In July 2005, Jerry Falwell was the keynote speaker at an Exodus conference. During his appearance, he approved of parents jailing their children at exgay boot camps such as Love In Action.
It was shocking enough at the time, that Exodus would permit a speech affirming the internment of teen-agers at camps that have developed reputations for abuse and maltreatment.
In late February, Falwell reminded the public that gay youths aren’t the only target of his hellbound self-righteousness: Falwell labels the choice of Judaism a sin and damns all Jews to hell, even though the Bible says otherwise.
From Christian Alliance for Progress:
Last week, Jerry Falwell, in a press release entitled “A Gracious Correction of the Jerusalem Post” repudiated a story in the Post claiming that he believed that Jews had a covenant with God that paralleled that of Chrstians, allowing them to be saved: “While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people — Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. — must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.”
The Christian Alliance argues that Falwell’s anti-Semitism is a transgression against a literal reading of the New Testament. In Romans 11, the Alliance points to Paul assuring the salvation of Jews despite their rejection of the gospels:
So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written,
‘Out of Zion will come the Deliverer;
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.’
‘And this is my covenant with them,
when I take away their sins.’As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
A Google search finds thousands of instances in which Falwell has used the phrase “Judeo-Christian” in speeches to soften the sound of his anti-Semitism.
Once again, I am puzzled:
Why did Exodus invite a Jew-hater and proponent for involuntary bootcamps to keynote its conference?
And why did Exodus cancel the comparatively compassionate Christian speech of Jay Bakker at the same conference?
To be fair to Falwell, his theological position is neither uncommon nor an indication of anti-Semitism.
Many Christian churches believe that salvation (and eventual eternity in Heaven) can only come through a belief in Jesus Christ as saviour. That isn’t too surprising, really. Most faith systems believe that their path to God is the correct one, and usually the only correct one.
The Romans 11 text quoted above does not seem conclusive in its support of the notion that Jews are excluded from the need to believe in Christ. A literal reading could also suggest that at Paul’s time his fellow Jews were temporarily “hardened” against the Gospel and that after “the full number of Gentiles” had “come in” then “Israel will be saved”. The difficulty with this passage is that (like most Scripture) it’s hard to know what the writer meant.
It is not hatred to believe that someone must follow your belief system to get to Heaven. It even isn’t hatred to believe that only 144,000 heterosexual Christians that baptise by emersion, worship on the seventh day, wear dark clothes, spin prayer wheels, face Mecca when they pray, and live in Utah will go to heaven. It’s not hatred, just dogma.
Hatred is not holding a theological position but rather is holding others in contempt, and usually is evidenced by behavior.
If you said that Jews couldn’t join your religion, that would be anti-Semitic. Insisting on civil law that gives preference to Christians and punishes Jews would be anti-Semetic. Speaking about how Jews were “destroying the family” or other imagined evils would be anti-Semetic. But applying to Jews the same rules that you apply to everyone else isn’t hateful, just dogmatic.
If Falwell has demostrated some form of hatred, then I would not hesitate at calling him anti-semetic or a Jew-hater, but his theological position isn’t adequate evidence.
clarification: “…the same rules for getting to Heaven that you apply to everyone else…”
Timothy are you saying dogma can’t be hateful, or that a person who believes a hateful dogma is not necessarily hateful themselves? The way I see it is that at least some religions are human creations and as such it is possible for a religion to be hateful in the same way its possible that its creators were. While I might entertain the possibility that someone can believe and live hateful dogma without being hateful themselves I am skeptical.
Sure, dogma can be hateful. But simply because a religion disagrees with ones own personal beliefs does not make it hateful.
If Falwell said “Jews can’t join my church and go to Heaven”, that would be hateful. But if Falwell says “Jews please join my church and come to Heaven with me”, it may be offensive but it isn’t hateful. I’m sure that Falwell is gladly willing to share Heaven with Lou Sheldon.
You are completely correct Timothy, and of course it would probably shock Fallwell to know that he is going straight to hell according to many, if not all, mainstream religions. Certainly the Roman Catholics, the oldest church in Christiandom, believe Fallwell is a heretic and will be condemned for believing in a false religion.
Timothy is correct that many Christians believe that non-believers will not get into heaven.
It does seem to me that it is indeed hateful to believe that God punishes with eternal damnation anybody who doesn’t believe in your religion. If you believe that, you must think it is justified.
Mark said:
It does seem to me that it is indeed hateful to believe that God punishes with eternal damnation anybody who doesn’t believe in your religion. If you believe that, you must think it is justified.
As Timothy explained quite well, this isn’t necessarily so.
David
Anyone for a lightning round of free will vs. determinism?
This post shows the typical “hatred” of the left for all things Falwell. He’s a convenient whipping boy.
Pro-gay activitists commonly mistake disagreement for hate, for many reasons. One, they are often immature. Second, they like to exaggerate (read “lie”) to misrepresent their opponents (ad hominem attacks are easier than argument). I wrote a post about this called What is Hate?
Regarding “a lightning round of free will vs. determinism,” I’m game.
Both are true. It’s one of those divine paradoxes like truth and love, or faith and works. If you take one and exclude the other, you have heresy and imabalance. Your turn.
Sorry, but I’m not understanding this discussion. If you believe that God is good and just and you believe that he sends Jews to hell, then you must believe it is good and just to send Jews to hell. How is that not hateful?
OK, Mark, here’s the very basic Christian faith in a nutshell.
God is perfectly good. All people, however, are bad, and have relegated themselves to hell by making themselves enemies of God. God loves all people, and sets out to rescue them. He sends his own good Son to save all people. Some people are saved by the rescue attempt, but others do not want to be rescued in this way, and so are not saved.
It’s not God’s fault if people reject his plan for rescue.
John S. – “all people are bad…enemies of God”.
And you say that’s not hateful John? I think your willingness to blindly believe has resulted in your being susceptible to outrageously contradictory lies.
Seeker’s : Regarding “a lightning round of free will vs. determinism,” I’m game.
Both are true. It’s one of those divine paradoxes like truth and love, or faith and works. If you take one and exclude the other, you have heresy and imabalance. Your turn.
Not my turn yet, you haven’t explained it. You’ve called it a paradox, and dressed it up as divine to hope nobody lifts the veil for a closer look, and added “heresy” in case a stick works better than a carrot.
Wikipedia’s entry on paradox is especially good. “The recognition of ambiguities, equivocations, and unstated assumptions underlying known paradoxes has led to significant advances in science, philosophy and mathematics.”
It also could lead to great advances in religious thought, but we’ve got to take the deus ex machina out of it.
I really meant my challenge a flippant comment on where the discussion seemed headed, but I’ll take my turn early.
You’re right, there’s nothing incompatible about free will and determinism, but your reasons are wrong. In a cosmology where there are an infinite number of universes, matter may exist in two places at once, and time is not linear, everything can be determined, yet there can be a limitless set of variations congruent to any thought or choice. These “free will” choices are really vectors through space that we might describe as an “alternate reality.”
But that plays havoc with what I assume are a set of “ambiguities, equivocations, and unstated assumptions” that you’re bringing as baggage in your appeal to the (read Xian?) “divine.”
I probably shouldn’t even ask, but John S. exactly how does a baby make himself an enemy of your god?
If I may, Randi: “And you say that’s not hateful John? I think your willingness to blindly believe has resulted in your being susceptible to outrageously contradictory lies.”
I don’t think it is necessarily hateful, though it is bigoted, because its based solely on faith and belief. For instance:
The Southern Baptists separated from the American Baptists at a time when slavery was being hotly debated. Many churches in the South took the view that slavery was biblical, and that blacks were a lesser race. It was a tortured explanation, based in part on the “lost tribes of Israel,” but it held sway even into my lifetime at some of the most racist churches.
There were many people in these congretations that did not hate blacks, and in fact were “charitable” to them as if they were somehow their stewards. Their view was based on a lie fed to them by people in power who annoited themselves as leaders wiser and more godly than their followers.
Hatred and bigotry are not necessarily the same thing, except when knowledge intervenes. That’s my big problem with Falwell, et al. These guys have to know better, but its so much more profitable and popular to be a demagogue.
Okay, I can buy that to a degree, but I was primarily thinking the statement of John’s to be indicative of the hatefulness of the author(s) of the bible. I’d take your (pbcliberal)’s statements a little further and say although there may have been bigoted racists in churchs who truly wanted to be charitable stewards of black people their actions and beliefs were hateful even if they themselves were unaware of it.
Having thought over the above two comments between PBCliberal and myself it occurs to me that it follows its possible for Iranians to execute gays and not be hateful – they might be sincerely doing what they think is best and right.
I’m not sure how much slack I’d want to cut any believer of hateful ideas simply because they are unaware themselves the ideas are hateful.
I’d agree. Phrased a little differently, it had a hateful outcome, and one that we’re all still paying for. These religions that use us as their whipping boys (and girls) face a similar future.
The OT authors of the bible lived in a time of tribal warfare the NT guys, subjugation to the whims and caprices of Rome.
The “same yesterday, today, and forever” folks would fall over in a dead faint if you tried to recreate everything from biblical times.
Poor “Marvin” over at Peterson Toscano’s is struggling with an aspect of this right now.
Randi,
I know that you are hostile to Christianity. Old story. But I’d like to point out that the purpose of this site is not a debate about whether Christianity is a true or even decent religion. And you know, as do I, that debate of that sort is offensive to others here who have a Christian faith.
I think you will agree that we have all refrained from treating your religous beliefs with derision. Please, Randi, lighten up. If you disagree with the idea that a person can have an exclusive dogma and yet not be hateful, that’s fine. I love ya, Randi, but the what-about-this, what-about-that nature of your comments are getting really tiresome.
However, assuming that you are asking real questions and not just being argumentative, I’ll address the points that you and Mark have made:
“”all people are bad…enemies of God”. And you say that’s not hateful John?”
This is not hateful. A non-superficial approach realizes that Christianity does not put a period here, but a comma (to borrow from the UCC). “All have sinned, BUT…” there is a plan for redemption.
Perhaps if you thought of it this way: We know that some persons behave evilly: murderers, rapists, etc. Rather than point and say “you’re evil”, Christianity says “we are all evil. I may not have done what you have done, but I’m capable of it. But for providence I might too be in your shoes. We all deserve punishment. But God loves us all, the good and the bad, so he will forgive us if we just ask him to.”
Mark: “It does seem to me that it is indeed hateful to believe that God punishes with eternal damnation anybody who doesn’t believe in your religion. If you believe that, you must think it is justified.”
It isn’t that God punishes those who don’t believe in my religion. Christians think of it this way:
Suppose there is a burning building but I have found a safe way out. If I say to you, “come this way to safety – don’t go that way or you will get burned”, I may be wrong but I’m certainly not hateful. Quite the opposite. It’s not that I think you deserve to die if you try another way out or sit there pretending that it’s a false alarm.
I don’t want to proseletyze and I certainly don’t ask you to adopt Christian beliefs. I’m not even defending these beliefs or explaining to the extent I agree or disagree. But please, guys, don’t misrepresent them. Because, frankly, if anyone is being hateful on this thread, it ain’t the Christians.
Timothy, the Christians have not been hateful on this thread I agree. Generally speaking I’ve really liked the Christians I’ve known. I even fell in love with two (at different times, one male, one female) and seriously considered going along with Christianity just to be closer to them. I don’t see where I’ve misrepresented Christian beliefs. The burning building example is only a valid analogy if you were the one that set the building on fire in the first place because you prejudged all people to be bad – god created hell after all.
I don’t want to overly single out Christianity, I am hostile to religion in general, I just happen to know Christianity best. I understand your frustration with my attitudes but as I think is often emphasized at exgay watch, I have not attacked the person, but rather the ideas I find hateful. I have also tentatively agreed with you that is is possible to have an exclusive dogma and not be hateful, I’m just not sure if there is an important distinction between that type of person and someone who is truly hateful – I fear their actions will be the same. I’m not sure how I can divorce my concern for LGBTs from my concern for the religious beliefs I sincerely feel are responsible for the inequity I see. By all means deride my beliefs if you find fault in them and I encourage you to do your best to do so.
I’m not trying to be arrogant Timothy. My philosophy of fairness first means nothing if it is flawed and people are afraid to offend me by saying so. I’m holding religious people to the same standard I hold myself, I think some Christians were just saying that’s not hateful.
Randi,
Encouraging others to cross a line which you seem unable to stay behind is not exactly “fairness first”. We’ve been over this ground frequently and recently. You are an intelligent adult and I’m sure by now you understand the rules so it’s time to exercise some self-control. I’m done reviewing the reasons we need to maintain mutual respect and how this is not a forum for bashing anyone’s beliefs – we both know you understand that. If you want to cross that line, get a personal blog. Otherwise, please stop doing it here – ok?
David
Randi,
It is unfair to equate dogma with hatred. It is unfair to lump all Christianity in one box and act as though there are not reasoned differences. It is unfair to look at a writings originating in a culture thousands of years ago and decide they are hateful without any study of culture or what was meant at the time by the writing. It is unfair to unilaterally decide that punishment of evil is by definition hatred. It is unfair to glibly justify your antagonism to Christians as being due to your concerns over LGBTs. It is unfair to only see the flaws in all religion and never see the good. And finally, it is unfair to keep bringing this up after some of us have asked you over and over to please be more respectful, as we are of you.
Based solely on “fairness first”, you are condemned by your own standard.
David I’m doing my best to get a personal blog going, actually it is going but for some reason I get “Url not found” when I try to link to it from my posts at exgay watch.
I honestly think its a good idea to cross that line whenever one sees conflict arising from beliefs – I may give the wrong impression I agree with you I’ve done something wrong because I also sincerely wish there was someway to cross that line without offending. I do put a lot of time into thinking how that can be done but haven’t found a way, maybe I’m just not smart enough.
Timothy, I think its to be expected that I am condemned by my own standard. We are all inevitably imperfect and as such doomed to fail at any perfect standard. My goal is not to meet the impossible standard but to come as close as I can. There is truth in what you say, I do always see the bad and not the good in religion and I am working to see it in a more balanced way. However I did not unilaterally decide that punishment of evil is by definition hatred. I don’t agree with that, it is acceptable to me to punish evil but in no way can a new born baby be considered evil just because it has the potential. It’s only fair to condemn people for evil they have done, not that which they might. It makes as much sense to credit newborn babies with the good they might do as it does to condemn them for the bad. A don’t see how a person’s morality can be anything but neutral when they haven’t acted yet. It seems to me that if more study of the culture or what was meant at the time would give me some logic to change that belief Christians wouldn’t hesitate to provide it instead of just asking me to blindly believe its there. I’ve read most of the bible which is more study than the majority of Christians in my family or circle of acquaintences has done.
Randi,
See my post above:
Posted by: ReasonAble at March 28, 2006 03:39 PM
David
Yes, I saw it and read it David.
You know David, I’m not sure what makes my posts a case of bashing beliefs rather than simply questioning and challenging them. This thread specifically invited comments on hatefulness and hell. If exgay watch doesn’t welcome bashing/questioning beliefs I don’t see why it allows people to post in the first place.
Well, I don’t think I need to “respect” a totally absurd belief. Tolerate, yes, but not “respect.” As long as you don’t violate my rights, you are free to believe as you like. But please do not ask me for “respect.”
Nonsense deserves no “respect.” Do you “respect” someone who thinks the earth sits on the back of a turtle?
Randi,
Enough already!! I’m not going to argue Original Sin or the Age of Accountability or provide references on historical context. This is not the site for that.
Let me simply say that (rude though this may sound) you are not well informed on what Christians actually believe. You are coming to the debate unarmed with fact and are arguing against what you think Christian doctrine to be – and you’re wrong.
And it is very frustrating to me to have to request over and over that you just stop being offensive. You don’t know what you’re talking about, get all caught up in the minutia, and are more judgemental and dogmatic than any fundamentalist right wing Christian I’ve ever met. And it angers me because I don’t like having to respond to you like this.
Just stop it. Before you say one more word about what you disagree with on Christianity or any other religion:
1. Do your research and make certain that you know the doctrine, be certain that it is cross-denominational, and know the subtleties and nuances;
2. Ask yourself whether it is evil to have this belief or whether it is just something that YOU don’t agree with; and
3. Ask yourself whether you really want to do war with those of us who don’t agree with you on these issues.
“Do you “respect” someone who thinks the earth sits on the back of a turtle?”
Ah, but Discworld does:
https://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/
You tell me I’m caught up in minutia and then ask me to know cross-denominational subtleties and nuances. I can’t imagine too many Christians consider the concept of original sin minutia. By all means tell me if I’m wrong about that.
I’m supposed to be a cross denominational expert in religion before I can have an opinion about it, but any Christian that’s never read the bible can have an opinion that LGBTs are bad.
Randi,
https://www.google.com/search?q=babies+hell+original+sin+age+of+accountability&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N
Randi,
I agree with David and Timothy — this is not an appropriate forum for challenging Christianity per se, and it is especially not a forum for blind and sweeping accusations.
We don’t tolerate accusations indefinitely. If you wish to conmiserate about these guidelines, please contact former XGW commenters Raj or DaleA (if you can find them — their anonymity was also a problem).
Please keep your comments on topic and document any claims. Otherwise, your commenting privileges will be suspended.
Posted by: Mike Airhart at March 28, 2006 07:02 PM
I acknowledge this is a restricted forum. I am not sure which of my claims/accusations you consider blind and sweeping. I suspect I value my commenting privileges at exgaywatch a great deal more than most. I have further concerns about this thread which I hope I may share privately with you without risking that which I value greatly.
Timothy said “It isn’t that God punishes those who don’t believe in my religion. Christians think of it this way:”
Timothy you know its fundamental to Abrahamic religions that non-believers are punished by God. Look at the contortions you go through to justify the position you took in the first post of this thread.
Randi, after all that’s gone on would you not think this is the worst thread to which to post another one of these argumentative comments? Even if it would be a reasonable question at another point and time, the carpet is wearing way to thin right here.
L-E-T I-T G-O
David