Hahaha.  This is a religious man who stands by his convictions.  He apologizes when faced with political pressure.  Yeah, Christ really caved in when pressured by the pharasee's and scribes.  These guys are a joke and will stop at nothing to gain power.  Thanks for the apology, but it doesn't mean much when it takes political prodding to get you to undenounce an entire religion.  LOL.  This election season just gets funnier and funnier.

And when did racist Wright apologize for anything he said........yes.that is what i thought.

Wright did not say anything racist.  Why should he apologize?

His statment that the govt created aids to kill black people was racist, a lie, and he needs to apologize for it.

Except he never said that.  He just said it was possible and gave a pretty good basis for his cinicism.  I wonder how you could get mad and frothy at Wright instead of showing the slightest bit of outrage at what we KNOW our government did in the Tuskeegee syphalis experiments.  Racist indeed.

So based on that, him telling his church....which he did......that there was a govt plot to kill African Americans is ok.....wow...great logic.  So because something bad was done in the past, he never ever needs any evidence for any of the racist things he says now.  Great logic. 

I don't think you understand.  The bad thing that was done in the past is evidence itself.  If the government was capable of one attrocity, how can anyone be sure it wasn't behind another attrocity towards the same people?  This has happened before you know.  Ever heard of Polio Blankets?  I wish Wright's remarks were as far fetched as you seem to think they are.  Unfortunately for me I am not so naive as to believe it isn't even possible.

I think you have some cognitive dissonance going on there.  Nothing the Reverend said was racist that I have seen from you.  You seem to have gotten your panties all wadded up over nothing.

So using this same logic....because democrats were against the original civil rights to blacks they can-not be trusted today because they are racists.

I agree with that entirely and would like to add that those Democrats are now Republicans.  The Republicans successfully lured racist whites to their party using the racial divide.  The former chairman of the RNC even admitted this and apologized for it.

BTW I am not a Democrat so I really don't care about partisan swipes against them - even your nonsense.

Open mind, why bother with these clowns.  They truly believe their racist beliefs are shared with a majority of the U.S.  This clown will cling to Jeremiah Wright the day after Barack is sworn in and still not get it.  They are easily offended when someone say

sorry didn't finish my point . . .

They are easily offended when someone says anything negative about the good ole U.S. of A., but find it comical when Imus calls arabs "camel humpers" or when Andrew Coulter says, "we should convert the middle east to christianity" That's their version of comedy.  The entire world is on to the bs point of view.  The bottom line, your point of view is a fading ideology.  But cling away, there's a museum for the created world you live in.  There's a special wing in the Bush library dedicated to you nuts. LOL.

Your incongruity in your belief you "know" what other people believe is amazing. Do you have the lotto numbers for next Saturday?

"I agree with that entirely and would like to add that those Democrats are now Republicans."
Do you have any sources to back your statement or is this your opinion?

Just for the sake of argument, please tell us how saying the government was behind this is racist. Are you suggesting the government is for whites only?

And Hagee held a "slave sale" fundraiser at his church, promised to meet with Black leaders and never did.

"Senators Obama, Clinton and other leaders who seek to enlarge the scope of government face more formidable obstacles than they realize. Their desire to impose a European-style welfare state and a command-and-control economy not only contradicts our proudest political and economic traditions, but the new revelations about American DNA "

Courtesy of the republican's very own Michael Medved. Now you know, being republican is actually part of your DNA. If you don't support republicans, you aren't american, either morally or genetically!

I'll be waiting anxiously for all the calls from POV and Co. denouncing this racist homophobe...

In a 20-page memo on GOP electoral woes, Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) repeatedly misspells Barack Obama’s name – it’s one R, congressman, not two -- and then manages to use the racially charged term “tar baby” in a paragraph about Obama and immigration.

Hey, where are those crys for demanding an apology from POS and Co?

We here in New Orleans are still waiting for John Hagee's apology... I was wondering though, Mr. Hagee...uhhh, REVEREND Hagee, if God sent Hurrricane Katrina to destroy 80% of New Orleans because of a scheduled gay pride parade in the French Quarter, why did God spare the French Quarter from the flooding? Can't figure that one out...

And how come hurricanes hit Virginia Beach so often, home of Pat Robertson and the 700 Club???

Uhh...because they were planning a gay pride parade in Virginia Beach, too? Or does Elton John live there? No...sorry, that's Atlanta.  ;>)

For that sin, they get drought...sorry.

Maybe God has really bad aim?

I was WONDERING if anyone else noticed that Hagee apologized for one smear, but left all his other attacks in place.

Hoe "Chirstian" of him.  And how irresponsible of the media not to call him on it.

It's just amazing how racist hate preachers like Hagee keep getting a pass because they are white right wingers. No wonder racism is alive and well in the US.

Great story.  Makes you ashamed to be an African-American defending this  country abroad, and still hated by some in your own country of birth.

Snoopy, I read another story where some guy in Mississippi is selling T-shirts with the cartoon character "Curious George's" picture on the front with "Obama 08" printed on it. 

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2008/05/14/bojorquez.obama.tshirt.controversy.wsb

I saw that video this morning.

The scary thing is that the guy doesn't see how anyone thinks the T-Shirts are offensive.

On this idiotic notion that God sent Katrina to punish New Orleans for tolerating gays.... let's look at it using logic. (You evangelicals just watch... we'll demonstrate)

Hagee the Hut would have us believe that God was so pissed about a group of Gays parading down the street that he killed thousands of people who had nothing to do with it and left thousands more homeless, just to make a point? On the other hand, this same God allowed millions of his "chosen people" to be systematically murdered in Nazi death camps?

Sorry, but only a dumbass could believe that.

And, Nerz, in New Orleans God spared the epicenter of gay life, the French Quarter! I didn't live in French Quarter and several of my elderly neighbors were killed in the storm. I don't think they were gay. They didn't look gay...

Exactly. If one believes that God intervenes in such a way, then one must assume that God has chosen to allow monstrous atrocities throughout history.

Actually the Bible is CHOCK-FULL of this kind of disprotionate and indiscriminate punishment.  (Reference: http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/a_brief_summary_bible.htm)

Lot's wife was killed just for looking back as the city she grew up in, and would never see again, was being destroyed. 

God sending two bears that killed 42 children because they were making fun of a prophet's bald head (2 Kgs. 2:23-24)

How about the great flood and Noah's arc!?

So yeah - that's what they would have us believe.  And that's why I'm not very religious. 

 (To believe [stories such these] is to believe in an unjust God, to doubt it is to not be very religious!)

Same here. I gave up organized religion years ago, precisely because of that kind of nonsense. I'm not willing to turn off my brain just to belong to a Sunday Morning social club.

Whether one believes in God or not, there is no denying that the institutions of religion are man made.

Nice,

As for the 2 Kings verse, there is wide misperception regarding that passage.

The ancient Hebrew term for Children also meant young men. In this case there were a large number of them, (more than 42.)  Calling the prophet bald was a derogatory term that also meant leper. In effect they were taunting and ridiculing and threatening God's prophet. The two she-bears are symbolic too. Their immagery  of the bears is that they were an instrument of God's protection. They came and defended the prophet from the mob. The many young men were injured as they fought against defenders of the prophet.

It stands to reason that 1. Parents would not let lots of children insult an elder. 2. If there were lots of children their parents would not be far away and would not sit idly by while bears attacked. 3. The children would not have simply lined up for bears to attack them. They would have run home.

While I don't agree at all with Rev. Hagee and his pronouncements, one must be careful against literal interpretations of the Bible. I think he too take the Bible too literally.

AA wrote:

>>There is a huge difference.  Only God can bring condemnation on his people.  One minister is claiming to believe that God has brought judgement on sin.  The other minister is claiming MAN is bringing condemnation on those he doesn't like.  Man is not the creator - God is.

But none of this helps the argument that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality. It completely undermines a literal interpretation of the bible. First, if one needs to read a gloss or secondary material to get the context of the OT, then that makes a literal interpretation impossible. One must reconstruct meaning, rather than just read words, and only scholars, perhaps one in a million, have the intelligence and background to reconstruct meaning. And even when they do, they will come to different conclusions.

If we accept your interpretation (and I doubt it is the only one), then it still makes God look like a maniac. So he killed some people for making fun of his prophet?

On the other hand, if we accept that children would have run away if bears attacked them, then that means the OT is inaccurate--meaning you can't interpret it literally.

You also want to interpret the bible in terms of symbols in order to show God is not cruel. That is fine, but such an interpretation completely undermines a literal interpretation. If you want to interpret this passage symbolically, then what is to stop one from claiming that the whole bible, indeed all of religion, is just a metaphor for an internal quest for truth, as Joseph Campbell does?

So when one says the OT condemns homosexuality, he  must also accept other literal interpretations, which show God to be contradictory, injust, and cruel. In short, it is stupid to say that God condemns homosexuality because of the OT.

Funny,

I do not know where you are getting the quote you attributed to me. Can you explain?

Different books in the Bible can be interpreted differently. One does not have to accept the literal interpretation of Creation in order to believe that the Gospels are a fairly accurate accounting of Jesus's ministry here on Earth.

Frankly I do not understand what point you are trying to make? 

AA wrote:

>>I do not know where you are getting the quote you attributed to me. Can you explain?

Woops! That text was still in my clipboard from previously.

I think my point is clear. If you want to accept that the OT condemns homosexuality, then you also have to accept a lot of other absurdity in the OT. (See Mary's post below.) One cannot choose what parts of the OT are to be interpreted literally, and which are not.

Regarding whether the New Testament "are a fairly accurate accounting of Jesus's ministry here on Earth," I do not accept that at all, since they were not written during Jesus's lifetime, were written by people trying to promote a certain point of view, have to be reconstructed by scholars, have had material added and deleted from them (see Bart Ehrlman), contradict themselves, and cannot be tested for accuracy by any known means. 

Funny,

Sorry I was not able to continue the discussion yesterday.

The New Testament has been tested for accuracy with all four Gospels and the Epistles having been written between 45AD and 149AD.  There is far more written about Jesus's life than anything else during that time. 

AA wrote:

>>The New Testament has been tested for accuracy with all four Gospels and the Epistles having been written between 45AD and 149AD.  There is far more written about Jesus's life than anything else during that time. 

As usual, you are just making things up. Who exactly has done this testing? No one, of course, because it is impossible to test the accuracy of the NT, unless there are indepepndent historical sources the world is not aware of. As I said before, the NT was not written during Jesus's life and was written by people who were promoting a certain point of view, contain contradictions, etc. In other words, they tell us absolutely nothing about Jesus, unless you believe 4 anonyomous authors have proved a man can rise from the dead.

"Different books in the Bible can be interpreted differently"

Oh, how convenient. One more reason why Separation of Church and State is vital for the survival of a Democratic Republic. Our lawmakers waste enough time without having to debate what God meant in Crustaceans 14:3.

And let's not forget the fact of The Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang having another so-called "spiritual advisor" of questionable repute--Rev. Rod Parsley by name.

"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that.

Hagee has acknowledged this is his opinion and has no clear message from God that this was part of His divine plan.  Hagee is a Christian minister and in Christianity homosexuality is a sin.  I do not know enough about Hagee to comment on his personal beliefs but I do know that Christianity teaches to hate the sin but love the sinner. We are all sinners in the eyes of God.  There are many instances in scripture where God uses his wrath on people to call attention to sin so that others may be saved. Hagee seems to be using a modern day event to drive home a similar point in the hope of saving others.

Whether you agree with Christianity or not is a personal choice - but to continuously post stories here that Hagee has yet to apologize for one of the tenants of his belief system is silly.

So, you love the sinner by sending a Hurricane to wipe him out, and in the process you wipe out half a city?

Is God that much of a putz?

The xrishun god is like the worst boss ever, takes credit for all the good things, all the while all the bad things are to be chocked up to us abusing our free will. Nice going, even I could handle that job!!

He sounds like a neocon to me. 

I don't even like any real neocons, why would I want to worship an imaginary one?

Homosexuality was never once mentioned by Jesus. It's a "sin" in churchianity, not Christianity.

In churchianity, human sexuality is considered sinful and something to be ashamed or uptight about. In Christianity, it's a beautiful part of Life.

Good point. A large portion of modern Christian doctrine was made up by Paul, not Jesus.

You walk into nearly any church in the South (where I live) and you are about 10 times more likely to hear a minister quoting Paul as you are Jesus.

I think that in Republicans' minds Jesus was sent by God to justify and protect the powerful against the powerless.

churchianity...

I like that, Mary...think I'll use it sometime if you don't mind. Thanks...

Be my guest. I didn't make it up either ;-)

Sounds like churchianity is full of pews. hehehe...

You err in neglecting the Old Testament as part of the Christian doctrine.

Why do you think it is called "Christ"ianity?  Just wondering.

I'm assuming by that comment you have no understanding of the Judaeo-Christian faith.  Suffice to say that Jesus was a Jew who preached the Old Testament law.  Those who believe he is God incarnate are Christians - those who do not are Jews.  Same God though.

I'm assuming by that comment you are unaware that there is no such thing as 'Judaeo-Christian faith', as it is a myth created by evangelical right-wing Christians to align their motives with those of conservative Jews. 

Anyone who interprets the Bible (old testament or new) in a literal sense is a nutbag, anyways.  It's all just stories, some which have good morals (and some which don't!) 

Kyle,

Christianity has accepted the Old Testament, of which the first five books are known by Jews as the Torah. Christians believe the Jews were God's chosen people. However Jesus, through his life and death allowed all people to claim the same birthright as the Jews. All men and women are equal in the eyes of God and all may obtain salvation through Jesus rather than the law of the Moses. At that point the two religions part. However there is a definite link to Judiasm from Christianity.

Thanks, Capt. Obvious.

So, practicing Christians don't eat pork?  They don't work on the Sabbath?  I didn't realize that all Christians held the same Old Testament customs as the Jews.

Kyle,

Sorry for being so late getting back to you.

Jesus, according to Christian theology, replaced the laws of Moses. That is what I meant by that is where Judaism  and Christianity part.  As was discussed here a while ago,  Christians feel they have  been 'perfected'  (in the theological sense,) by their faith in  Jesus.  However Christians feel that the God  of  the Jews is the God of the  Christians even though Christians feel God is of three persons (God the Father, God the Son, Jesus, and God the Holy Spirit.)  Where as Jews do not believe Jesus is the incarnate. 

So Christian's do not hold to all of the same laws as Jews, however Christians believe the Old Testament was God's inspired word.   

Jesus taught the Old Testament law?  Where is "turn the other cheek" in the Old Testament?  I suppose since you are so learned, you can cite chapter and verse for my misguided little soul?  I hope that isn't too much to ask.

Dems_soul wrote:

>>You err in neglecting the Old Testament as part of the Christian doctrine.

Oh, you mean the Old Testament that contradicts itself within the first two pages of itself, that Old Testament that lays down absurdly strict dietary laws--that Old Testament that we should look to in order to condemn homosexuality?  

Guess it's time to trot out this open letter to Dr. Laura (don't know the author):

Laura Schlesinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident and also posted on the Internet :-)

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

d) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

f) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

h) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

i) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Mary wrote:

>>Guess it's time to trot out this open letter to Dr. Laura (don't know the author): 

Excellent post!

I have a Masters degree in literature and have obviously studied older texts. The idea that one can even understand a text as old as the Old Testament, considering the language gap, the problems with finding a "reliable" document, and the cultural gap, is really bizarre. The idea that we can literally interpret this text and find one meaning is just plain stupid.  

Mary, I agree Excellent post!

The post is cute but the mind that wrote it is steeped in the same ignorance that for years touted the world is flat long after the globes circumnavigation..

Dems,

Can you explain that comment?  It doesn't seem to make any sense at all.  Actually, I think you mean the exact opposite.

I thought it was funny.  Dems' remark seems to consider a more literal reading of the letter - as opposed to a sarcastic one, which you probably read it as.

The story about Magellan's voyage is a test of faith to see who can retain belief in the Bible despite inconvenient facts put out by the devil.

lol. Now, how many non believers are we allowed to smite a week? I must consult Exo-leviticudeteronomy.

Dems_sould wrote:

>>The post is cute but the mind that wrote it is steeped in the same ignorance that for years touted the world is flat long after the globes circumnavigation..

In other words, Mary's post has completely destroys a literal belief in the bible, and the only way I can counter that is by saying that Mary is so dumb that she believes the earth is flat.

We accept your defeat in this argument.

Oh, and the Greeks and even most intelligent people in the medieval ages understood the earth was round long before the globe was circumnavigated.  

Well he never mentioned beastiality either so I guess you can go lay with a horse and feel good about yourself too.

"but to continuously post stories here that Hagee has yet to apologize for one of the tenants of his belief system is silly."

Actually, that's not the point. I don't give a rat's ass if Hagee apologizes for his looney beliefs or not. What I do care about is that Obama got hammered relentlessly for weeks over his own pastor's looney beliefs, and McCan't gets a pass for SOLICITING the endorsement of a nutbag like Hagee, whose beliefs are every bit as offensive as Wrights.

The comment that MM keeps bringing out here refers to the willfull actions of sinners - clear territory for a pastor.  Wright accuses the US government of proliferating Aids to commit genocide against the black community.  Do you really see no difference?

Dems_soul wrote:

>>The comment that MM keeps bringing out here refers to the willfull actions of sinners - clear territory for a pastor.  Wright accuses the US government of proliferating Aids to commit genocide against the black community.  Do you really see no difference?

No, and neither would anyone else who is not blinded by partisanship. What a ludicrous distinction? So it is okay for a Christian minister to say that God wiped out half a city because of homosexuality? Are you saying that is okay? And do you think if the public heard that, they would also think it is okay?  

There is a huge difference.  Only God can bring condemnation on his people.  One minister is claiming to believe that God has brought judgement on sin.  The other minister is claiming MAN is bringing condemnation on those he doesn't like.  Man is not the creator - God is.

In your own words - you must be very partsian not to be able to tell the difference.

Dems_Soul wrote:

>>There is a huge difference.  Only God can bring condemnation on his people.  One minister is claiming to believe that God has brought judgement on sin.  The other minister is claiming MAN is bringing condemnation on those he doesn't like.  Man is not the creator - God is.

Oh really? I would like Hagee's words to be trumpeted on the air waves for two weeks straight, and then for these words to be associated with McCain, and see if the public agrees that Hagee is just talking about God's judgment. Really.

And you can't hide behind Christianity. If Christianity really believes that a whole city is wiped out because of what superstition, then either (1) Christianity is a faith is a barbaric belief, or (2) Hagee's interpretation is barbaric.

You get to choose (1) or (2). You don't get to use a fake defense that because Hagee is a Christian, he can say crazy, hurtful things and not be held accountable. 

If Christianity really believes that a whole city is wiped out because of what superstition, then either (1) Christianity is a faith is a barbaric belief, or (2) Hagee's interpretation is barbaric.

Do not associate Hagee's statement with all of Christianity.  If you are going to try to understand what someone is talking about you need to understansd where they are coming from.  Hagee is a Christian minister who understands that homosexuality is a sin.  Biblical scripture is filled with God unleashing His wrath on those who flaunt sin.  Hagee put these two ideas together to arrive at his conclusion.  Hagee does not speak for all of Christianity.  I do not agree with his sentiment.  He prefaced his statement with "I believe" - not Christianity believes.  His interpretation though is based on biblical principle whether you want to accept it or not. 

A hurricane is an act of God - as opposed to Wrights accusation of premeditated murder.  I can't explain it anymore plainly than that.  If you can't see a difference it is because you don't want to. 

DEMS,

If Katrina was to punish sin, why did it COMPLETELY MISS the location where the parade was to be?

Hagee does not speak for all of Christianity.  I do not agree with his sentiment.  He prefaced his statement with "I believe" - not Christianity believes. 

Fried - the above is from my previous post.  You have associated my understanding of the nature of Hagee's comment with my agreement that it is valid.  As I do not agree with Hagee I can not answer your question.  I do not doubt though that many others do.

The original subject matter of my thread was MM's constant rehashing of this statement and the media's refusal to condemn him for it.  I do not believe Hagee was condeming any one with his ccomments.

So I am guessing the most christians and Hagee himself are ignoring the fact that even the bible says that Satan is  "the prince of this world" in the Book of John 12:31, 14:30; and he is also "the prince of the power of the air" Ephesians 2:2

 

Sounds like "Satan" is in control of the "winds"  maybe he was pissed that there was not a big enough parade. 

If God actually did send Katrina to "punish" New Orleans, isn't that premeditated murder, as well? If not, why not?

You are equating man with God.  You'll never figure these things out as long as you continue down that road.

God is the creator and final disposition of the soul is His choice. "The lord giveth and the Lord taketh away".  A mortal man taking the life of another is taking control of Gods dominion.

DEMS-

So, when a doctor cures a patient with a life-threatening illness, is it an act against God, and therefore a sin?

Of course, modern medicine is just another movement in the atheistic Big Science agenda, isn't it?

So, when a doctor cures a patient with a life-threatening illness, is it an act against God, and therefore a sin?

No - not at all. Life threatening is relative to what the doctor knows at the time.  God gave man the ability to heal himself and others.  The extension of life by healing may very well be tha answer to a prayer.

But I thought that morality was absolute? If God is exempt from his own laws, then right and wrong are not universal. Murder is murder... or is it?

You flunked out of Sunday school, didn't you?

No, I just stopped believing fairy tales around the age of 12.

It is a pity that you closed your mind at such a young age.  The type of wrath God is capable of, and what Hagee is trying to illustrate is aimed directly at folks like you.  Those that have already closed the door to His existence.

I assume that you buy the idea that God randomly "smites" sinners, using natural disasters? Isn't it interesting that these alleged "smitings" are absolutely random... occasionally striking the truly guilty, but more often killing the innocent? In fact, these "smitings" seem more consistent with coincidence and random chance, as one would expect natural disasters to be. Don't you find it the least bit puzzling that God would wipe out most of a city to express his displeasure at gay people, yet has allowed countless mass murderers to carry out their crimes unhindered? Is that the least bit disconcerting to you, or have you closed your mind to such intellectual pursuits?

You have not kept up with my posts regarding my disagreement with Hagee on the "smiting" of New Orleans. 

Much of faith is indeed a mystery.  If you try to answer questions about God with the mind of a human you will run yourself in circles all day long.  Not everything in the world is finite and definable - nor is it supposed to be.

"The type of wrath God is capable of, and what Hagee is trying to illustrate is aimed directly at folks like you."

So, "folks like me" risk the Wrath of God, but this same God will sit by and watch children slaughtered? That is a mystery, indeed.

For me, it boils down to this. I cannot say whether or not God exists. However, reason informs me that the Creator of the Universe is not likely to behave as the petulant, jealous, insecure, selfish, bloodthirsty despot portrayed by the writers of the Old Testament. Jesus probably had it about right, but the humans who perverted his teachings into Christianity just couldn't let go of their killer War God.

"The type of wrath God is capable of, and what Hagee is trying to illustrate is aimed directly at folks like you."

I apologize if you read my implication here as that you are in God's crosshairs.  I am trying to communicate to you that God uses many tools to call your attention to His existence in the hope that you will turn to him.  It is indeed a tragedy when lives are lost at the hands of manical humansn, natural disasters, accidents, war, etc. - but I have faith that a loving God takes care of those unfortunate victims offers comfort to those left behind. 

Dems_Soul wrote:

>>I apologize if you read my implication here as that you are in God's crosshairs.  I am trying to communicate to you that God uses many tools to call your attention to His existence in the hope that you will turn to him.  It is indeed a tragedy when lives are lost at the hands of manical humansn, natural disasters, accidents, war, etc. - but I have faith that a loving God takes care of those unfortunate victims offers comfort to those left behind.

Oh yes, a fundamentalists tries to dance around the problem of how God can be omnipotent, omniscent, loving, and yet allow evil such as the hurricane in China? God must not be one of these things. Maybe he is a shithead and shouldn't be obeyed if he is anything like the Old Testament depicts him. If God kills at will as you suggest, why should we obey him?  

Dems_sould wrote:

>>Do not associate Hagee's statement with all of Christianity. 

But the rest of your post does just that. On the one hand, you want to say that Haggee's views do not represent Christianity. (Which is my point, by the way. In other words, one can't use Christianity to excuse Haggee's hateful rhetoric.) But then in the next sentence you contradict yourself by saying that scripture is filled with God destroying those who flaunt sin, thus justifying Haggee's comment. Then the next sentence you state you do not agree with Christianity. And then a few sentences later, you change your argument once again, by saying that Haggee expresses a personal belief, not a Christian one. And then you change your view once again by stating that Haggee's belief is based on scripture. 

You conclude by stating "I can't explain it anymore plainly than that." But your explanation could not be less clear. And it is clear why: you are caught in a contradiction. Haggee's words are every bit as hateful as Wright's, but you want to excuse Haggee's and condemn Wright's. That's called hyporcrisy.

And my challenge goes out to you. Are you basing God's condemnation on the Old Testament, that contradicts itself withing the first few pages--that completely flawed set of mythology?  

Christianity does not teach that God takes his vengeance on sinners.

Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, not on the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.

Those who preach that God destroyed the World Trade Center because of the ACLU and People For The American Way (Jerry Falwell's statement) or that God sent a hurricane to New Orleans to destroy half of the city because the City was allowing a Gay Pride Parade Rev. Hagee's claim), are preaching their own form of hatred based on some batsh_t crazy lunacy that they make up as they go along.

And as another poster already commented, what kind of God is it that these clowns pray to? Maybe their God should get a new pair of glasses before he sends the next hurricane. He hit everything BUT the sinful places in New Orleans.

"Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, not on the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament. "

Excellent point. I think the early "Church Fathers" found the alleged words of Jesus not very useful in their pursuit of wealth and power. Therefore, they turned to the Old Testament and the words of Paul to scare and shame their flocks into submission.

Maybe it's just me, but when somebody tells me that God told him to tell me to give him money, I'm just a wee bit skeptical.

Christianity does not teach that God takes his vengeance on sinners. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, not on the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.

In the watered down versions of Christianity you are correct.  However Christianity maintains that the Bible are the Holy scriptures of God.  A comprehensive reading of the Bible from Genesis through Revelation reveals one true unchanging God.  In relation to maturing, before one can be trusted with freedom one must learn obedience and responsibility.  To only study the NT is only learning half the lesson.

"before one can be trusted with freedom one must learn obedience and responsibility"

Obedience? To whom.... God? And who speaks for God? You? The writers of the Bible? By what authority?

This is akin to Romney's idiotic pronouncement that "Freedom requires religion." What a crock.

In relation to maturing... (note this was an allegorical reference)

I do not speak for God - The scriptures speak for God

"The scriptures speak for God". Really? And we know this..... how? Oh, that's right.... we know the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible tells us it's the Word of God.

This is akin to Romney's idiotic pronouncement that "Freedom requires religion." What a crock.

I said freedon requires responsibility and obedience.  Meaning one must understand the responsibilities that freedom requires.  Before one can be trusted with the freedom to have sex they need to understand the responsibility of raising a child.  Before one can be trusted with the freedom to carry a gun they must learn to be obedient to the laws that govern the use of a weapon. 

In that same way before one can truly understand the love of God in the NT, one must also understand the wrath of God in the OT. 

Dems_soul wrote:

>>In that same way before one can truly understand the love of God in the NT, one must also understand the wrath of God in the OT. 

You mean the OT that contradicts itself in the first few pages? That OT? As Mary's post pointed out, it is pretty impossible to interpret the bible literally as you imply. You responded to Mary's post with a snarky comment, meaning you cannot defend your position.

As Nerzog pointed out, how do  you know that the bible is the word of God?

As I point out, how do you even know how to read the OT, since it was written in an ancient, dead language and has to be constructed from fragments. For example, most scholars believe that Job was added to not just once, but twice. So which Job do I interpret literally--the one in my KJ bible, or the one the scholars said was the "original?"  

So...  when is Pastor Hagee going to apologize to the Jews?

"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day... Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people."

There ya go. The Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves, according to Hagee the Hut.

How silly of me to think that God should have intervened to stop the Nazis.... if we're to believe Hagee, they were simply acting as agents of the "loving God" to punish the Jews.

Yeah, right.

Shorter Pastor Hagee:

The Nazis were just doing the work that God had intended for them.  Those Jews never would have been killed if they'd have just accepted Jesus into their hearts.

Sounds like a charming fellow.

Well this apology is a step in the right direction. Baby steps ;-)

 

Maybe he'll eventually say he's sorry for other remarks.

 

Of course I've yet to hear Rev Wright apologize for anything. And before one of you can say he's got nothing to apologize for...I bet a lot of folks would disagree. Including Barack Obama.

and Obama has distanced himself from Wright.  When McCain does the same with Hagee (which he won't) then we'll be back to square one.

I think Rev. Wright should apologize for his big stupid ego - but shouldn't we all? 

Aside from that, I don't see anything at all to apologize for.

Jeter - I'm going to have to call Rev. Hagee's faith into question.  The man who claims the most that he is a Christian, usually isn't.  Further, Hagee only apologized when he was called out on his remarks.  He didn't apologize because his remarks were hurtful, hateful and full of sh*t.  He didn't apologize because Christian's seek forgiveness when they've wronged others.  He apologized because politics forced him to (and I would venture to guess that a call from McCain also caused him to apologize).

And when he apologized, he gave a half-hearted apology. "If I offended anyone...".  He's a douchebag, fake Christian.  He knows he offended people, millions of people, who are members of one of the oldest Christian denominations.  A real Christian, in my view, would have apologized in a different manner, such as: "I've said some things that were truly appalling.  I apologize to those whom I've offended.  There's no excuse for my words.  I ask for your forgiveness."  And the best part of an apology is in action - you don't do the deed (for which you've apologized) again.

So I question Hagee's faith and practice.  You folks on the right question my faith and practice (because of my politics), why shouldn't I question his?  If he can't walk the walk, he shouldn't talk the talk.

Did Rev. Hagee feel pressured to be "political correct" again or was this a sincere apology?

To help students seeking odd jobs, his church newsletter, The Cluster, advertised a "slave" sale. "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone," it said. "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." Mr. Hagee apologized but, in a radio interview, protested about pressure to be "politically correct" and joked that perhaps his pet dog should be called a "canine American."

Rev. Hagee is a certified NUT but no coverage of his crazy sermons, crazy antics or questions on McCain's judgement in asking for the support of this nut. If Obama can be faulted to attending Rev. Wright's church for 20 years WHERE is the question of McCain's judgement in asking for the support of a pastor who finds NOTHING wrong with "bringing slavery back to America". Why is it acceptable to simply accept McCain answer that he doesn't agree with Hagee but he WELCOMES his support. Why the double standard?

Pearlene,

I agree with you. McCain sought out this vile hateful nut's support, & this should not be allowed to slide in the media.

McCain should reject the guy once & for all. Just saying he doesn't agree should not be enough.

Obama severed his ties with Rev. Wright. The same should be demanded from McCain.

Jeter, the bias is blatant. You cannot miss the imbalance in the insane coverage of Obama and Rev. Wright vs the none coverage of McCain and Rev, Hagee. Unfortunately for McCain, Hagge is not his only problem. There has been no coverage of the man McCain calls HIS "spiritual guide".

What does Rev. Parsley believe?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tViqufbk7I8&NR=1 

Republicans brought the evangelical church into politics not for religious beliefs but to use their numbers and their power to influence. THAT is the problem. Religion should have NO role in politics. If your afraid of Rev. Wright you should damn well be afraid of Rev. Hagee and Rev. Parsley.

Again..when will the racist Wright apologize for any of the things he said.  The double standard on the left is amazing!!!

The double standard on the left is amazing!!!

When will FOX NEWS air 24-7 coverage on Pastor Hagee's controversial statements?

Oh, that's right, the far-right doesn't have double-standards, because they don't have any standards at all!

Maybe Wright will apologize after the Press spends six weeks giving Hagee an anal exam like they did him.

Fair enough?

Pointy, I gather from your posts that you consider Wright a racist, but what specifically do you think he has to apologize for, and to whom?

He can start by apologizing to those within our government that he accused of introducing AIDS to kill black people?  If he has no proof of that, which he doesn't, it is nothing more than the hysterical rantings of a bitter angry pathetic man.  And he should apologize, that will keep him busy for awhile.

She me where Wright made that "accusation".  From what I saw, Wright merely suggested it was possible.  Maybe I missed it.

Your expected word parsing aside, so if I merely "suggested it was possible" that you are a child molester, I wouldn't owe you an apology? Wow, some standards there.

It's possible that anyone is a child molester.  You are only making my point for me.

I'm always glad to set you straight, tommy.

Using the child molester possibility as an analogy, let's say Person A (the US government) was caught showing a small child pornography (the Tuskeegee experiments) and then a year or two later, the child was found dead in the woods after an apparent sexual assault (read AIDS epidemic).  Considering there is a known direct basis for the suspicion (the Tuskeegee Experiments), do you think it would be necessarily unreasonable to believe Person A (the government) might have possibly been involved? Maybe or maybe not.  Now consider you are the child's parent (later generations of Black people).  Do you think it may seem even more of a possibility considering the known history involved?  Of course, you don't.

That is the most ridicilious thing I have ever read.

And for open_mind, who normally posts with thoughtful reasonings - it's absolutely mind-blowing. Obviously, his time away from here has not been helpful.

Thanks for the compliment.  I've never been very good at analogies.  I figured it was worth a shot.

I suppose the absence of an argument on your part is preferable to you nitpicking the analogy, which I half-expected.  Thanks for at least not doing that.