I can't say much about Falwell. He's made some off the cuff comments that have made him look a little silly at times, but the only difference between me and him in that regard is, HIS comments make page 1 when he makes them. I know Liberty University is a fine university, and would be equally proud to have my kids attend.

Robertson, however, is another matter. in his 1988 Presidential bid, his campaign literature contained his goal to "de-fund" the left. Opposition to another point of view is one thing; trying to silence it by driving it to bankruptcy is another.

Robertson is also a little to quick to pull the trigger on judgment; whenever a world event happens, he automatically ascribes it to God's wrath or God's blessing, while it may, in fact, be neither.

I'm also not too hot on "hirelings" using the word of God for profit. While I wouldn't put that label on Falwell (I, too, know many people who know the man who would support exactly what you've said about him), I do see it in Robertson. I've seen too many fundraising flyers from "the 700 Club" to see Robertson as being anything but.

I don't lump the two together, but you're right, many do. An odd recent trend has been to throw Dr. James Dobson into the mix, although he's totally separate as well.

One other thing about Falwell. I dont like how he basically stole Jim Bakker's ministry from him. I know Bakker was a con man, but that was not what a 'man of god' should have done.

i doubt you're gonna like my answers but here goes:

jerry falwell is a lying hypocrite who has paid for perjured testimony. i know this for a fact because i was offered a considerable amount of money to perjure myself oh his behalf; i also know someone who took the money and did just that.

in 1994, falwell collected $200,000 from his flock to fund a 'documentary' entitled 'the clinton chronicles: an investigation into the alleged criminal activities of bill clinton'. it was promoted via an infomercial in which falwell was seen 'interviewing' a person shown only in silhouette and identified as a 'journalist' who informed falwell those who exposed clinton were putting their lives in jeopardy. as it turns out, the 'journalist' was the film's producer and falwell's longtime friend, patrick matrisciana. matrisciana has since admitted to murray waas that he did not believe himself to be in any danger and stated, "That was Jerry's idea to do that ... He thought that would be dramatic."

matrisciana's 'citizens for honest government' organization has paid a number of individuals (including two arkansas state troopers) to make unsubstantiated allegations about clinton's involvement in the death of vince foster and paula jones' sexual harrassment suit.

in a 2005 interview, falwell stated: "To this day I do not know the accuracy of the claims made in The Clinton Chronicles"

so much for bearing false witness huh?

as far as liberty university goes, you are aware it would have gone belly-up in the mid-90s if not for a 3.5 million dollar donation by the rev sun myung moon who claims to be jesus christ's sucessor? falwell was photographed with his arms around the new messiah and later publicly called for a presidential pardon of moon's tax evasion conviction.

I dont like how he basically stole Jim Bakker's ministry from him. I know Bakker was a con man, but that was not what a 'man of god' should have done

where are you getting this?

drguy was apparently paying attention when bakker selected falwell to defend bakker's ptl organization from his fellow evangelists. falwell promised to do just that...and then put ptl into bankruptcy.

you can try to distance falwell from pat 'lake of farrr' robertson, but the only difference between the two is falwell's a lil slicker--usually.

here's a partial transcript from robertson's 9/13/2001 700 club broadcast:

FALWELL: I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

FALWELL: And I know that I'll hear from them for this. But,
throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. 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."

ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged". In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time -- calling upon God.

ROBERTSON: Amen.

in case it escaped anyone, falwell is the one claiming 911 to be the work of an angry god while robertson can barely get a word in.

drguy was apparently paying attention when bakker selected falwell to defend bakker's ptl organization from his fellow evangelists. falwell promised to do just that...and then put ptl into bankruptcy.

See?  I pay attention sometimes.

In the case of 911 God allowed this to happen. Why? To get our attention? To start the world going in the direction He wants?

That's the same thing the terrorists say.

So in other words, both you and god are on the terrorists' side.

To: KFC

The other thing about Falwell making the claim on 911 being the work of an angry God is not a new concept. Have you ever read Psalm 2? Pretty interesting especially in lieu of today's current events.

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Psa 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him.

Who are the heathen here (in the context of your 'argument')? Americans? The reeking Saudi swine that flew the planes into the WTC? The mad dogs of Israel, whom you rightly point out have been chastised too many times to count by a God made crazy by the stiff-neckedness of 'His' people? And who is the Son? Israel? Jesus? Dubya?

Falwell and his money-grubbing ilk will tell you the heathen in question are Americans - since according to their simplicity God has more interest in who you have sex with than in the righteousness of a burnt-offering of 3000 dead Americans and others. Perhaps, had Falwell & Co. attained to a greater level of sophistication, they would say the purpose of the act in question was to punish America for participating in the perennial obstinacy of the Jews in refusing to apply the Laws they were given to their political life - myself, I think such a point of view will always be beyond these whited sepulchres.

And who are the 'Kings' the Psalmist so boldly rebukes? Those who oppose Israel? Those who side with Israel in its stubborn rejection of righteousness through works (since they, as Jews, live under the covenant of Moses)? The monarchical regimes of the Middle East with which America has so strangely gotten into bed? I say strangely, because the entire premise of the existence of America is anti-monarchical and its founding values are the antithesis of all monarchies of every kind.

And the Son to whom the heathen are to be given; would that be Israel? Or Jesus (who, according to Revelation, is to kill all but 144,000 of the chosen people [Revelation 7: 1-8])?

At the time the Psalm was composed I have no doubt that its interpretation was the simplest thing imaginable: the Lord's anointed was the King of Israel, and the heathen were all the peoples not of the Twelve Tribes; the Kings to be vexed were the Kings of the heathen, and the 'Son' both Israel as a whole and the King of that particular day.

However, such simple times are long since gone and the exigesis of the Psalm in the context of 9/11 an exercise in total futility - for anyone with an open mind, that is. For a bigot such as Falwell exegesis is a simple matter, determined by his hatred of those parts of contemporary American society his prejudice has determined are 'ungodly'.

KFC, much of your confusion as to the nature of the 'mind of God' would be dispelled if you were to realize that Falwell's exegetical principle is also yours. Blind prejudice determines that, when your children escape the results of their own stupidity, it's a sign of God's favor. And the limitations of such prejudice also explain why, in any situation more complicated than that of your own family, the 'mind of God' is hidden from you. You understand God perfectly well when 'His' acts fit within your prejudices, hopes and fears (and are more than happy to belabor the rest of JU - and by extension the rest of the world - with demands to share those prejudices) but under any other circumstance you fall back on the tired cliche of God moving in mysterious ways.

The only mystery here lies in your ability to imagine that the Psalm you cite has any relevance to 'current events', when in fact it relates to a world now dead and gone for several thousand years. But then, you also imagine that Falwell and the others like him, filthy parasites that feed off the terrors of the simple-minded, are 'men of God'. The mountain of your bigotry is as transparent as glass, while the horrors your unpleasant little 'god' perpetrates are the merest molehills of faith, substantiated by convenient ignorance.

I'm sure your Jesus, that icon of confusion and incoherence, is proud of you.

To: Tova7

God COMMANDS the death of "innocent" civilians in the OT when he tells the Jews to slaughter the people on the promised land. Not just slaughter them, but even their animals! Not to leave a single person alive.

God commands the deaths of those engaged in idolatry, or those who stood in the way of the Israelites to the Promised Land, in the OT. Being idolaters they were, by definition, not innocent. Standing in opposition to the Israelites also meant, in the terms of the OT, that those who did so were not innocent.

I was not aware, personally, on the morning of 9/11 as I sat at my CAD work station, that God had issued as a public decree (as It invariably did through the mouths of Prophets and Judges) that those who worked in and around the WTC were either idolaters or enemies of Israel - and so were 'dedicated to destruction', that being the euphemistic phrase used in translations of the Bible for the wholesale eradiction of peoples and property.

You also step over the entire issue of the difference between the nature of the two covenants - the covenant of Judgment (the OT) and the covenant of Mercy (the NT). I suggest you read the writings of Joachim of Flores on the nature of the three spiritual ages of the world and their respective consequences for such issues.

The commandment against killing is no such thing. As you point out, there are any number of instances in the OT in which the Israelites are commanded to kill. There is, however, a commandment against murder. Whatever else 9/11 was, it was a series of acts of murder. Are you suggesting that God would so far deviate from Its nature, as recorded in the Bible, that it would instigate, or even condone, acts which explicitly contravene both covenants?

I remember a lot of people calling 9-11 "God trying to get our attention." But I believe just as evil happens everywhere, that God can use that to change people's lives personally. And if it caused people to examine their lives, and examine the country, then all the better.

Are you suggesting that those who died were more or less holy than anyone else in New York on that day? If you're suggesting they were 'chosen' to be killed because they were so meritorious that they were all martyred to teach us a lesson, let me remind you that, according to the Christian revelation, only Christ was innocent and therefore worthy to be sacrificed - and let me point out that, if that is your position, you have just annihilated the basis of your faith.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that they were greater sinners than anyone else, and so worthy to be punished, let me point you to these scriptures:

Luk 13:1 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
Luk 13:2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk 13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

On the one hand you add to the revelation of Christ by insinuating that some are at least as worthy as Christ to serve as an atoning sacrifice; and on the other, you take from the revelation of Christ by insinuating that some are more worthy of punishment than others - which contravenes that dictum that all are guilty and have fallen short.

Neither thing is good to do: Revelation 22: 18-19 I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.

'Book', here, means the Book of Revelation. But if the Spirit is true in one part, it's true also in another, since the same Spirit animates each part equally. If you're one of those who take the bible literally you'd do well to think rather more carefully than you have, before making any similar comments in the future.

To: Iconoclast

I'm so entirely weary of christians who have not the remotest understanding of the most basic precepts of their faith that I'm thinking of writing a 'Christianity for Dummies' piece. If that sounds arrogant it's because it is arrogant - 22 years of continuous study and thought, reading, rereading, and re-rereading of the whole Bible over that period, along with patristic writers such as Augustine and Irenaeus, along with a compendium of gnostics and other 'heretics' ought to and will provide a foundation for such a piece.

My only concern is the length to which it might grow. But hey - I'm unemployed; I have nothing but time right now.

To: KFC

I'm constantly astounded by the level of Scriptural ignorance you're willing to display in public. Do you count on your readers being more ignorant than you are -or do you merely hope and assume that they are more ignorant than you are?

Seeing that you claim to be a teacher, you ought to know that the context of scripture is the most important clue as to its meaning. The thrust of the chapter as a whole has to do with hypocrisy - something you and Falwell both are profoundly intimate with. The teaching of the chapter is not that Jesus was concerned with the spiritual over the physical, as you claim in your folly, but that those who are as honest in their doubt as they are in their faith will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before those who have merely the appearance of righteousness.

The verses you and I both cited, when taken in their proper context, have nothing whatever to do with 'the flesh' and everything to do with the proper appreciation of the dependence of the believer upon God for vindication.

suppose KFC and Tova think that, on the morning of 9/11, God somehow made sure that only sinners were in the WTC.

HAHAHA. Yeah, God sent me an order to be there but I was feeling disobedient that day.

EOIC

Let me spell it out for you.....

13:1 Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. Evidently, some worshipers from Galilee were condemned by Rome, perhaps because they were zealots and were sought out and killed in the temple by Roman authorities while in the process of offering a sacrifice. Such a killing would have been the grossest sort of blasphemy. Incidents like this inflamed the Jews’ hatred of Rome and finally led to rebellion, and the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70.

13:2 worse sinners. It was the belief of many that disaster and sudden death always signified divine displeasure over particular sins Those who suffered in uncommon ways were therefore assumed to be guilty of some more severe immorality. T

13:3 unless you repent. Jesus did not deny the connection between catastrophe and human evil, for all such afflictions ultimately stem from the curse of humanity’s fallenness. Furthermore, specific calamities may indeed be the fruit of certain iniquities. But Christ challenged the people’s notion that they were morally superior to those who suffered in such catastrophes. He called all to repent, for all were in danger of sudden destruction. No one is guaranteed time to prepare for death, so now is the time for repentance for all, you will all likewise perish. These words prophetically warned of the approaching judgment of Israel, which culminated in the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thousands in Jerusalem were killed by the Romans.

13:4 Siloam. Evidently one of the towers guarding the pool of Siloam collapsed, perhaps while under construction, killing some people. Again, the question in the minds of people was regarding the connection between calamity and isin (“worse sinners”). Jesus responded by saying that such a calamity was not God’s way to single out an especially evil group for death, but as a means of warning to all sinners. Calamitous judgment was eventually coming to all if they did not repent.

We all have a date with death whether it be by tragedy or not. On that same day of 9-11 many more thousands died that day all over the world. Some alone, some in pairs and some in groups. What matters more than the deaths of all these people all over the world is...their relationship with their creator.....did they make ammends with him or not?

To: Tova7 and KFC

As I said, what's needed is a 'Christianity for Dummies'. As well as 'Argumentation 101'.

There are no innocents in the OT in the sense that you say there are - and your insistence that there are simply demonstrates that you don't understand the nature of the God you profess to believe in, or the events 'recorded' in that series of books.

KFC - the constant reiteration of your original premise, in all its idiot glory, is not the same as responding to an argument.