Buzsaw writes:
If you go back I asked that you apprise us as to what lies Falwell was telling. I'm still waiting for the specifics on that.
Percy writes:
You somehow missed Jar's quoting right in this thread of Falwell's 9/11 remarks on the Pat Robertson show? I've alluded to it several times, you can Google it, and Jar has provided other supporting quotes as evidence. Just because you're replying to me doesn't mean that evidence provided by others in this thread doesn't exist.
I did include that statement in my response to jar in #247 where I asked what constituted a threat of violence in the quote. That Pat sees God as allowing catastrophy in response to national sins poses no threat of violence by Pat or his organization. Imo, it's the love of God and country that prompts people like Pat to tell it like he sees it knowing it is not going to make him popular. What do you expect him to do? Wimp out as so many do as a spokesman for God's words and fail to warn the nation of what he considers to be drawing God's wrath upon our nation?
Percy writes:
I appreciate that there are at least some shyster evangelists you condemn, but you're missing the point. That you defend Falwell and Hovind while faulting Swaggert and Bakker is indicative of one of the most serious problems of religion.
1. I said there are issues with Falwell which I have. You seem to be missing and fail to refute my point that nothing you or Jar have come up with constitute violence or lying on the part of Falwell.
2. You appear to have missed my point that I reserved judgement on Hovind until the verdict was out. I did not offer a cross the board defense. It's out and I stated that he did likely deserve some punishment though imo, it was quite harsh compared to the average tax evader punishment if indeed it offered no chance of parole.
Percy writes:
While participating fully in the encouragement of faith and devotion, the primary denominations just leave the devoted out there alone and defenseless to be preyed upon by evangelical shysters for God. Why don't the Catholic church or the Baptist church or the World Evangelical Alliance just come right out and say, "Look, folks, these faith healers are frauds, these donation machine evangelists are frauds." Actually, I can already see why they don't, the ice isn't all that thick under their own feet.
My total college was a year and a half at Bob Jones University back in the early 1950s. At chapel we got plenty of sound warnings about such healer evangelists as Oral Roberts, et al. In most churches I've been warnings have been sufficiently effective concerning these con artist clerics. They are not Biblical fundies as some here consistently fail to acknowledge. The Biblical NT instruction for miraculous healing is spelled out in James five where the sick are instructed to
call the
elders of the local church. Roberts and others are out there calling the sick to them for profit. Imo, most of the mainline churches err in that they don't even allow for the James 5 healing in their churches. That's beside the point however. Suffice to sum up that the true Biblical fundie mainline churches do warn about and condemn the conduct of people like Roberts.
Percy writes:
The point is that science is self-correcting and self-administrating. Falsehoods don't survive in science because the final judge is the real world. Fabricating evidence instead of ferreting it out from real world observation and experiment can never hide for long, because it will be discovered by those measuring the results against, to say it again, real world observation and experiment.
In other words, both religion and politics has no policing structure.
I beg to differ. I see debate, splits and such going on all the time in the fundie churches and in politics for the very purpose of policing/contending with evil and falsehoods. As my pastor puts it, "let iron sharpen iron." I don't know about your church, but plenty of this debate goes on in most of the ones I've attended. Note also the split in the Episcopal denomination over the gay issue. Is not this some of what is similar to what science does regarding
policing/debating the issues as to what is true and false, or in religion what is right or wrong, i.e. Biblical or non-Biblical, i.e. exploitive or non-exploitive et al?
Percy writes:
Just tune to any religious channel or watch almost any political commercial and you can see the evidence of virtually no respect for truth. That's why it's so easy for someone to be a liar for Christ,.....
As per Percy and Jar's perspective of what constitutes truth or as per Buzsaw and NJ's perspective? I don't see all of what you claim as
truth. I see it as false. Nevertheless, I certainly don't believe you are a liar nor would I ever suggest such a thing. I see you as
mistaken as you do me on many issues we debate. Why can't you and Jar be a little less judgemental with people like Falwell in this regard and instead acknowledge the good work people like him do?
Percy, I watch and respect both Billy Graham and Shuler. However it's these folks who are so quiet on controversial people and issues. On the one hand you criticize the ones who speak up on the controversial people/issues and on the other hand you praise the ones who don't.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
™ Version 4.2
