mind seems to be made up already though.

As for Jerry Fallwell, he's a man who has profited from the Gospel, and he clearly went too far in his comments.

Just because we regard something as a sin doesn't entitle us to slander other people. We all sin, and we've all fallen short of the glory of God. Christianity offers us a clean slate to gain a new relationship with God for those who are interested.

nozzferrahhtoo

I might be interested, but given your lack of ability, or willingness (I wont presume to know which, as it would be unfair to you) to provide any evidence for such an entity even existing, it seems about as useful to me at this time to "gain a new relationship" with my nephews imaginary friend Nathan which is just as real to him, and lets face it, just as real to me.

Until then however, I see no reason not to keep discussions and comments on homosexuality constrained to the real world. In the real world Falwell made his living off slandering people who were different from him while hiding behind the title of "Reverend".

Reflector

Jakkass wrote: »

jeckle: If homosexuality was only prohibited in the Old Testament, I might understand your point. However, it is mentioned in the New Testament also. Your points are all readily explicable, your mind seems to be made up already though.

As for Jerry Fallwell, he's a man who has profited from the Gospel, and he clearly went too far in his comments.

Just because we regard something as a sin doesn't entitle us to slander other people. We all sin, and we've all fallen short of the glory of God. Christianity offers us a clean slate to gain a new relationship with God for those who are interested.

Well in The Lord of the Rings there is no mention that being gay is wrong and actually Sam and Frodos relationship might well be regarded as being gay as they express real affection for eachother.
So therefore I believe that being gay is ok.
God is a fictional character and the bible is a book, a bleedin book that was startedwover 2000 years ago. how can something written by men in a civilization that no longer exists actually be considered to apply to modern life.
If you want to believe in God fine that is your perogative but why should everyone abide by what you believe and why would a god who creates homosexuals condemn homosexuality. It just doesn't make any sense. The world would be a much better place without the three main religions which all come from the same place and look how f**ked up the middle east is.

elekid

Jakkass wrote: »

jeckle: If homosexuality was only prohibited in the Old Testament, I might understand your point. However, it is mentioned in the New Testament also. Your points are all readily explicable, your mind seems to be made up already though.

I love this convenient picking and choosing of which part of the 2000 year old book do and don't have to be followed.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Jerry Fallwell, he's a man who has profited from the Gospel, and he clearly went too far in his comments.

I wonder if people like him don't do more good than harm to gay rights as most people hopefully see what crazy hate-filled nutjobs they are and sympathise more with the people they target.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because we regard something as a sin doesn't entitle us to slander other people. We all sin, and we've all fallen short of the glory of God. Christianity offers us a clean slate to gain a new relationship with God for those who are interested.

It shouldn't entitle you to affect how other people live their lives either but that's what happens.

What's the christian response to a young person who is gay or confused about their sexuality? This new relationship with god would presumably involve them abstaining from a physical relationship with someone of the same sex for the rest of their life, wouldn't it?

philologos

Reflector wrote: »

Well in The Lord of the Rings there is no mention that being gay is wrong and actually Sam and Frodos relationship might well be regarded as being gay as they express real affection for eachother

Again, you've made up your mind already. As for Sam and Frodos relationship, knowing J.R.R Tolkeins background, I don't think it is likely.

Reflector wrote: »

So therefore I believe that being gay is ok.

The Christian objection isn't to being gay, it's to sexual acts outside of a traditional marriage. That is a choice that people make, I seek to follow this.

Reflector wrote: »

God is a fictional character and the bible is a book, a bleedin book that was startedwover 2000 years ago. how can something written by men in a civilization that no longer exists actually be considered to apply to modern life.

Again, you have your mind made up already. However, it isn't factual in the slightest that God is a fictional character.

As for the Bible's age, if something is true, it is true irrespective of antiquity.

As for the Bible applying to modern life, many people do this successfully, not without difficulty, but through understanding who Jesus was, and what lifestyle He wants them to follow. Some accept this path, and others do not. That is ultimately your choice.

Reflector wrote: »

If you want to believe in God fine that is your perogative but why should everyone abide by what you believe and why would a god who creates homosexuals condemn homosexuality. It just doesn't make any sense. The world would be a much better place without the three main religions which all come from the same place and look how f**ked up the middle east is.

People can decide to believe in whatever they want. I personally think that people should believe because God has a plan for everyone's life, a fulfilling plan that will enhance their lives. All Christians do is promote and offer people a chance to enter into a relationship with God, whether or not this happens is up to you.

I'm doubtful the world would be better off, in fact I think it would be worse off without the contribution that believers offer to their society and the motivation that faith has brought into peoples lives including my own.

N.B It might be better if we stay on topic and talk about Jerry Fallwell and his related projects, "The Moral Majority", Liberty University amongst others and the grievances that homosexuals have against this?

philologos

elekid wrote: »

I love this convenient picking and choosing of which part of the 2000 year old book do and don't have to be followed.

What convenient picking and choosing? What is sinful remains by and large to be sinful with the exception of cultural laws, and punishments. This is explained rather clearly in the New Testament.

Christians, live for Christ, and interpret the Hebrew Scriptures as He would have done. If I were a Jew I would differ no doubt.

elekid wrote: »

I wonder if people like him don't do more good than harm to gay rights as most people hopefully see what crazy hate-filled nutjobs they are and sympathise more with the people they target.

People like whom? People who spout hatred, or people who have a moral disagreement to homosexuality? There is a difference.

elekid wrote: »

It shouldn't entitle you to affect how other people live their lives either but that's what happens.

In what respect?

elekid wrote: »

What's the christian response to a young person who is gay or confused about their sexuality? This new relationship with god would presumably involve them abstaining from a physical relationship with someone of the same sex for the rest of their life, wouldn't it?

Yes, but then again this same implication implies to those who are unmarried.

It is a choice to be involved in this relationship. I have decided to follow it, others no doubt won't. I don't expect non-Christians to live as Christians, although I do hope more hear about the Gospel.

nozzferrahhtoo: I would advise you to look for some decent Christian apologetics. I have posted concerning what evidence by indication we have for God's existence, but it generally isn't worth the effort. It's better that you read what people have to say, think and pray about it if you have an honest heart to know God, otherwise it is futile.

See the bold in my first post.

Tricity Bendix

Why do people continue to respond to Jakass? We're not going to change Jakass' mind, and Jakass isn't going to change ours. Alls that will happen is that every thread will be derailed by a debate about Christianity. Nothing can be gained from this endless bickering. And for one am sick of it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Strange that you would reply to everyone else like normal, but hide a reply to me at the end of a message to someone else. Stranger still that you did not do it the first time, but waited for a post Edit.

… stranger still that the BOLD in your first post said to stay on topic then the second post went right off it again… guess it is one rule for you and one rule for everyone else… suffice to say your bolded request has been noted, considered, denied and disregarded. Thanks anyway.

But how now, back to your reply…

Yes, I am well aware of people like you who SAY there is evidence then make some excuse or other for not posting it. Such excuses are for example “You wouldn’t understand it”, “You don’t really want to hear it anyway” or “You just have not read the correct books so off you go and keep looking”.

Suffice to say, this is about as useful to me as a game of scrabble with the vowels left out and I am left still with only two options, you are either unwilling, or unable to supply such evidence. I know which one is more likely, but I am still granting you the fact I do not know which it is.

Which leaves us back in the real world where, back on topic, Falwell was a twisted man who made his money off selling a lie and slandering innocent people while doing so. However, there is no wonder that he had to invent a powerful invisible friend to back up his bigotry and his money making, as he was apparently unable to give a single real world argument against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Beruthiel

Jakkass wrote: »

However, it isn't factual in the slightest that God is a fictional character.

A total lack of actual scientific evidence would suggest it is.

As for the Bible's age, if something is true, it is true irrespective of antiquity.

In this instance, 'truth' is relative.

jeckle

The fact is that the New Testament does not provide any direct guidance for understanding & making judgements about homosexuality in the modern world.

Jakkass wrote:

If homosexuality was only prohibited in the Old Testament, I might understand your point. However, it is mentioned in the New Testament also.

Strictly speaking, the New Testament says nothing at all about homosexuality!

There is not a single Greek word or phrase in the entire New Testament that should be translated into English as homosexual or homosexuality. In fact, the very notion of homosexuality - like that of heterosexuality, bisexuality, and even sexual orientation - is essentially a modern concept that would simply have been unintelligible to the New Testament writers.

At most,there are only three passages in the entire New Testament that refer to what we today would call homosexual activity.

Two of the three passages that possibly refer to homosexuality [Corinthians 6:9–10] & [Timothy 1:8–11] are simply more-or-less miscellaneous catalogues of behaviour that are regarded as unacceptable, with no particular emphasis placed on any individual item in the list.

The third passage that could possibly be interpreted as referring to homosexuality [Romans 1:26–27] is based on some highly debatable presuppositions about it’s nature and causes: that it is exploitive, rooted in idolatry, a denial of one’s own true nature & an expression of insatiable lust.

If homosexuality is not necessarily any of these things, however, then it would appear that the New Testament has nothing to say about it in any direct sense. In other words, if homosexuality is exploitive, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is rooted in idolatry, then it is wrong; if homosexuality represents a denial of one’s own true nature, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is an expression of insatiable lust, then it is wrong.

But then, we could say the exact same thing about heterosexuality, couldn’t we? Or could we? Or indeed, should we?

Hope this helps.

Jakkass wrote:

As for Jerry Fallwell, he's a man who has profited from the Gospel, and he clearly went too far in his comments.

aMEN to that!

elekid

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Why do people continue to respond to Jakass? We're not going to change Jakass' mind, and Jakass isn't going to change ours. Alls that will happen is that every thread will be derailed by a debate about Christianity. Nothing can be gained from this endless bickering. And for one am sick of it.

You're right. I mainly do it because I'm bored in work. Seriously!

Sometimes I can't resist challenging something I strongly disagree with, even if the only outcome is making myself feel a bit better (or worse). It can also be interesting to find out where people get their opinions from and, while these threads are tiresome after a while, I have learned a lot from them and they have helped solidify my views on various things. I only started reading threads like these recently so a few more months and I'm sure I'll be sick of seeing it all repeated ad nauseum too.

As you say though it is mostly pointless and I wouldn't expect anyones opinion on stuff like this is going to be changed by a post on Boards. It's like banging your head against a brick wall, except less productive and it gives you a worse headache. I'll learn to stop one of these days..

Back OT, I was saying I think people like Jerry Falwell and the Phelps come across as too crazy and hate-filled for most people to take seriously. I love Ellen's response above

Stark

People, as I've said it before, take it to the Christianity forum. I'll leave it alone this time as the OP probably isn't too familiar with the forums, but next time there'll be mod pwnage if threads start getting derailed by Christianity discussions.