(Note: since I quote back to the guy almost all of his email, I'm only including my side of the debate. Names have been removed to protect the intolerant).

A reader who needs a spell checker writes: > Well now, The prophet is never popular for his mess is he? Neither > was Jesus with his message and they crucifiec him, now were anyu of > the Old aTestament Prophets, nor the News Testament Deciples of Jesus > and the writers of the New Testament, and what happened to John the > Baptist? > > Please, Please do not decry the prophets of God for giving their messages > from Him evevn though it is not a populare message.

Yes, but what is Christ's message? Christ, who supped with sinners. Christ, who preached to tax collectors. Christ, who did not condemn adulteresses. He consorted with lepers, prostitutes and Samaritans. Christ, who taught that we were to turn the other cheek, told us that we were to forgive seventy times seven times, and wanted us to treat others as we would be treated.

I do not decry the prophets of God. I question whether someone is a prophet of God when the vitriol they are spouting is completely un-God-like.

> Who would I rather be sitting nest to? I'd rather right now be > sitting at the feet of Jesus, for in death there is Life when we (I) > have confessed my sins and acceptedx Him as my Lord and Savior.

You know what? Go ahead, confess your sins and accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour; it won't do you one whit of good. Faith alone will not save you, for Paul wrote that if we could show him good works, he would show us the faith that belies those works. Christ calls us to love one another and be kind to one another, not to sit around on our fat "Christian" asses and just "believe".

Don't mess with me theologically--I know my scripture and I'm willing to beat idiots like Falwell and Robertson over the head with it. You'd be well advised to read up on what Christ had to say about their ilk. Beleive me, it wasn't good.

-packy

--
Packy Anderson packy@dardan.com

Let me put it in the bald terms in which many Americans may be thinking right now: if your plane was hijacked, who would you rather sit next to? Righteous reverends who will sit back and say this is God's punishment for gay Teletubbies, or the gay rugby player who lays down his life to save others?

And by the way... which person seems closer to God?
--NPR's Scott Simon

Someone writes: > You want theological studies? I'll match you tit to tat if that's > what you want! But I prefer not to get in such a contest unless you do > desire one. > > Yes, Jesus was the friend of the sinners, but he did not condone their > sin either. I will assure you that wherever Jesus went He made a > difference in His world. So when you use coarse language like you > are, I believe that you need to sit at the feet of Jesus a little > longer and learn your theology from Him which is one of "God is Love." > "Jesus Wept." "I come to call the sinner to repentance." I've come > that you may have life and have life more abundantly."

Ok, I'm confused here. You're citing scripture, but you're not proving that Jesus would have condemned any of the people Falwell condemns. Jesus called the sinner to repentance, but at the same time he did not condemn them. God is Love, but Falwell's message is one of hate. So who's side are you arguing?

Besides, what does my "coarse language" have to do with anything? Sometimes, the best way to express good theology is with coarse language, because rough language sometimes stirrs up people's thought. Christ was a rough and tumble kind of guy, and he used the common language; something which years of very proper translations has caused people to forget.

> I do not fault the gay soccer player for doing what he did. I never > said that I did. He definitely is a hero. No question about it. But > still, It isn't good works that allow us to enter into the presence of > Jesus, but it's confession of sins turning from them a living a life > of righteousness. Not only that, he wasn't the only hero that was on > that plane as testified by the phone call to the mans wife. He > said... "I'll see you in heaven!" There are many, many other heroes > as well, and not just one homosexual soccer player.

Neither Scott Simon nor I cast the homosexual soccer player as the ONLY hero in this tragedy. Scott presented him in contrast to Jerry Falwell. Where Jerry Falwell was preaching hate, this man was acting out of love. Isn't love for our fellow man what Christ calls us to do? So which of them seems to understand God's message better?

Falwell said that we're being punished for tolerating 'sinners'. Yet, when Christ was given the opportunity to rain fire and brimstone on an adulteress, he merely instructed the crowd, "The one among you who is without sin must cast the first stone." After the crowd wandered off in discomfort, he asked the woman, "Is there no one here to condemn you?" When she replied that there was not, he said, "Nor do I condemn you. Go now, and sin no more."

"Go now and sin no more." A simple and beautiful edict. No many how many times someone falls, Christ will pick them up and say, "Go now and sin no more." Does this sound like the kind of God who would punish us for not condemning people?

And to address the sufficiency of faith fallacy, how are we supposed to live a life of righteousness without doing good works? When the rich man asked Jesus what he must do to enter Heaven, he told Christ that he followed the law and kept the Sabbath. Yet when Jesus told him that he must give his wealth to the poor, the man walked away saddened. Belief was not enough--Christ wanted him to ACT. Faith without works isn't righteousness, it's self-righteousness.

> So when it comes to theology, perhaps you'd better use correct > theology and not prostitute the Gospel of Jesus Christ The Savior. > My Savior.

I sorry if I'm not using the 'correct' theology. But I can't see any other way to read the message that I see loud and clear in all four gospels. Christ calls us to love others and to serve them. "Whatsoever you do the the least my people, you do unto me." Falwell doesn't seem to love the least of us... he only seems to love the most self-righteous of us. He condemns the rest, something not even Christ was willing to do.

May the peace and LOVE of Christ be with you...

-packy

--
Packy Anderson packy@dardan.com

Let me put it in the bald terms in which many Americans may be thinking right now: if your plane was hijacked, who would you rather sit next to? Righteous reverends who will sit back and say this is God's punishment for gay Teletubbies, or the gay rugby player who lays down his life to save others?

And by the way... which person seems closer to God?
--NPR's Scott Simon

Someone writes: > Just one more little aside and I'll drop it.

And I shall respond and I'll drop it.

> Lets look at Biblical history and see what happened to Sodom > and Gomorra for their sin of perversion.

Interesting. Yes, Genesis is quite clear about Sodom and Gomorra, but it's also quite clear about a bunch of other things that Jesus then steamrolled over: stoning adulteresses, smiting your enemies, etc.

I place it before you that Christ brought a whole new paradigm before the world; while the old covenant was one with God's people, the new covenant was with the entire world. Are you a Jew? Then why are you citing the contract that God made with them? The Old Testament talks quite a lot about God raining vengence down on those who oppose his people, but his people are the JEWS. Unless you're a Jew, I'd be scared.

> Also, Matthew 5:11-13 ... for in the same way they persecuted the > prophets who were before you.

Ah, good, the Sermon on the Mount. You realize that this passage could just as easily support my side as yours. If I'm the one who's being righteous and preaching God's word, then you're the one insulting me, persecuting me and falsely saying all kinds of evil against me.

But let's look further. This is what I love about citing lines of scripture out of context: you can find a line or two that you can twist to mean whatever you want it to mean. Usually, when you step back and look at the context of the selection, the meaning becomes a little bit clearer.

Ok, the Sermon on the Mount talks about those who are blessed: the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for justice, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers... hmm, you know, none of these sound like Falwell yet.

Ok, let's read further... Ooh! Christ is telling us to do something! What is it? "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Hmm, there's that pesky "deeds" thing again. Is he calling us to persecute those who don't follow his law? No, he's telling us to lead by example, and do good deeds.

Ok, here's where the sinners get what's coming to them: "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Um, wait. Where's the eartly retribution? Where's God smiting them down as an example to others? It's not here! Maybe that's because God DOESN'T smite people down with earthly retribution anymore: sinners pay for their sins IN HEAVEN, where GOD can judge them, not US.

The text goes on to talk about sins like adultery and swearing... wait, this isn't cussing swearing, this is oath-taking swearing: "Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes,' and your `No,' `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." Ah, I'd never caught that one before. You learn something new every day.

Ah, now we get to the meaty part: "You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'" Ooh, good, time for sinners to get theirs! "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Wait! Where's the fire and brimstone! Where's the hatred and intolerance we're supposed to greet unbelievers and sinners with? You know what? It's not there. "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," Jesus said. I'm going right now to say a prayer for Osama bin Laden.

Jesus hasn't called us to hate; he's called us to be a light to the world and to love others, even when they hate us. If we love sinners, and allow them to live amongst us, God will not visit heavenly vengence upon us, he will praise us for not putting our lights under the bushel basket of Christian uniformity and letting our light be seen by sinners. If we are surrounded by nobody else but other believers, then who benefits from our light?

> Now I'm not saying that they (e.g.), Falwell and Robertson used a > whole lot of tact in the message that they proclaimed, because the did > not and that's for sure... and I don't think they did it at the right > time. That's beside the point. We need to look beyond that tact and > timing and see what the message actually was and interpret it as such.

I've looked beyond the timing and lack of tact. The message is still one of hate. How are sinners supposed to see the our light if we push them all away? How are homosexuals and feminists and the people in the ACLU supposed to see our example if we don't live amongst them?
(Editorial note: I don't believe that homosexuality or feminism or the First Amendment are sinful, but I didn't want to broaden the debate. I wanted to focus on what's important: that God is NOT punishing us for not HATING people, even if they ARE sinners.)

I've never been a fan of Falwell and Robertson, and this latest statement hasn't changed my opinion of them one iota--I still think they're pompous idiots who have their own agenda which has nothing to do with Christ's teaching... but they do serve to be beacons of darkness, leading people in Christ's name away from Jesus' true message of love and peace.

> Also, go to the messages beyond the Gospels and take a good perusal at > the book of Romans and see its message about homosexuality.

Yeah, homosexuality is a sin. So what? The whole point is loving the sinner while hating the sin. Falwell and Robertson miss that point.

And so our little discussion comes to a close. I hope you've learned something from it, if nothing else that good Catholics know their scripture pretty well, and don't shrink away from using it.

May you be filled with the love and peace of Christ,
-packy

--
Packy Anderson packy@dardan.com

Look, if someone wrote a play / just to glorify what's stronger than hate, Would they not arrange the stage / to look as if the hero came too late? He's almost in defeat / it's looking like the Evil side will win, So on the edge of every seat, from the moment that the whole thing begins. It is Love who makes the mortar / and it's Love who stacked these stones, And it's Love who made the stage here / although it looks like we're alone. In this scene set in shadows / like the night is here to stay. There is Evil cast around us / but it's Love that wrote the play. And in this darkness, Love will show the way...

I'm terrible, aren't I? *grin*

Back to the Theological Debate page!