Jerry Falwell, RIP

| | Comments (38) | TrackBacks (0)

He meant a lot of things to a lot of people, but Jerry Falwell made his mark on just about every American.

Perhaps he should have spent more time thinking about loving his fellow man, but I respect his devotion to social conservatism, the Republican Party, and the gospel of Jesus Christ nonetheless.

RIP.

ADDITION: Those crazy protest people feel Dr. Falwell was too soft on gays apparently. T/H: Daily Whackjob

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Jerry Falwell, RIP.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1087

38 Comments

Singleton said:

Mr. Mansburger,

Your comment has been deleted. Respect is the word for the day and don't think I won't do it again.

Ps. I don't care if I spelled your name wrong.

mark said:

he hurt so many people with his bigoted views and hate towards others, thank GOD he can't do it anymore..

I hope others living the "Christainity lifestyle" learn from all his wrong doings.

Singleton said:

Hate to tell ya, but homosexuality is still sin.

Jerry Falwell could go too far sometimes, but he spoke the truth on that core issue.

Jack said:

I disagree, Singleton. Homosexual ACTS are sins.

zimzo said:

Why is that a core issue? The Bible mentions homosexuality in only a few passages and most of those seem to refer specifically to temple prostitution. The story of Lot seems to be about hospitality not homosexuality. Leviticus condemns homosexuality but also the eating of shellfish. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, although he does heal the servant of a Roman who may be his homosexual lover. Jesus not only does not condemn them, he blesses them. Paul condemns all sexuality and recommends celibacy as the best course, and marriage for those who cannot be celibate. His only references to homosexuality also appear to refer specifically to temple prostitutes.

So I wonder, as should anyone who has actually read the Bible and studied the words in their original languages should wonder, why is the idea that homosexuality is a sin a "core issue"?

Singleton said:

Jack-good point.

Zimzo-I really think joining the hallelujah chorus over at Raising Kaine might be a good blog move, and to quote Senator Thompson, I've been looking at my schedule, and I don't have time for you.

Jack said:

"The Bible mentions homosexuality in only a few passages and most of those seem to refer specifically to temple prostitution."

There is no mention of temple prostitution in Leviticus. It's right in there with not marrying a close relative or your wife's sister, and not to have sex with animals.

"Leviticus condemns homosexuality but also the eating of shellfish."

Both Jesus and Peter cleared up the food issue. Shellfish are OK, now.

"Jesus never mentions homosexuality, although he does heal the servant of a Roman who may be his homosexual lover."

There is absolutely no basis upon which that claim can rest. By the rules of logic, gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously dismissed.

"[Paul's] only references to homosexuality also appear to refer specifically to temple prostitutes."

Actually, Paul never mentions temple prostitution, so how can his admonitions "refer specifically" to it?

zimzo said:

Thanks, you made my point. You really don't know what's in the Bible. Condemnation of homosexuality is not a "core issue" of Christianity or Judaism. It's only a core issue for those who want to distort religion to score political points.

zimzo said:

The story of Jesus healing the servant of a Roman soldier appears in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. The words used for the slave are "entimos doulos" and "pais." These Greek words at the time were used to refer to a slave that was the male lover of the master.

Paul uses the words "arsenokoitai," which was generally used at the time to refer to homosexual slaves and "malakos," which generally referred to male prostitutes, and always in the context of condemning temple prostitution.

Leviticus of course has a number of strange laws, not all of which were "cleared up," including condemnation of wearing clothes made of two different fabrics, having sex with a woman during her period, and executing anyone who curses their mother or father. It's interesting that the only law from Leviticus anyone refers to nowadays is the one referring to homosexuality.

Paul seems to be referring to temple prostitution in 1 Corinthians 15-16.

The point is that there are very few references to homosexuality in the Bibile and all of those references are vague, despite the attempts of translators to to mistranslate the words to make them refer specifically to homosexuality. Hardly enough to justify calling it a "core issue."

stay puft said:

good stuff z

Jack said:

greekbible.com defines "pais" as "1) a child, boy or girl 1a) infants, children 2) servant, slave 2a) an attendant, servant, spec. a king's attendant, minister."

The word "entimos" does not appear. But before "doulos" is "tinos," which means "a certain." "Doulos" is also "servant":

"1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition 1a) a slave 1b) metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men 1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests 2) a servant, attendant"

Neither definition fits yours. Where did you get it?

Where does Paul use "arsenokoitai" and "malakos"?

"Paul seems to be referring to temple prostitution in 1 Corinthians 15-16."

What chapter?

I did not say that all of the laws were cleared up, only the food restrictions. I have also wondered about the "mixed stuff" passage. My father-in-law's study Bible (he is a clergyman) says that the word is not even of the Jewish language, and that the meaning is unclear. Certainly I know of nothing made of both wool and linen, which is the "such as" specifically mentioned. Even so, I assume that the Catholic Church abandoned some centuries ago, but I have not yet found out when that decision was made.

"It's interesting that the only law from Leviticus anyone refers to nowadays is the one referring to homosexuality."

Nonsense, we follow several laws in that particular passage. It is illegal to marry a close relative, and it is illegal to marry one's wife's sister.

Anonymous said:

My biggest problem with organized religion is that they try and force everyone to live the way their religion dictates.

I have no problem with someone believing in something as long as they don’t harm anyone with their thoughts – but they do. Who gave them the so called “moral authority”?

To the people who keep quoting the bible, we KNOW it says all that stuff in there – it’s in print, DUH? The problem is just because someone wrote something it doesn’t mean it’s true or can’t be questioned.

Why can’t we question your bible? I really want to know?

moses said:

Christians laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but they have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

jacob said:

Jack,
zimzo is reading out of Paul's epistle to 'The Parisians'. In other words he is making it up.

Further more Jack when in the passage where shellfish are forbidden it is actually specified for the Jew alone, and the passage is best translated as 'it is a despicable thing for you (the Jew) to do'.

On homosexuality in the same book (Lev.), the practice is refereed to an abomination and is listed as part of a threesome, the three being child sacrifice, homosexuality and bestiality (18:21-24).

The difference between having shrimp and homosexuality is sharpened a bit when put into context. Don't you think?

Jack said:

"My biggest problem with organized religion is that they try and force everyone to live the way their religion dictates."

Everyone does that -- organized religion is no different.

"Why can’t we question your bible? I really want to know?"

You can, and I answer as best I can.

Moses -- it is the martyrdom of those who knew Jesus personally, and of Paul, that convinces me of His resurrection. So many people were brutally persecuted and torture, but they refused to recant their story. Would they have done that for a lie?

tom said:

Exactly how was Falwell following the gospel of Christ while being a cheerleader for war?
Will there ever come a day when the christian right reads the New Testament and finds out how removed they are from anything Christ preached?

Jack said:

Matthew 10:

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

jacob said:

Tom,
1. Give onto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's

2. Try reading the New Testement.

Kevin said:

Uh, Jack, I think you are taking things a little out of context.

Jacob, championing war is not exactly giving unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

David said:

When Hitler committed suicide, do you think the Jews, homosexuals, members of the Romany tribe and others he persecuted, tortured and whose family he murdered were happy when his fall came?

When Jeffrey Dahlmer was sent to prison for life and then beaten to death by inmates, do you think the family members of the victim mourned his death?

Falwell has not killed anyone, but he has contributed to a legacy of hatred and division which in the end leads to murder, discrimination, and torture of others these type think are beneath them. Hitler never killed his victims directly either, yet we don’t debate on his status as a mass murderer.

How many deaths of homosexuals were encouraged by his hate speech that these were deserving of such actions?

He outright accused gays, liberals, and just about everyone else he hated for the tragedy at 9/11.

Hate speech from him is what caused the backlash against Americans who happened to look like they were from the Middle East, some of whom have been murdered.

Hate speech about the rights of women have kept them imprisoned in violent marriages ending in their deaths or trying to have a baby to term at the risk of her health.

Ignorance has killed many people in Africa from AIDS. His stance is part of the problem why so many are dying.

So save the bleeding heart stuff for someone deserving of it…unless you cried when you found out Dahlmer was killed, Hitler committed suicide, Gacy was executed…

Jack said:

I'll let zimzo bash you for the Hitler comparison. It's his specialty -- something about "Godwin's Law."

"How many deaths of homosexuals were encouraged by his hate speech that these were deserving of such actions?"

How 'bout you tell us, David?

"Hate speech from him is what caused the backlash against Americans who happened to look like they were from the Middle East, some of whom have been murdered."

I think it was the 3000 people murdered and the billions of dollars in damage that caused the backlash.

"Hate speech about the rights of women have kept them imprisoned in violent marriages ending in their deaths or trying to have a baby to term at the risk of her health."

Bullcrap. Read the Bible. Men have a much more difficult assignment. Wives are called to obey their husbands; husbands are called to love their wives as Jesus loved the church, and gave up his life for her.

And Heaven forbid that a mother try to save her child's life at risk of her own. How unbiblical!

"Ignorance has killed many people in Africa from AIDS."

And what is the reason for the infection rate in the U.S., for a completely preventable disease? Not ignorance, but apathy and malice.

jacob said:

Kevin,
Championing war? Really. Lets put it this way.
When one's family is threatened on the street one does not always have the luxury of either:

a. calling to the cop standing on the coner
b. running away

Turning one's cheek only applies to the protection of self. We are called to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Peace at all costs is as wrong headed as war at a drop of a hat.

Championing war Kevin? I wish we never had to fight. But sitting there and calling terrorism a nuisance is not peace, its ignoring the aggresion. Hoping the agressor runs out of steam before we run out of warm bodies is rank cowardice.

Kevin said:

Hey Jacob, I'm no peacenik, I was just attending to the literal comparison of "being a cheerleader for war?" to "1. Give onto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's".

Whether we should have started with Iraq is separate argument.

jacob said:

Kevin,
Put it into context. Tom above was basically saying that the only proper position for a Christian w.r.t. war in general is that of pacisfist, and all Christians on right end of the spectrum are wrong in their support for this war or any other.

'Give onto Ceaser ...' is a context for supporting the government, and its actions; this does not mean blind allegiance either. I supose I could have gotten into the 'powers and principalities line of argument' but not many a non-beleiver is familiar of that passage (Eph 3:10).

As for ol tom, it is obvious that he despises the right, and the christian right. It is equally obvious that he should take his own advice and actually read the New Testament.

spmm said:

it's all in the interpretation

Kevin said:

I can't speak for tom or his opinions of the Right or the Religious Right (don't forget to include Mitt Romney). Nor can I speak to his knowledge or un-knowledge of the New Testament.

I know what "Give unto Caes." was in reference to and I don't think it relates. Now, if you were wanting to argue about paying taxes to support this war and you didn't agree with the war, then I might agree. But to say "The gov't is asking us to be cheerleaders for war so I'm going to cheerlead for war," well I just think that's damn funny. I would argue there were plenty of ways that Christ didn't support the gov't, knowing they would be upset with Him.

Now, if you made the argument that Christ didn't behave in the way the gov't wanted him to because He had a higher rule of law . . . No, I can't even come up with a comparison.

What a silly argument to be having. I'm arguing semantics. It's your use of that piece of scripture in THIS argument. Geez. Anyways, technically, your counterpoint using that piece of scripture was unimpressive, is all I'm saying. Whatever.

jacob said:

Kevin,
Actually, point taken. 'Give unto Ceaser ...' was intellectually lazy on my part. There are better pieces of scripture that would have countered Tom.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
"it's all in the interpretation"
True, but that only goes so far. Intepretations of various passages have been argued over for milennia. Some interpreations hold more water than others do. So not all intepretations are created equal. OK?

Kevin said:

It's cool, man. That's nice of ya, Jacob.

David said:

Jack, you have shown your ignorance with your response to my post, I hope someday you get it before its too late!

It’s truly people like you that breads hate and intolerance towards others.

May God bless you!

Jack said:

You provide the Typical Liberal Response, David. You cannot argue my points rationally, so you simply go for the ad hominem attack.

Perhaps you should have Jonathan proof-read your rants for grammar and spelling before you accuse others of being ignorant.

Finally, God has already blessed me, far more than I deserve. The least I can do in return is to obey His commandments.

Jack said:

One last point, David. God also hates sin, and does not tolerate it.

David said:

Jack, I responded the way I did for two reasons; (1) so you could understand it and (2) so others reading this know you’re a lost cause and to pray for you.

As for my spelling / grammar error, clearly a mistake, but I do have one question though; how does a spelling/grammar make one ignorant? I didn’t know this was an English class.


David said:

love is not a sin, hate and intolerance are.

Jack said:

Spelling and grammar errors do not "make one ignorant"; they demonstrate one's ignorance.

Mark said:

Love is not a sin, hate and intolerance are.

Jack said:

Loving and tolerating sin is a sin.

Mark said:

Loving another “person” is never a sin.

The true God "promotes" love; it’s the best and most powerful thing he ever created, it's what life is ALL about.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM