11
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 53:
Line 53: + + + + + + + + +
→Sept 11 comments
:::Yes that is a good point. Let me throw out a rhetorical question: (a) Do you think gay adoption would be a good propaganda recruiting tool to exploit by Islamic terrorists, and (b) Do advocates of gay adoption have any moral responsibility to the rest of us ''if'' in fact gay adoption is a good recruiting tool to get suicide bombers to kill Americans? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:14, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes that is a good point. Let me throw out a rhetorical question: (a) Do you think gay adoption would be a good propaganda recruiting tool to exploit by Islamic terrorists, and (b) Do advocates of gay adoption have any moral responsibility to the rest of us ''if'' in fact gay adoption is a good recruiting tool to get suicide bombers to kill Americans? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:14, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
::::a) No - it is totally simplistic to imagine that terrorists attack us because they think we're morally decadent b) That is a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' question. Now I'll ask you a couple of questions. a) Do you think Jerry Falwell's statements that "I think Muhammad was a terrorist" and that he "was a -- a violent man, a man of war" - statements against a man regarded by Muslims with as much reverence as Christians regard Jesus Christ, and that he later stood by - were more likely or less likely to increase terrorist attacks against Americans both here and in Iraq? [http://www.theturkishtimes.com/archive/02/10_15/f_falwell.html] And b) do you think Conservapedia's continuing to host (for at least the last two months) a copy of one of the cartoons that caused rioting in Denmark on our article about the [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]] is more likely or less likely to help bring about peace? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
::::a) No - it is totally simplistic to imagine that terrorists attack us because they think we're morally decadent b) That is a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' question. Now I'll ask you a couple of questions. a) Do you think Jerry Falwell's statements that "I think Muhammad was a terrorist" and that he "was a -- a violent man, a man of war" - statements against a man regarded by Muslims with as much reverence as Christians regard Jesus Christ, and that he later stood by - were more likely or less likely to increase terrorist attacks against Americans both here and in Iraq? [http://www.theturkishtimes.com/archive/02/10_15/f_falwell.html] And b) do you think Conservapedia's continuing to host (for at least the last two months) a copy of one of the cartoons that caused rioting in Denmark on our article about the [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]] is more likely or less likely to help bring about peace? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
I think the 9-11 comments are important because they may show an inadvertent but disturbing (mis)interpretation of Scripture on the part of the good Reverend. When the Lord God was moved to destroy the city of Sodom, Abraham bargained with Him to wait until all the good innocents were evacuated. In fact God said that He would not smite the city that invented gang rape, sodomy, incest, homosexuality, miscegenation and all other sins UNTIL the innocent were freed from its evil clutches. I do not believe that God would send his angels (in the guise of Muslims no less) to destroy the WTC until the buildings were cleared of innocents. I realize there were probably Jews, Muslims, homosexuals and other apostates in the towers but nonetheless there must have been at least 10 good Christians in the towers when the planes hit. Scripture tells us God would not do such a thing. I do not know why the Good Reverend would say such a thing. He was probably trying to make sense of the world at a time when things seemed to vulnerable, tender, fragile, and ripe for violation. But I believe that he mistook the work of Satan for that of God, and by conflating Satan's work with the name of God he in effect called Satan "God". See Gen 18:16
Thus we must allow the comments to be published to show us that he was truly a Good Christian, one who was capable of making mistakes like any human being who occasionally mistakes Satan's tricks for acts of God.
Also, according to the piece by John F. Harris running in the Washington Post on Friday, September 14, 2001 he did not apologize or retract the statement but framed it as a theological issue, thereby furthering my argument.
As to the "gay adoption" dilemma mentioned above, I am horrified by what I am about to say, for it has disturbed me to even contemplate such prurient thoughts - shame on you for bringing up such a topic in an otherwise wholesome discussion. Must we resort to discussions of sodomite behavior even in a discussion page about the only recently deceased Good Reverend? I do not believe that "gay adoption" is even in the Arabic vocabulary. All they need to do is tune into any of Rupert Murdoch's satellite stations and see the depravity that is Baywatch, Charlie's Angels, the Badge, Beverly Hill 90210, Paris Hilton, Janis Joplin and Ms. Coulter's too short skirts to know that American conservatism has failed to rein in rampant sexuality and avarice.
==Quotes==
==Quotes==