Dispatches from the Culture Wars

I got really annoyed with all the fake mourning that went on following Jerry Falwell's death. How does the act of dying undo all the evil bullshit one did during life?

Posted by: Wes | August 6, 2008 9:47 AM

The church "caught fire?" To the kind of "Christian" who routinely blames gays for the hurricanes that hit Florida and New Orleans, and just about everyone not like themselves for 9/11, that SHOULD be interpreted as a sign of God's disapproval of Phelps' actions. And I'm sure the entire Christianist Reich will be publicly rethinking their entire mindset in response to this obvious sign from a God whose anger they know so well. Yep, any minute now...

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2008 9:51 AM

Unless the family celebrates services in their garage, a church did not burn. No one was hurt

Posted by: Kathy Suits | August 6, 2008 9:52 AM

It might be time to repost Bill Maher's tribute to Jerry Fallwell.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/20/bill-mahers-touching-tribute-to-jerry-falwell/

"New Rule - Death isn't always sad"

Posted by: mess | August 6, 2008 10:18 AM

It was the garage and a fence that burned. The 'church' was untouched.

Posted by: Elf Eye | August 6, 2008 10:35 AM

I really don't spend much time thinking about Fred Phelps. I doubt his death would change that. Both morning and celebrating imply more emotional investment than I think I could muster. Most likely I'd have a fleeting moment of sadness intermingled with relief then never give him another thought.

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 6, 2008 10:37 AM

"The family, sadly, survived."
I agree with this thought, and hold another one (evil, neutral, or natural, depending on your views): I am always thrilled when this group of horrid people are traveling, because that increases the chance they will run off the road and kill themselves (without hurting anyone else, of course).

Posted by: Dean | August 6, 2008 10:49 AM

I know they are dead serious about what they believe; but I, for the life of me, cannot take their antics seriously at all (yet I've never had someone close to me exposed to their funeral protest). They are pure carnival to me. PT Barnum could take them on tour.

Posted by: Jon Rowe | August 6, 2008 11:20 AM

My son, who was in the Offutt AFB Honor Guard, has seen the Phelps gang in action. He is appalled at the behavior of these loonies. They cause loads of pain to the bereaved families.

I like my son's idea of sending the Phelps family to the interior of Afghanistan but it seems kinda nasty to treat the Afghans that way.

Posted by: Anne | August 6, 2008 11:33 AM

I agree completely. When this monster finally dies, I think I'm going to throw a party.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 11:57 AM

Believe it or not, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is a good thing! To me it shows how bad real Christianity really is, because everything they say is actually in the bible. The church only consists of less than a hundred people and is not growing. They are also hated by mainstream public maybe even more than the evil baby eating atheists. To me, having these people look so ridiculous helps pull people away from the superstitions of the religion more. I think of them as putting a sarcastic view on Christianity. I also think most people see them as a joke so they end up having a similar effect as the Colbert Report. Maybe it's just me, but I like these guys. They seem to be the only "real" Christians out there. People with delusional unmoving belief in what the bible says. They take the good the bad and the ugly, unlike most Christians who cherry-pick the bible. I think they are providing the world with a push in the right direction: away from religion.

Posted by: Rob | August 6, 2008 12:12 PM

Believe it or not, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is a good thing! To me it shows how bad real Christianity really is, because everything they say is actually in the bible. The church only consists of less than a hundred people and is not growing. They are also hated by mainstream public maybe even more than the evil baby eating atheists. To me, having these people look so ridiculous helps pull people away from the superstitions of the religion more. I think of them as putting a sarcastic view on Christianity. I also think most people see them as a joke so they end up having a similar effect as the Colbert Report. Maybe it's just me, but I like these guys. They seem to be the only "real" Christians out there. People with delusional unmoving belief in what the bible says. They take the good the bad and the ugly, unlike most Christians who cherry-pick the bible. I think they are providing the world with a push in the right direction: away from religion.

Posted by: Rob | August 6, 2008 12:27 PM

Sorry about the over posting, it's not intentional. Scienceblogs is doing updates or something.

Posted by: rob | August 6, 2008 12:36 PM

So if Fred dies because the stupidity within causes his head to explode, will his harpy daughter protest at his funeral, thanking God that Fred is dead?

Posted by: mark | August 6, 2008 12:51 PM

They take the good the bad and the ugly, unlike most Christians who cherry-pick the bible.

Completely wrong. They do cherry-pick the Bible. They take the bad and the ugly and rationalize away the good. The exact opposite of what most Christians do, and a whole lot worse.

Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | August 6, 2008 12:59 PM

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow

Posted by: khan | August 6, 2008 1:27 PM

Fred Phelps and company picketed my brother's law school graduation in 1996. I guess they figured somebody in the graduating class had to be gay? Slow picketing day? I don't know. Anyway, he strikes me more than anything else as a sad, pathetic old man. If he were a sad old senator, or otherwise had the opportunity to exert power over me, I might be able to summon up more ire.

Posted by: Gretchen | August 6, 2008 1:40 PM

I completely agree that some people don't deserve to be mourned and have gotten my share of flak for saying so. I have never understood the whole "all death is sad" attitude, especially since it seems to come most from religious folks who believe in an afterlife and presumably divine judgment. When Phelps dies I think the best thing that could be done is to completely ignore his funeral. No protests, no celebratory articles, no nothing. Just a resounding silence that says "you didn't matter while alive, you matter even less dead."

Posted by: jba | August 6, 2008 1:57 PM

I would be very, very, very happy to see Fred Phelps himself kick the bucket in a very, very, very painful way, but I'm not so sure about the rest of the family.

http://www.blank.org/addict/

It's a long article, but worth reading (albeit with physical and psychological abuse triggers out the wazoo), that draws on interviews with the entire family, and largely from the two brothers that managed to get out. Most of the "church" is comprised of Fred's abused, brainwashed children. I can't see them as much other than victims. It's pretty horrific, but I feel that, if the serpent's head were cut off, the rest of them might be redeemable. Really, that bastard's the only one I wish death upon (although I do so very, very fervently).

We're talking a man who forced his children to run marathons on starvation rations, who beat them to bloody concussions with a mattock handle, who drove a son's girlfriend to suicide, and who convinced his children in their bones that, if they disobeyed him, they were cast out of God's Elect and would suffer eternal hellfire. I can't even imagine their pain.... although I wish every bit of it on him.

Posted by: Falyne | August 6, 2008 2:01 PM

Blaidd Drwg scripsit: by 'fags, or their agents'

Posted by: Lusoman | August 6, 2008 2:27 PM

>> If this were true, we would see the Phelps Bunch picketing every Red Lobster and Joe's Crab Shack in the country. After all, the prohibition against shellfish resides in the same book wherein their beloved anti-sodomy passage lies. >>

I can't help but laugh every time I see this stuff. Sadie, you and many others on this blog think of yourselves as so brilliant and enlightened, but statements like that just demonstrate your ignorance. The prohibition against shellfish doesn't apply to American Christians because it is part of a legal code that applied to ancient Hebrews. Why would I be bound by ancient Jewish civil and religious law? This is so incredibly obvious yet you still make the ridiculous statements that you do. Secondly, the New Testament has prohibitions against homosexuality. So even if one had to invalidate the OT prohibitions against homosexuality because it is part of a foreign and ancient legal code, the New Testament, which IS binding on Christians, STILL prohibits it.

Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 3:26 PM

The day anyone starts taking the Phelps family as an example of "true" Christianity and good Scriptural interpretation is not a good day for good Christian theology.

For theological reasons I consider it prohibited to me to cheer the death of a human being; to all you people that might sound a little stupid; to me it's just a logical implication of what I believe.

Posted by: KKairos | August 6, 2008 3:37 PM

>> Really, mroberts? Care to give us some direct quotes and a reasoned analysis to prove that? Jesus himself said absolutely NOTHING about homosexuality>>

LOL. Bee, you think you are brilliant too, but just as ignorant. If you think that the words of Jesus are the only valid Christian doctrine in the Bible, then you REALLY have no business arguing the Bible because you clearly know nothing about it.

>> and the only reference in the NT is that obscure bit in Romans, >>

Love that one too. Romans? "Obscure"? You demonstrate your ignorance with that statement. Romans is a core book of Christian doctrine and FAR from obscure. Just the fact that you use the word "obscure" tells me you are trying to minimize what you KNOW is there.

>> which is NOT an explicit prohibition on the order of "Thou shalt not kill." >>

So what. You believe there is a constitutional "right to privacy", don't you Bee? It's not in the words of the Constitution, but I know that you believe it is there. Thought it does not directly issue a prohibition, Romans lists homosexuality among various other sins. It would be absurd to conclude that homosexuality would somehow be acceptable whereas the other sins would not be. But then again, I'm not somebody trying to distort the Scriptures to justify my political agenda either.

Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 3:48 PM

mroberts: "Romans" was a letter ("Epistle") that Paul addressed to the Romans of his time. And in his time, the Romans (the powerful elite at least) practiced homosexuality in a certain way, an way that was more about power, exploitation and selfish pleasure, than about loving relationships. Given all this, it is quite reasonable to suppose that, to the extent that Paul was condemning anything at all, he was condemning the exploitative, unequal power relationships he saw in his era, not homosexuality in general.

It is also reasonable to conclude that if two people live, and have a loving sexual relationship, according to Christ's teachings, then it really doesn't matter whether it's a gay or straight relationship. The passage you cite against homosexuality is nowhere near as clear as Jesus' own admonitions to love our neighbors, treat them as we want them to treat us, let God do the judging, forgive and understand, etc. etc. In other words, Jesus condemns bigotry and ignorance a LOT more harshly than he ever condemned homosexuality.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2008 4:00 PM

No, cherry picking evolution is easy:

Evolution teaches survival of the fittest, ergo it is clear that eugenics is but the next logical step.

The point of calling it "cherry picking" is because it involves taking a snippet, applying where it doesn't apply, and viola! a specious argument is born.

Rob accused Christians of cherrypicking, but in fact he and others who argue that "Christians who don't advocate stoning homosexuals are hypocrites" are the cherry pickers. Take a snippet (From Mosaic law) apply it to Christians (where it doesn't apply) and viola! a specious argument that Christians are cherry pickers is born.

Posted by: heddle | August 6, 2008 4:04 PM

mroberts:>the New Testament has prohibitions against homosexuality. So even if one had to invalidate the OT prohibitions against homosexuality because it is part of a foreign and ancient legal code, the New Testament, which IS binding on Christians, STILL prohibits it.

Yep. Just like it still prohibits the charging of interest on loans. A significant part of the basis of our economy is a violation of scripture.

Posted by: DougT | August 6, 2008 4:49 PM

>> Yep. Just like it still prohibits the charging of interest on loans. A significant part of the basis of our economy is a violation of scripture. >>

Not quite. More accurately, the prohibition is on charging interest to poor people or usury. Borrowing for commmercial purposes is not included in that.

Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 5:04 PM

DougtT,

Yep. Just like it still prohibits the charging of interest on loans. A significant part of the basis of our economy is a violation of scripture.

Where is the NT prohibition against interest? The only passage I know of that mentions interest is the parable of the talents--Matt 25 and Luke 19. There it is mentioned but not condemned.

Posted by: heddle | August 6, 2008 5:25 PM

As a native Topekan, who grew up with and around the Phelps', I'll say this for them:

They've done more for free speech rights than your average civil rights attorney ever will.

And, quixotically, they've make Eastern Kansas a surprisingly liberal oasis in that area of the country in terms of gay acceptance. I might even make the case that they've done more for gay acceptance (or at least revulsion at homophobia) than your average anti-homophobia bloggers ever will.

I, and most other people who grew up around those guys (and for whom the "shock value" of them has long since worn off), could well plead the case that in their vilely misdirected way, they've made the world a better place.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Brayton!

P.S. And at the risk of ostracizing myself, they're actually quite nice people. So long as you don't get them talking about, you know, gay stuff.

P.P.S. And good luck with that.

Posted by: BradCrossedPond | August 6, 2008 6:11 PM

"The laws in the Old Testament were for the old covenant. The laws in the New Testament--such as love your neighbor as yourself, are for the new covenant. As inconvenient and/or surprising as it sounds, things changed when Jesus came."

That's not just cherry-picking, that's cutting down the whole damn tree! Good job, heddle!

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law..." (Luke 12:49) etc...

Also the smiting of the hapless fig tree is my fave.

Posted by: ildi | August 6, 2008 6:14 PM

I would be saddened if they died, at least to an extent - as long as they're alive there's a chance that they might figure out what assholes they've been. A slim chance, but a chance nonetheless.

Posted by: MRL | August 6, 2008 6:34 PM

heddle
You've confused me. Could you explain how the "jot" verse where jesus states that his purpose is not to abolish the old laws, means that he abolished the old laws? I don't understand.

Posted by: watercat | August 6, 2008 6:55 PM

Falyne wrote:

We're talking a man who forced his children to run marathons on starvation rations, who beat them to bloody concussions with a mattock handle, who drove a son's girlfriend to suicide, and who convinced his children in their bones that, if they disobeyed him, they were cast out of God's Elect and would suffer eternal hellfire. I can't even imagine their pain.... although I wish every bit of it on him.

No kidding. The man is a sadistic, child abusing, misanthropic creep. He's certainly inflicted far more harm on those unfortunate enough to be born into his family than he will on anyone else.

I'm still going to have a party when that fucker dies though!

Posted by: Leni | August 6, 2008 8:03 PM

And in swoops mroberts to the aid of the Phelps clan.

Surprised? Not so much.

Posted by: Rick R | August 6, 2008 8:10 PM

Heddle-

Out of curiosity, can you provide any quotes outside the Paul's epistiles which suggest that the New Covenant described in the OT would either (a) apply to anyone outside the Jews, or (b)that it would do anything like actually revoking any of the mosaic laws? Not only does Jeremiah specifically reference the house of Judah, but it clearly states that, rather wiping away his previous laws, Jehovah would "put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." That hardly sounds like a repeal.

I ask because, before cavalierly dismissing the "Jot or Title" argument, you really have to address the fact that it harmonizes far better with that reading of the passage than the one so often forced on it by modern christians. It also a far better fit with any number of passages relating directly to the "Law"- For example, "He remembers His covenant forever, The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations."

And before you dismiss this argument as ludicrous or uninformed or due to a lack of understanding of 'christianity'- I would also point out that it was a position held by a very large group of early Christians. In fact, the friction between Judiazed Christians, who believed exactly that, and gentile Christians sparked any number of schisms, rebukes, and outright purges of the former by the latter. It led to some of the most notable events in early christiandom- everything from the authorship of several of 'Paul's' epistles (which is why I chose to omit them as support), to the Nicaean council. Until, of course the Judaized Christians were effectively wiped out, thus ending thier ability to present their argument.

Simply put, absent any concrete scripture in the affirmative, the argument you're presenting here has a lot more to do with persecution and attrition of its opponents than it does some universal and unquestionable understanding on the part of 'christians.' And all the eyrolling in the world won't change that fact- In fact it comes across as a little disingenuous.

So, just curious....

Posted by: uriel | August 6, 2008 9:02 PM

Wouldn't that same reasoning also apply to the Ten Commandments?

Logically, it would have to. It seems to have escaped mroberts' notice that I was not referring to religious-based anti-gay bigotry in general, only to Fred Phelps and his Merry Gang of Idiots when I brought up the shellfish issue. Phelps predominantly alludes to Leviticus in his rants, so I quite reasonably was curious as to why he does not also picket Red Lobster restaurants. Hmmm, now why would Roberts project my criticism of Phelps onto himself?

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 9:17 PM

Daniel- Because god loves american christains better than anybody else. That's exactly why he gave us red lobster, after all. Its a sign of his new and improved all you can eat covenant- now with lemon and butter on the side. Only $19.99.

You know this in your heart, even if your pride denies it...

Posted by: uriel | August 6, 2008 9:30 PM

Maybe he decided that lightning rods were a sign of mistrust of God. Which they are, of course.

"Phelps is so rabid in his opposition to 'fags' it makes one wonder about his own orientation"

A church tradition started by St Paul, who in Romans lamented those terrible, terrible things that his body did that his spirit so abhored.

Posted by: Paul Murray | August 7, 2008 12:48 AM

Rob stated earlier:

They ["Phelps and his merry band of idiots"] are pure carnival to me. PT Barnum could take them on tour.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2008 1:22 AM

If "Mosaic law" doesn't apply to Christians (as has basically been implied here by heddle and mrroberts), then does that mean that only Jews are supposed to obey the Ten Commandments?

Not at all- It means that the Jews are wrong for not realizing its crap for everyone. Except when it isn't. Because, really, the OT is nothing more than a pick and play precursor to God's _real_ message, which was only finally revealed to a variety of anonymous authors who all claimed to be Paul. And like 'Paul,' in the mind of the modern christians, the only real point to the OT is that one can massage a handful of quotes in it to support a theology that clearly has nothing to do with the source. Because god is eternal and unchanging- except of course when he isn't.

So, while worshiping any other god is still right out, killing (even given an honest interpretation of the original language) is a gray area. And the Sabbath? Well, it's only as holy as your employer thinks it is.

That's why blood libel and pograms were so popular for much of christianity's history. Just read any history of the Nicaean council- Jews were clearly as wrong as wrong could be.

which is to say:

Because they are found in a book (the Bible) that is at the core of a religion you have chosen to belong to.

Not at all- the 'core' of the religion is in the last eighth of that book. The rest of it is just filler. They just keep it around because it occasionally supports the stuff at the end.

Posted by: uriel | August 7, 2008 3:09 AM

Not only can we conclude that God is pissed by bigots like these, but She throws like a girl.

Posted by: Bill Poser | August 7, 2008 4:04 AM

Daniel rotter,

If "Mosaic law" doesn't apply to Christians (as has basically been implied here by heddle and mrroberts), then does that mean that only Jews are supposed to obey the Ten Commandments?

No, because all of the Ten Commandments (except the fourth) were repeated (and upgraded) in the New Testament. There is no reason why a new and better revelation of the law cannot incorporate aspects of the old law. For example there is a commandment against adultery in both the OT and the NT.

[On: Why would I be bound by Jewish civil and religious law?] Your are bound by Because they are found in a book (the Bible) that is at the core of a religion you have chosen to belong to.

I think that given a moment's consideration, in just an intellectual sense, of what Christ's sacrifice means to Christians, you would agree that Christians are not bound by the OT commandments to sacrifice animals for the atonement of sin. Christ has rendered that obsolete. If so, then you already acknowledge the principle that Christ put Christians under different laws. What was once a command is now an abomination.

By the way, I have come to believe that it is not some nebulous and difficult to define "ceremonial and civil" law that was rendered null and void, but all the old law including the moral law--the Ten Commandments. (The laws of the New Testament, of course, do incorporate or rather upgrade the ten commandments, except the Sabbath observance.) In the unlikely event that you are interested, I elaborate on this theme here:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2008/07/ten-commandments-are-history.html

Uriel,

Out of curiosity, can you provide any quotes outside the Paul's epistiles which suggest that the New Covenant described in the OT would either (a) apply to anyone outside the Jews, or (b)that it would do anything like actually revoking any of the mosaic laws?

That's a fair question. If I were a Jew, or just an interested party giving the Old Testament a fair reading, I could certainly read Jeremiah's prophecy to be an as-yet unfulfilled prophecy applying only to Jews. That is essentially true for all of what Christians call Messianic prophecies. In understanding the OT in light of the NT Christians, at least non-dispensationalists, believe that Israel in prophecy is a metaphor or a forshadowing for the NT church. At any rate, the writer of Hebrews (who may have been Paul, but I don't think so) connects Christ's work to the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy.

As for it revoking laws I don't think it is a stretch, even if you think it applies only to the Jews, to see that Jeremiah is prophesying a new paradigm. He promises a time where the sins of the father will not be laid on the future generations. He promises a permanent city. He promises what we would say is the Holy Spirit, the law written on the hearts rather than on paper, a time when the heart is the arbiter of sin conviction--which is what Jesus teaches in Matthew 5. Jeremiah is, in fact promising a new form of the law.

Uriel,

And before you dismiss this argument as ludicrous or uninformed or due to a lack of understanding of 'christianity'- I would also point out that it was a position held by a very large group of early Christians.

I would not dismiss it out of hand because it is still the view of many Christians today. I would only dismiss its use as a universal "gotcha" of the type that presupposes we never heard the passage before. To believe the jot and tittle passage means that all the Mosaic law applies is to believe (as many do, I don't) that Jesus is only clarifying the Mosaic law. But I don't see that. He is not saying we "misunderstood" the commandment against murder, he is completely upgrading it to including simply hating someone. Moses approved divorce; Jesus teaches that it is now, for all intents and purposes, forbidden. The Christian view on the Old Testament is that it is filled with shadows and types--and I would say that applies to the law as well. The Mosaic law was a shadow of the law. The law has not been abolished. Jesus did not fulfill the law because he kept the Mosaic law perfectly--in fact he didn't--he worked on the Sabbath, he mishandled lepers, etc. Jesus fulfilled the which, in a greater revelation in the NT, is revealed to be not a list of do's and don'ts, but a question of motivations from the heart.

Valhar2000,

Yeah, I can were all going to learn something valuable and useful from this.

You do, I assume, possess the ability to skip what doesn't interest you?

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2008 6:58 AM

Ok, I guess I'll have to explain myself in more words so you can understand heddle:

Evolution says that the fittest survive in nature through the natural selection of the rest of the environment. Please note that it is the environment, not particular people or animals who does "natural selection".

Gravity (as it relates to this analogy) says that the earth attracts all things with a force of mg, and if you jump off a tall building you'll fall down.

Neither physical law claims that humans *should* do anything, they just describe what *is*. Neither one "teaches" a damn thing about how humans should actually act - that is a matter of human morality and judgement. They just state what happens in certain circumstances, like all of science. To use another analogy, it is like saying that understanding how nuclear weapons work means that you support a society having and/or using them.

Posted by: Coriolis | August 7, 2008 10:18 AM

Coriolis ,

Ok, I guess I'll have to explain myself in more words so you can understand heddle: Evolution says that the fittest survive in nature through the natural selection of the rest of the environment. Please note that it is the environment, not particular people or animals who does "natural selection".

Huh? People (and other animals) are obviously part of the environment. If natural selection means, in part, that some trait is selected because those without it die at the hands of predators before reproducing, then nothing precludes humans from being the predators.

But none of this makes any sense because you are arguing, it seems to me, as if I thought the eugenics-from-evolution was a good argument--when in fact I chose it as an example of a bad argument. It is a mindless argument, just like the one that says that if Christians were not hypocrites they would advocate stoning gays.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2008 10:31 AM

Huh? People (and other animals) are obviously part of the environment. If natural selection means, in part, that some trait is selected because those without it die at the hands of predators before reproducing, then nothing precludes humans from being the predators.

Heddle, what you wrote here is broadly congruent with current evolutionary theory. Nothing precludes any organism, including humans, from being a selection agent.

That said, however, and as Coriolis pointed out, there is no logical leap from humans acting as a selection agent on a prey species to eugenics. In fact, it's a false leap. Corrupting "survival of the fittest" to justify some pathetic racial purity scheme could move humans toward being more "racially pure" (if a group got into a power and managed to "select out" certain groups), but that "racial purity" (ugh, makes me sick to even write those two words) would in no way correlate with evolutionary fitness. The selective pressure would be on a totally different axis. It's not that it's artificial selection done by humans that's the problem; it's that the trend of selection is not correlated with species fitness.

Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2008 10:51 AM

And in swoops mroberts to the aid of the Phelps clan. Surprised? Not so much.

And OUT he runs under fire in record time. Surprised? Very.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 7, 2008 11:02 AM

Unfortunately, these douchebags are coming north to picket the funeral of that poor guy who was dismembered on the Greyhound bus. And for planning that, God only smites their garage? I'm not impressed -- he should have made the fire extensive enough to keep them occupied at home for a while. And if ol' Freddie himself had snuffed it, I would shed no tears -- the world would be a cleaner place. The second and (especially) third generations of the family-cult, however, bear lesser guilt.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 7, 2008 11:34 AM

How very nice for today's christians that they get to pick and choose what parts of the Babble are important and "binding". Geez, sounds just like pretendsident dry drunk's wet brained view of constitutional law. Oh, wait, that's right--he's born again! Hallelulu!

Posted by: democommie | August 7, 2008 2:00 PM

"ildi, accusing heddle (or any Christian) of cherry-picking for not strictly following OT law is like accusing the U.S. of cherry-picking because we don't follow the Articles of Confederation anymore."

I was actually making two points: a) My understanding of heddle's point is that NONE of the OT applies to American Christians, so that is way beyond cherry-picking in my book, and b) JC was just slightly less psychotic, lying, and abusive than his daddy/self/whatever. He had his good days, but who doesn't?

The only reason I like to play whack-a-mole with the bible is that people love to go on and on about how we can't have morality w/out following it. I think LOTR would serve as a better moral compass than the bible any day.

Carry on.

Posted by: ildi | August 7, 2008 2:26 PM

I don't think this topic is cause for arguing religious semantics. This excessively vocal minority has caused unjust pain to grieving families (and continues to do so)while at the same time giving false voice to christians everywhere. I am most disturbed by news that they plan to picket the funeral of the young man murdered on the Greyhound bus here in Canada, claiming that his "filthy" lifestyle rendered him deserving of his death (and subsequent dismemberment). There protest assumes that they know something about this young man, who may very well have been the last person on earth to deserve what he got. The fact that he was murdered is not an indication that he lived a life of sin. Murder can happen to anyone, at any time, no matter how righteous they may seem to the world at large. In fact, the book of Genesis tells the story of how Cain killed Abel because Abel made an offering to God that Cain became jealous of. There is no mention of Abel being homosexual, immoral, or un-righteous in any way. He was murdered due to his DEVOTION to God, not his defiance...but I suppose this is starting to get a bit religiously semantic. Who is the hyppocrite now? This guy...

Posted by: DanM | August 7, 2008 2:44 PM

Oh, I see, heddle, my post has to fill several screens to effectively dismiss your argument that Jesus was all about loving one another. I thought two examples were sufficient.

You're arguing animal versus human sacrifice for your sins? That's your definition of morality? The Aztecs would be proud! (Oh, that's right, they only worried about the sun coming up again, or some such, not important things like wiping your immortal soul clean of original sin.)

Posted by: ildi | August 7, 2008 3:15 PM

Sorry, heddle, I didn't mean to yank your chain quite so much! Why don't you post a learned lecture about the meaning of Luke 12, just to make sure I understand it in context? Also, the context of the fig tree smiting, and about moving mountains if you have true faith, and about coming right back in the apostles' lifetime...... see, I like to keep my points short and assume a lot, because I know you are very wise in the ways of the bible.

First of all, re. whack-a-mole; from wikipedia, the colloquial usage is: "The connotation is that of a repetitious and futile task: each time the attacker is "whacked" or kicked off a service, he only pops up again from another direction."

You assume that because I'm not incredibly impressed with your apologetics that means I think I am "cavalierly dismissing the arguments of your opponents with almost embarrassing ease?" No, it's just the usual moving target. And the scariness of your basic assumptions; in this particular case, that human sacrifice was ever a good thing.

"You are free. of course, to compare Jesus' sacrifice to Aztec human sacrifice....But the Aztec analogy shows that you are just parroting what a gazillion other people before you have said."

So, what answer do a gazillion xians parrot in response?

Posted by: ildi | August 7, 2008 4:56 PM

(heddle takes ball and leaves in a huff)

Posted by: ildi | August 7, 2008 5:03 PM

ildi,

(heddle takes ball and leaves in a huff)

Not at all, no huff--gee you have this amazing view of your ability to win arguments! I am lurking, as I often do, always ready for some thought-provoking dialog.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2008 5:11 PM

ildi, you do realize that making an unreasonable request and gloating when your opponent doesn't take the bait is about as capricious as you can get in a debate, right?

And I had a good laugh re: the whack-a-mole bit, since the connotation you pulled with wikipedia (which I don't entirely disagree with) basically makes your original statement gloating about playing whack-a-mole with the Bible rather amusing. heddle was actually doing you a favor by assuming that you were using the term in a way that indicated your rebuttals of Scripture were substantive.

Of course, this is all way off-topic (thanks a lot for your useless contribution, Rob), and to that I add this: I'm deeply conflicted about Westboro. While a little part of me feels like they deserved to inherit some destruction (although this was certainly underwhelming) and would like to see the demise of the church post-haste, I don't consider it in good taste to wish for the demise of any church members or leaders, nor will I gloat when that day comes (if I get to see it) - I will simply be very, very relieved.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 7, 2008 5:35 PM

Sorry Eamon, I should have stated a source. I was responding to a report in which Shirley Phelps-Roper states:

"Here's what I know. He is dead and God does not do that to people that serve in his truth."

"Phelps-Roper described McLean -- who she had never met -- in an insulting, insensitive and graphic manner. Her crudest descriptions of the 22-year-old are not printed."

"I haven't met him personally, but he has nothing going on," she said dismissively."

"(His life) was all about him. Blah, blah, blah ... He was a rebel ... I don't need to know anything else ... I don't need to know the minutia. Everything you need to know is right there."

I will agree with you, many comments were made about the sins of the nation, but I was simply responding to what I had read. My apologies for not being more clear on source. Either way, the response is unacceptable - no matter what your own belief. There is a family grieving the absolutely shocking loss of a loved one and somewhere out there is a group of people so mis-guided and full of hate that they would dare to defile the memory of this young man with accusations that his murder was deserved. At the core of Christian doctrine is the belief that all men (and women) are offered a chance at love and forgiveness and that no person, no matter how righteous or how vile can ever separate themselves from the love of the Creator - even Westboro Baptist. Believe what you will about the theology of the thing but to me that just sounds like natural human decency (if you believe that such a thing still exists, which I do).

I would also like to express one more thought at the words of Phelps-Roper... She states: "Here's what I know. He is dead and God does not do that to people that serve in his truth."

I think it would be hard to argue that this statement is not a completely presumtuous and uninformed position on the character of God. Even if you don't believe that God exists it is easy to see that this is not in line with Christian doctrine. The Bible recounts the beheading of John the Baptist, who, according to the Bible served in Gods truth faithfully - so much so that he is considered one of the great heros of Christianity. If the man was righteous enough to Baptise Jesus, I think God counted him as faithful. and for the matter, what about the crucifixion of Jesus....

Posted by: DanM | August 7, 2008 5:58 PM

It's so nice that you've taken up the gauntlet again for heddle, TCC!

To refresh your memory, however, I quoted Luke 12:49. Heddle's response to my quote was: "You quoted Luke 12 but not in any manner from which I could infer that you understood it." This means either that the quote was not a good example of the point I was making refuting the "Jesus is love" meme, or it was a good example, and heddle hoped I didn't really know that. I called heddle on this by asking for a (brief) lecture on the context. No response.

In other news, I asked how comparing one religion's human sacrifice to another's was just parroting what a gazillion other people before me have said. No response.

I'm such a meanie!

Maybe you can answer, TCC?

Posted by: ildi | August 7, 2008 7:41 PM

Josh wrote:

I guess where I was (and apparently still am) confused is in relation to the phrase cherry picking. You can "cherry pick" prohibitions in Leviticus to either follow or not follow; to make an issue of or not. This is the classical sense of Biblical cherry picking as I understand it. There is a prohibition regarding shellfish in the book, right? The issue rests on how to interpret it or whether or not it needs to be addressed by x or y group of Christians. Correct? Eugenics is not an analog to this because it doesn't relate to species fitness in any way.

I know what you mean. That's the same response I had to the "cherry-picking evolution" thing. And just to expand on your comment about the environment: topography, flora and temperature don't target species for extinction because those species are "undesirable". Predators, generally speaking, do not seek out prey that they find socially repugnant. They take what they can because they will die if they do not. That's why we call it "predation" instead of "genocide" :)

And as an afterthought, maybe the Relativistic Fallacy would be a better fit. Or perhaps special pleading. Whatever it is, I don't think the eugenics proponents were cherry-picking evolution so much as using it a flimsy excuse to rid themselves of undesirables using the kind of methods we might use on livestock. As you say, there is no tenet of evolution that holds "Go ye forth and slaughter the ugly, stupid, and criminal ones among ye lest they further befoul the gene pool with their unworthy spawn" to cherry-pick from. It's simply a powerful description of natural processes. It isn't a direction to do anything.

Anyway...

Posted by: Leni | August 7, 2008 8:46 PM

"If the "Jesus is love" meme (as you call it) is meant to indicate that Jesus' ministry was not about giving everyone the warm fuzzies (boy, colloquialisms are fun!), then I suppose it succeeds, but who really argues that point?" (Colloquialisms are your friend!)

I beg to differ; most new-age xians do argue the warm fuzzy j-love thing. In fact, heddle comes damn close with the OT doesn't apply idea.

Finally, an actual answer to my question! I really wasn't focusing on whether the sword was metaphorical or not. "the surrounding context all has to do with being prepared (for the final days, for judgment, etc.)" Yes, and it was going to happen in the apostle's lifetime! Big picture - he was just another cult leader who told his followers they had to choose between him and their families, lives, etc. and prepare for the end times. Guess what, they didn't come. Luckily, he didn't require them to drink the koolaid to facilitate the process. (He liked the chicks hanging around, too; another cult leader quality.)

So, you're hanging your hat (I'm just full of them!) on the difference being a WILLING victim? Wawaweewa! I really thought you'd go the numbers and jc god-essence route. Let's weigh the differences: thousands of (highly likely unwilling) human victims, vs. one willing god-victim. Yeah, human sacrifice to appease a god is a-ok in that context!

Posted by: ildi | August 7, 2008 9:40 PM

Heddle-

Thanks for the response. While there's a couple of issues I'm tempted to raise, I'm not sure if this is the proper forum. Also, this paticular thread is probably due to move into the 'beating a dead horse' level of response (one of the reasons I prefer discussion boards to blogs)- So, I'll limit my response to a specific issue, and won't get to bent out of shape if there's no response:

To believe the jot and tittle passage means that all the Mosaic law applies is to believe (as many do, I don't) that Jesus is only clarifying the Mosaic law. But I don't see that. He is not saying we "misunderstood" the commandment against murder, he is completely upgrading it to including simply hating someone. Moses approved divorce; Jesus teaches that it is now, for all intents and purposes, forbidden.

Granted, I get this argument. And I can see where its compelling in regards to 'big' issues like murder, or divorce, or what have you. But I can't see any way it doesn't completely fail regarding any number of laws that modern chritians regard as being rendered moot, rather than being enhanced- for example the dietary laws, the laws regarding clothing, or the laws regarding uncleanliness.

On the one hand, you're saying that the laws have been escalated, so that even unvoiced intent or vague desires are equivalent to the action itself. But then, on the other hand, you're claiming that all manner of laws were down-graded or rendered obsolete- no one I've encountered has ever claimed, in the wake of the new covenant, that even thinking about how comfortable a cotton blend would be is a sin. Or that speculating how tasty a cheese burger would be is an abomination. Or that the inevitability of menstruation renders women perpetually unclean. Yet, the argument you're making here would suggest exactly that.

It just seems to me that this paticular line of reasoning does nothing to diminish the "cherry picking" argument- in fact, it merely serves to enhance it.

Posted by: uriel | August 8, 2008 3:08 AM

Leni,
Nice jump off from what I wrote. Well stated.

Posted by: Josh | August 8, 2008 7:56 AM

Heddle said:

"But in fact virtually all Christians, across denominations, agree that Christ's sacrifice was, as written in Hebrews, once for all."

Just a quick question, Heddle. "Once for all" does not include Eve's sin, though does it not? Just wondering if you know the apologetics of that one, and might be so kind as to explain this for me? Thanks. :)

Posted by: Gingerbaker | August 9, 2008 12:47 PM