Jerry Falwell offers a "gracious" correction to the Jerusalem Post

[brian_igo]

Shorter Falwell: I was misquoted, you all are going to hell.

Glad he cleared that up. Graciously.

[theworm[$]]

but he's a Zionist.

[Redlass]

Well, I honestly don't think he's being mean-spirited in that column. I rather think he's stating something that is a pretty core belief of his ministry that he's preached all his life. It would almost be more scandalous for him to claim he doesn't believe that Christ is the only passage to salvation.

Awkward, yes, but not anything different from what he's been saying all his life.

[brian_igo]

Redlass said

Awkward, yes, but not anything different from what he's been saying all his life.

Precisely. Only I don't see it as an excuse.

[theworm[$]]

Redlass said

... but not anything different from what he's been saying all his life.

I respect other peoples religions. I don't try to convert others to my beliefs. I respect others beliefs that I'm going to hell because I'm Jewish. I'm tired of hearing it though. I try to be a good person, I try to live a good life. One nice thing about Judaism is that G-d is the God of everyone and you don't have to be a Jew to have redemption of go to heaven. If he's trying to save my heathen soul by offering me redemption in heaven, damning me isn't the best way to go about it. I'm more comfortable with my religion that lets all people achieve redemption than one that tells me I have to do things that way Mr. Falwell would like.

It is the same message that he's always preached, and I don't think it is a malicious statement - he's simply clarifying his beliefs and he is certainly entitled to them. Mean spirited - I suppose thats up to interpretation. I guess its not mean spirited for you to think that I'm going to hell, but I think its mean spirited of you to tell me so. I guess I could argue that it's not mean spirited if you're truly trying to save me, but I find it quite desrespectful. Thats just me.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

He wouldn't even see it as mean-spirited, he would see it as being helpful. Like when non-smokers walk up to smokers on the street and say "You're going to die of lung cancer" - he's trying to wake up those who are missing out on eternal life and all that.

[brian_igo]

Except for the obserable evidence about smoking and lung cancer.

If Falwell can show me observable evidence that you won't go to heaven unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, he'll go from being a bigot to simply being rude. Until then...

[jgibson2[$]]

I guess I could argue that it's not mean spirited if you're truly trying to save me, but I find it quite desrespectful. Thats just me.

Kind of like the very well dressed little old lady who came up to the crowd assembled outside the Basilica of the Assumption in Baltimore waiting to hear Mother Teresa speak who shrieked at us, "You're going to burn! You're all going to burn!"

Soon afterwards, some very polite young men appeared to escort her to the church on the corner where they were apparently praying for our salvation more respectfully.

[theworm[$]]

Yep - that little old lady was very rude.
Why did she think that you would burn for listening to Mother Teresa. There are people who thought Mother Teresa was going to hell??????

[Redlass]

The thing is, though, he's trying to respond to something else someone claimed he said. It was published in a magazine that he was accepting a theology that is radically different from what he's said all the rest of his life. He didn't publish this "correction" out of the blue--which, yes, would be rude. He wasn't walking up to someone and starting the conversation. He was responding to what had been written about him.

You can bet he has had a whole bunch of people come up to him and say, "Hey, how come you told these other ministers that you believe in dual covenant when you told us that you didn't?"

Is he supposed to let it stand that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Or is he supposed to clarify?

I don't agree with the man, but I can see why he thinks it important as a preacher to clarify his theology. After all, without his theology, what point is there to his job?

I don't like it when the president says he thinks the war in Iraq was a good idea, but if a newspaper in Iraq started reporting that Bush was opposed to the war, I could see why he would speak up with a correction and wouldn't call it mean-spirited or foolish of him to do so.

[theworm[$]]

I agree, Bridgette. I don't have a problem with him correcting a mistatement about him. I don't have a problem with him thinking that I'm going to hell. I'm just sick of hearing about it. I did find it ironic that in his statement he went out of his way to emphasize what a great Zionist he is. Hardly relevant. I think there should be a Jewish state so they can all get to know each other before they get to hell (that was sarcasm and black humor - nothing to raise anyone's tail feathers)

[jgibson2[$]]

Redlass said

The thing is, though, he's trying to respond to something else someone claimed he said. It was published in a magazine that he was accepting a theology that is radically different from what he's said all the rest of his life. He didn't publish this "correction" out of the blue--which, yes, would be rude. He wasn't walking up to someone and starting the conversation. He was responding to what had been written about him.

Very good point, Bridgette. I think he's wrong, but he does have an obligation to correct something which varies this much from his actual beliefs.

There are people who thought Mother Teresa was going to hell??????

You haven't seen any Jack Chick stuff, have you? Mother Teresa, Pope JP II, most of the folks Catholics think of as saints. We're all gonna burn. It's that cookie-worship thing. Then the fact that actual Catholic teaching allows for Jews to be "saved" while still being Jews. Something about God actually honoring His original covenant. There are a lot of Catholics who don't understand or who understand and disagree, btw, but my grandma used to refer to them as "more Catholic than the Pope."

[theworm[$]]

Never heard of Jack Chick. Don't think I want to learn much about him. He sounds like another incredibly rude and disrespectful person.

[jgibson2[$]]

If you're not familiar with Jack Chick, you're lucky. Like Fallwell, he's a bigot who believes that nobody gets into heaven unless they share his narrow views. Unlike Fallwell, he's all about getting into people's faces and telling them they're going to hell. I don't think Fallwell approaches people quite the same way as Jack Chick.

I don't know if there is a real Jack Chick or if that's just a pen name, but there is a series if small comic-book style tracts with very nasty messages. I suppose he means well - or thinks he does. I know the organization tries very hard to get their tracts distributed at places like World Youth Day (Catholic). I occasionally find them lying around in the Catholic hospital where I work. Those go right in the trash when I do.

[jgibson2[$]]

theworm said

I think there should be a Jewish state so they can all get to know each other before they get to hell (that was sarcasm and black humor - nothing to raise anyone's tail feathers)

I don't think that's why Fallwell believes there should be a Jewish state. I think he believes it's necessary in order for the "Last Days" to play out the way they're supposed to according to his interpretation of the book of Revelations.

[theworm[$]]

I know - thats why I said sarcasm and black humor. I REALLY do NOT think that's what he thinks!!

[brian_igo]

Redlass said

The thing is, though, he's trying to respond to something else someone claimed he said. It was published in a magazine that he was accepting a theology that is radically different from what he's said all the rest of his life. He didn't publish this "correction" out of the blue--which, yes, would be rude. He wasn't walking up to someone and starting the conversation. He was responding to what had been written about him.

You can bet he has had a whole bunch of people come up to him and say, "Hey, how come you told these other ministers that you believe in dual covenant when you told us that you didn't?"

Is he supposed to let it stand that he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Or is he supposed to clarify?

I don't agree with the man, but I can see why he thinks it important as a preacher to clarify his theology. After all, without his theology, what point is there to his job?

I don't like it when the president says he thinks the war in Iraq was a good idea, but if a newspaper in Iraq started reporting that Bush was opposed to the war, I could see why he would speak up with a correction and wouldn't call it mean-spirited or foolish of him to do so.

And I think this "theology" he's carried his whole life is the theology of a bigot. I don't see holding that for a lifetime as a license or an excuse.

There is a world of difference between believing that following the doctrines of your faith will earn you an eternal reward, and saying you're going to hell because you don't follow my doctrines. Falwell has never, ever, ever been bashful about proclaiming the latter about other religions and those who he feels live or act in sin.

I thought it was funny that he wrote a correction to the Jerusalem, Israel Post to clear any misconceptions about his belief regarding the eternal fate of Jews. It is, as Judy also pointed out, phenominally rude. And I guaran-damn-tee you that if an Islamic cleric wrote the same letter to the Lynchberg Gazette saying the same thing about evangelical christians, under the same situation, that Reverend Dr. Falwell would not be so quick to accept it as clearing a theological point.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

jgibson2 said

I don't think that's why Fallwell believes there should be a Jewish state. I think he believes it's necessary in order for the "Last Days" to play out the way they're supposed to according to his interpretation of the book of Revelations.

And a big part of the "Last Days" scenario is that God will kill all the Jews who don't convert to Chrisitianity.

I've gotten in trouble for talking about this on EA before, but I'm sorry, the whole "convert or die" thing creeps me out -- it has strong echoes of the Inquisition and other low points of history. The only difference now is that rather than believers taking the killing part of the equation into their own hands, they want to leave it up to God to do the killing (and hopefully they won't get impatient and decide they do need to do it themselves after all).

So the "love" that Falwell et al profess for quote the Jews unquote strikes me as being like the love a farmer has for his calves who he envisions as he hopes they eventually end up, as steaming platters in the middle of his dining room table.

Anyway, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, including those whose beliefs center around a wish that another group of people all be slaughtered. The question to me is how much should Israel be trusting Falwell, et al. Is it a good idea to accept their help -- to say, essentially, let's just focus on the concrete things that they are offerering, and not fuss about the ideas and beliefs in their heads. Or is accepting and even courting the Falwells, et al, as Israel is currently doing, like opening the gates to let a Trojan Horse inside?

[AuntieEmma[$]]

theworm said

I respect others beliefs that I'm going to hell because I'm Jewish.

I guess I'm not as nice as you are, but I don't respect that belief.

I think that people are entitled to believe whatever they want and should be given the freedom to do so. But I don't have to actually respect all those beliefs, and in fact there are many that I don't. I don't respect the belief that I'm going to hell because I'm Jewish, or that I should wear a burqa because I'm a woman, or that adulterers should be executed in the center of town, or that the world rests on the back of a turtle.

[theworm[$]]

I mispoke. I respect their right to believe it. I do not respect the belief.