Jerry Falwell dead @ 73

[Colossus_500]

1. I am still interested in hearing your answer to my previous question, if you want to answer it: "if AIDS is a punishment from God for sin, isn't it then immoral to try to find a cure for it? Aren't scientists who invent AIDS medicines and the people who use them circumventing the will of God?"

Asked and answered, bro.  I'm just not saying what you want to hear, i.e., you simply don't like the answer.  My answer is that we're all fallen, i.e., our sinful nature leads us to our death, whether it be direct (full-blown AIDS from HIV) or indirect (AIDS from blood transfusion).  The lion existed in the beginning too, yet he didn't take a bite out of Adam's or Eve's hide.  It wasn't until the fall of man that the lion started having humans for lunch.  Not to til the fall of man did people started drowing their own children, etc.  

2. I don't get your ledge analogy. You word it vaguely so I don't see what you're referring to.

I look at life from an either/or perspective, whereas you have a more pluralistic viewpoint.... the ledge has many sides, none of which mean ascending upward or descending downward.  In your viewpoint, we exist because we exist, right?  There is no meaning for our existence.  

3. You mean the highlighted people have been successful in secularizing America? Newsflash: These people didn't secularize America. The Founding Fathers did. It was secular from the start.

See the obnoxious aggressive nature of religion? The American Taliban can't accept a secular country that protects their freedom of religion, everyone else's freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. You can't tell them,

"well, Mr. Falwell, you believe in your rapture and your second coming of Jesus, and let the Muslim believe in Mohammed and Allah, and I will enjoy my Shakespeare and Mozart and Picasso, and we can all live happily and in peace"

no more than you can say to a suicide bomber bent on blowing you up "well, Ahmed, you believe in Muhammad and the Twelfth Imam and all that, and I'll watch my TV shows and listen to my rock bands, and we can live in peace and harmony side by side."

Ahmed is bent on blowing himself up and taking you with him, so he can get his 72 virgins, and the American Taliban demand a "Christian nation." It is this absolutism of religion that I hate and fight.

The only aggression I see is towards those who believe Christ to be the Saviour to all who will accept Him.  As I've said before, I don't believe in religion.  I only believe in God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  

[columbusdude82]

Nope, you hadn't answered it. You said "I can't answer..." But are you serious when you say "It wasn't until the fall of man that the lion started having humans for lunch?"
Surely, you are pulling my leg. You mean to say that lions never ate homo sapiens, or homo erectus, or homo habilis, or any of the other primates in the past 2 million years, for instance, until about 3 or 4 thousand years ago when the Genesis story was made up? Presumably homo sapiens and the other primates didn't look appetizing to lions until the Genesis story was first composed?

As for "the only aggression" you see being against Christ, presumably you think Falwell's agressive obsession with what consulting adults do in their bedrooms and his aggressive attempts to impose his own sexual beliefs on the rest of us is entirely Christ-like? 

[columbusdude82]

Can I get a yes/no answer: Is it or is it not immoral to take AIDS medication?

[columbusdude82]

Re chicken:  I would fault you for not cooking the chicken thoroughly.     Is that a "sin"?  Not necessarily.

What is with religious people and the temptation to 'fault' everyone. Isn't it bad enough I got food poisoning, you have to barge into my hospital room and fault me for not cooking my chicken properly?

We don't know where AIDS originated, but we do know the overwhelming majority of AIDS in the United States is confined primarily to a couple of groups:  IV drug users and a certain category of homosexual males. 

In Africa, the AIDS epidemic is killing children, old people, heterosexuals, homosexuals, everyone! Meanwhile, that old fool Ratzinger and his band of merry jesters dressed in red still discourage condom use. Better die of AIDS than use a condom, they say.

[Dos Equis]

What is with religious people and the temptation to 'fault' everyone. Isn't it bad enough I got food poisoning, you have to barge into my hospital room and fault me for not cooking my chicken properly?
In Africa, the AIDS epidemic is killing children, old people, heterosexuals, homosexuals, everyone! Meanwhile, that old fool Ratzinger and his band of merry jesters dressed in red still discourage condom use. Better die of AIDS than use a condom, they say.

Well whose fault is it for not properly cooking undercooked chicken?  I don't really see that as a religious issue anyway.  It's just being dumb if you ask me (undercooking meat).

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is tragic.  Is it being spread through heterosexual sex between married couples?   

[Colossus_500]

Nope, you hadn't answered it. You said "I can't answer..." But are you serious when you say "It wasn't until the fall of man that the lion started having humans for lunch?"
Surely, you are pulling my leg. You mean to say that lions never ate homo sapiens, or homo erectus, or homo habilis, or any of the other primates in the past 2 million years, for instance, until about 3 or 4 thousand years ago when the Genesis story was made up? Presumably homo sapiens and the other primates didn't look appetizing to lions until the Genesis story was first composed?

That's where your pluralism kicks in, bro.  That's what I was talking about with the whole "ledge" thing.  It's either/or for me, but for you it's all inclusive...anything goes.  I don't believe in the goo-to you-straigh outta da zoo (walking on my knuckles to standing up straight and shaving every day).  The bilble and billions of years don't mix for me.  Billions is a lot, bro. Who came up with that measure.  Any way that I look at my life, it points to a proof of creation (God), just as if I were to hold any two fingers up on both hands, and I get the same answer (2+2=4).  But how do you proof the goo-to you-straight outta da zoo?

As for "the only aggression" you see being against Christ, presumably you think Falwell's agressive obsession with what consulting adults do in their bedrooms and his aggressive attempts to impose his own sexual beliefs on the rest of us is entirely Christ-like? 

For all we know, bro, Mr. Falwell (may he rest in peace) could have been shakin' up with one of the ladies on the front pew.  And he was no less a hypocrite than me or you (oh, I forgot, you're not fallen...my bad lol  ).  Need I remind of you the Foley scandal?  But where he and I think differently from those who aren't "fallen" is that we know this to be true of ourselves.  Did the media ever give Jerry Falwell a platform to say he was no less a sinner than those he condemned?  Remember, the media is a profit maker.  What good does it do a media outlet to allow someone a platform to say, "I'm no better than you, my friend?" 

[columbusdude82]

Well whose fault is it for not properly cooking undercooked chicken?  I don't really see that as a religious issue anyway.  It's just being dumb if you ask me (undercooking meat).

So is torturing yourself over the relatively benign sin (eating fruit?!) of a hypothetical man and woman in a made-up allegorical story from an ancient text written by homo sapiens in the middle east a few thousand years ago.

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is tragic.  Is it being spread through heterosexual sex between married couples?   

Yes, if one of em gets it somehow. If the husband cheats or otherwise contracts HIV, it is Ratzinger's teaching (and his church's) that he and his wife must still not use condoms, and that she should accept her fate. Why must she die of AIDS for her husband's bad luck or adultery?! Sheer stupidity!

[Colossus_500]

Notice that Beach and I have not once made this a personal issue (i.e., "sheer stupidity")   

The hositlity is in your court, bro.   

Hey, I gotta run.  But let's pick this up tomorrow?  Have a good one, OSU man!  Go Penn State!!!!!! 

[columbusdude82]

That's where your pluralism kicks in, bro.  That's what I was talking about with the whole "ledge" thing.  It's either/or for me, but for you it's all inclusive...anything goes.  I don't believe in the goo-to you-straigh outta da zoo (walking on my knuckles to standing up straight and shaving every day).  The bilble and billions of years don't mix for me.  Billions is a lot, bro. Who came up with that measure.  Any way that I look at my life, it points to a proof of creation (God), just as if I were to hold any two fingers up on both hands, and I get the same answer (2+2=4).  But how do you proof the goo-to you-straight outta da zoo?

I am sorry that you have not had the benefit on a scientific education. I do NOT mean to sound condescending, but you speak like a person who has not learned science. If you choose to ignore all of physics (that's where the billions come from) and biology, and instead focus only on one set of 'ancient' (just a few thousand year old) texts and say "this is all I need to know," that is entirely your choice.

Fortunately, much of the rest of mankind has forgone that view and actually has an interest in reality and truth, not just the contents of old books.

Did the media ever give Jerry Falwell a platform to say he was no less a sinner than those he condemned? 

Why didn't he condemn himself then, and mind his own business? The rest of us never asked for his opinion. Who gave him the right to 'condemn' people? Like I said, he is just a self-important bigot who never outgrew the role of fat schoolyard bully.

[Dos Equis]

So is torturing yourself over the relatively benign sin (eating fruit?!) of a hypothetical man and woman in a made-up allegorical story from an ancient text written by homo sapiens in the middle east a few thousand years ago.

Yes, if one of em gets it somehow. If the husband cheats or otherwise contracts HIV, it is Ratzinger's teaching (and his church's) that he and his wife must still not use condoms, and that she should accept her fate. Why must she die of AIDS for her husband's bad luck or adultery?! Sheer stupidity!

There are a number of victims when a person sins and/or breaks secular law.  You could ask the same question about the man who commits a crime, is sent to jail, and his family suffers as a result.  I know a guy who's ex-wife recently pleaded guilty to selling drugs.  She was a school teacher with three kids.  Imagine the shame the kids have to endure at school.  The guy didn't like having his name plastered all over the media either (even though he had nothing to do with his ex-wife's crime).  I don't view sin any differently.  One person's actions can have far reaching consequences.  

[columbusdude82]

Yes, I am hostile to stupidity. Hostility to stupidity is the only way mankind can hope to make any progress. If great men and women in our history had not stood up to stupidity, we'd still be ruled by popes and absolute monarchs...

[columbusdude82]

There are a number of victims when a person sins and/or breaks secular law.  You could ask the same question about the man who commits a crime, is sent to jail, and his family suffers as a result.  I know a guy who's ex-wife recently pleaded guilty to selling drugs.  She was a school teacher with three kids.  Imagine the shame the kids have to endure at school.  The guy didn't like having his name plastered all over the media either (even though he had nothing to do with his ex-wife's crime).  I don't view sin any differently.  One person's actions can have far reaching consequences. 

You are changing the topic. If a man somehow contracts HIV, is it permissible for him and his wife to use a condom during sex? Or must she contract HIV because Mr Ratzinger says so?

[Dos Equis]

You are changing the topic. If a man somehow contracts HIV, is it permissible for him and his wife to use a condom during sex? Or must she contract HIV because Mr Ratzinger says so?

I'm not changing the topic. . . .   What's the topic? 

I don't think condom use is a "sin" if that's what you're asking.  Who is Ratzinger?   

[columbusdude82]

Ratzinger is the man in white robes that Catholics like to defer to.

You don't think condom use is a sin. OK. Do you think it is OK for the Catholic church to tell millions of Africans that getting AIDS is better than using condoms?

[Dos Equis]

Ratzinger is the man in white robes that Catholics like to defer to.

You don't think condom use is a sin. OK. Do you think it is OK for the Catholic church to tell millions of Africans that getting AIDS is better than using condoms?

Of course not.  When and where did the Catholic church say this? 

[columbusdude82]

If you google it, you get endless hits on the subject. Here's one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

[Colossus_500]

I am sorry that you have not had the benefit on a scientific education. I do NOT mean to sound condescending, but you speak like a person who has not learned science. If you choose to ignore all of physics (that's where the billions come from) and biology, and instead focus only on one set of 'ancient' (just a few thousand year old) texts and say "this is all I need to know," that is entirely your choice.

Fortunately, much of the rest of mankind has forgone that view and actually has an interest in reality and truth, not just the contents of old books.

Why didn't he condemn himself then, and mind his own business? The rest of us never asked for his opinion. Who gave him the right to 'condemn' people? Like I said, he is just a self-important bigot who never outgrew the role of fat schoolyard bully.

He did condemn himself on many occassion, but based on your current mindset, where you looking in that direction? Probably not.  I've heard him speak in person before.  Now I didn't always agree with what he said, but my opinion differed only in the since that only God can pass the judgements he did, all the while realizing, that I myself judge everyday.  Just like you do. 

You must admit that you are quite bigoted yourself.  No need to apologize for being condescending. You meant exactly what you said, therefore you need not apologize for your conviction.  It's an elitest mindset, in my opinion, but you're entitled to what you believe.   

[Colossus_500]

Yes, I am hostile to stupidity. Hostility to stupidity is the only way mankind can hope to make any progress. If great men and women in our history had not stood up to stupidity, we'd still be ruled by popes and absolute monarchs...

If this doesn't epitomize the elitist mindset that I mentioned earlier, I don't know that it can be defined.

[columbusdude82]

Me? Bigoted? Merriam Webster defines "bigot" as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

I am not defending my opinions. I am defending facts, proved by science. Those are not opinions. And I would hardly call myself an elitist

[Colossus_500]

Me? Bigoted? Merriam Webster defines "bigot" as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

I am not defending my opinions. I am defending facts, proved by science. Those are not opinions. And I would hardly call myself an elitist

Yes, I am hostile to stupidity. - are you not dogmatic in your belief that God doesn't actually exist, and that He didn't create us?

[columbusdude82]

Let me clarify. I am not describing belief in a god (of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist etc varieties) as stupid.

What I would call "stupid" is statements like those of Jerry Falwell that I quoted in previous posts, or the Catholic church's insistence that it is better to get HIV than use a condom, or some Muslims' intense desire to blow themselves up and take as many people with them as they can.