ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

Archived Articles

10/14/2006                                                                                       View Comments

Misguided

By Adam Woodworth

I recently saw a news story on my Yahoo home page that was titled, “Rev. Falwell decries stem cell research.” In it, Falwell cited his belief that life begins at conception and said he opposes stem cell research even though it shows great medical promise. He said that “any medical research must pass a three-part test: “Is it ethically correct? Is it biblically correct? Is it morally correct?”

In case you missed it, Rev. Falwell says we must ask if the medical research in question is biblically correct. Herein lies the problem. Reverend Falwell makes an assumption that scientific research has to use the Bible as one “test” to see if they can move forward with the research. Reverend Falwell fails to accept that we are a nation of diversity when it comes to our religious beliefs. He continues to believe the myth that we are a “Christian” nation ruled by the laws of his God.

And, perhaps we used to be. Times have changed, Reverend. For you to even suggest that the Bible be used as a tool in any medical research is simply ridiculous. I’d be saying the same thing about any religious text. Science and religious belief must be kept separate. Science will always challenge and contradict faith. Religion will always contradict science.

We are no longer a nation ruled by Christianity. Perhaps we are one nation under God for some, but for others we may be one nation under Allah, or one nation under the moon. The religious shift is taking place in this country and it will continue to change.

The patriots of this country say we are a country united. This country is united in name only. We are a country divided by race, culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation and disability and we will continue to be divided until each and every one of us reaches out to each other, across the dividing lines, embrace each other and say, “I accept you for who you are.” But, it isn’t just about saying it, you also have to believe it in your heart. And, that is difficult for people like Reverend Jerry Falwell and others like him.

Personally, I think that before people like Reverend Jerry Falwell get any type of publicity, the publicity must pass a three-part test of its own: First, if it is on the television, can I change the channel? Second, if it is in the paper, can I turn the page? Third, how long do I have to see it in the news?

I’m all for free speech, so I say give Reverend Falwell his fifteen minutes of fame. It simply proves my point everytime people like Reverend Falwell get a little air time.

http://www.adamwoodworth.info/

33 comments:

Lorena said...

Ah! Reverend Falwell. That precious gem. He is the greatest enemy of christianity, with his BIG mouth. Thank "God" for Falwell.

I remember the disgust I felt when I read that he used to be a racist. Back in the early 60's, he didn't allow blacks in his church. It was a very useful fact to learn when I was doubting the faith.

Here is a bit of text about F. I found in Wikipedia.com:

"The ghost writer for Falwell's autobiography is Mel White ("wrote every word") who has ghost written many books (including Pat Robertson and Jim Bakker), but has never written anything negative about homosexuals in those books.[7] White himself publicly announced he was gay in 1994.[25] White stated that Falwell makes controversial remarks about homosexuals for attention, and White believes and hopes Falwell's attitude towards homosexuals will 'improve'".[7]

xrayman said...

It's very late and I am tired. I have nothing intelligent to say, but I would like to see a flaming homosexual dressed up like Satan, take a big shit on Jerry Falwell's head.

Deamond said...

If I was in serious pain/sickness/disability/dying/whatever, and someone told me I couldn't get some treatment because "God" didn't like it, I'd say to them, "Fuck you and your god! Get me some god damn (treatment) NOW!"

If someone I cared about was in that situation, I'd say it even louder. If they DIED because of it, I would label the religious fanatics "Murderers".

Besides, if you actually read the Bible, God often kills infants.

Besides, religion and science are natural enemies. Science is the pursute of Fact, philosophy is the pursute of Truth, and religion is the pursute of the anihilation of any competing belief, including Fact and Truth.

otter507 said...

Anyone seen Rev Falwell lately? He's fucking HUGE!!!I wonder if gastric bypass passes the bible test?

Anonymous said...

Yeah his face is about to explode, if he eats just one more baloney sandwich, whammo!!!

He's like Pacman trying to eat the whole universe filled with fried chicken and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Thackerie said...

Fundies spend so much time protesting abortion, yet Jesus never said a word about it (even though it was practiced from ancient times. In fact, the bible actually makes it clear that fetuses have less value than a human life. Biblically speaking, even a new born infant doesn't count as a person - until it's at least a month old.

What the bible says about abortion (from skepticsannotatedbible.com):

• Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." - Exodus 21:22-23

• The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old:

"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver." - Leviticus 27:6

• Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons:

"Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD." - Numbers 3:15-16

Stan said...

I do not wish to start an argument frankly because I do not have the time to spend debating religion on a small website such as this, but my name is Stan and I am studying world religions at Yale and I have been reading posts (I am subscribed) posted on this site for some time now as just a reference for extra study of atheistic view points and arguments. It has come to my avid attention that while many of your arguments against certain religions and beliefs in God are well founded and make a lot of sense, I have found that many of you don't truly understand what these specific religions and sacred texts say about themselves as a whole. An objective observation of these religions would indeed only bring about hatred for those of whom claim that they are doing the "Will of Allah" or doing things "in the name of Christ" or those of whom go under the title of Buddist, Jew, Christian, Muslim and ex. because people themselves can take their own religion for their own self purposes. For instance, the Bible can indeed say that there is no God. Many times in the book of Proverbs (in the Bible) say things such as the following: "God does not exist...." and continues to say "only to the fool." Anybody can claim to understand the Bible, or Quran, the Torah and have not even read them through themselves. They just believe what everybody else (from that belief system) says on these topics. Many don't think for themselves and read into their own beliefs. I am frankly somewhat unsettled by both sides of the argument. Atheists taking what religious people say and arguing against it while what the religious people say things that are not very founded in their sacred texts. I really have a hard time believing a Christian, Jew, Muslim ex. who have not read through all of their sacred books and I do not believe any atheist who has not read through these books to received for themselves first hand what these say as a collective whole. Therefore the point of this is to those whom apply themselves to a religion, I would please encourage you to actually read the full of your religion before you go promoting it, and to the atheist or secular-humanist, read or learn into the whole of mutiple religions, and belief systems before you go trying to disprove the existance of the supernatural or the divine.

-Stan, Yale undergrad

boomSLANG said...

"Therefore the point of this is to those whom apply themselves to a religion, I would please encourage you to actually read the full of your religion before you go promoting it.."

Whether one skim-reads their Holy text, or whether they read it verbatim---all religious belief is entirely subjective. What we see is a gazillion religions/sects/denominations, ALL claiming to have the undeniable absolute "Truth". The problem with that is blatant.

"..and to the atheist or secular-humanist, read or learn into the whole of mutiple religions, and belief systems before you go trying to disprove the existance of the supernatural or the divine."

No one is saying a supernatural being is "disproven", only UNproven. There's a difference. One needn't study the "whole" of all the world's religions to hold this position---a position of neutrality. Thank ya.

-boomSLANG, Life-undergrad

Bentley said...

The Forbidden Scriptures:

Mary was molested and raped by the Godhead of her church, therefore her priest had to quickly concoct a story about visitation of angels from God, because her priest, Mary and Joseph would have been stoned to death immediately after Mary had announced her pregnancy. The priest knew that Joseph and all others would quickly accept the story of visitation of angels.

Since Joseph and Mary were espoused to be married (but not married) Joseph could not confess the child to be his, because they would have been stoned immediately, but Mary knew that the priest had molested and raped her, but could not tell anyone about this, not even Joseph, so she and her priest concocted the whole story about visitation of angels and the coming messiah Jesus Christ the long awaited personal savior.

Jesus too thought that he was sent by god, because he had been told that he was, every day since he was born, (plus, the Three Wise Men said he was,) thus the story of Jesus is the biggest hoax ever been devised in the history of the world, just because millions of people want to believe the Jesus story, does not in no way prove that it is true.

If you think the frying in hell for eternity is weird from a God that loves us, how about his slipping into the tent of a virgin girl, and knocking her up so that she would give birth to a son, who was him, so he could be sacrificed to himself, to atone for the breaking of rules that he invented himself.

Did you know it's not against the law to tell a lie? A lot of people know this, and use this knowledge to their advantage including politicians and preachers.


Did Mary tell a lie when she said she was a virgin? Did Mary tell a lie when she said that she had been visited by an Angel?

How come no one living has seen an Angel, except Mary and Joseph in over 2000 years? Butterflies were called Angels at that time.

Did Mary tell the story about a visitation of an Angel just to save her and Joseph from being stoned to death? It worked!!


This story was inspired by common reasoning and truth, which one do you find more believable?


Which story do you prefer to believe? Which story has more probability of being true? Mary inseminated by an Angel or Mary raped by her priest?

Which story has the most probability of being the truth?

A story that a rational thinking living being wrote, or a story that
fear stricken Opium head gypsy's that wrote on papyrus 2000 years ago, keep in mind that the people that wrote the Bible thought that the world was flat, and sat on a pillar and a giant turtle pushed the Sun across the sky every day and that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and that god and heaven was in the clouds above, and that the heart was the center of all thought and emotion, surely a god would have known that the brain is the center of all thought and emotion???


If you believe that god and Jesus are in the clouds above, then they are getting chopped up every day by jet and propeller aircraft.

Have you ever really took the time to think about how insane religious beliefs really are, or are you so afraid to think differently, because you've been so scared by the threats of an eternal hell by the money grubbing preachers that you are so scared and live in constant fear and guilt?

Anonymous said...

With its reincarnation, Buddhism leads some to regard as great sinners in a pass life those who suffer much. One needs this religion no more than any other one! Skeptic Griggsy

freedy said...

And to think people actually want to spend eternity in heaven with arse-holes like the Reverend Jerry Falwell.
I'd rather come back as a doodle bug!

Farris said...

Stan,

I understand your point of view and find it valid, although misplaced. This is not an atheist website it is as the title states “Exchristian”. That doesn’t mean that there are no atheist here, of course they are welcome. That just is not the focus. My experience on this website is many people thoroughly understand the Christian tenets. Which is why, when they apply common sense, they find them so ridiculous. As for other belief systems I could only assume that they find them to be as ill logical as Christianity, on the surface without ever having studied them in depth. As Boomslang wrote most of us hold a position of neutrality and feel that God is unproven. We apply this belief to all religions…across the board. I hope that you will continue to post and share your knowledge of world religions with us. An educated point of view is always welcome.

Your Pal,
Farris

south2003 said...

Just in case 'yall didn't hear about this 'er news (spit) Rev. Falwell is a test tube baby! hehehe

freeman said...

Hey South,
That would explain why he hates science so much, because it creates monsters like himself.
lol

south2003 said...

freeman said...
Hey South,
That would explain why he hates science so much, because it creates monsters like himself.
lol

LMAO!! You guys are cutting up today!

jtfinallyfree said...

This is no joke!!! While attending Liberty back in my christian heyday I once heard the Rev. Fraudwell preach about health fitness, and the sin of obesity. Talk about a hypocrite this guy is as big as a houseboat!!! I almost pissed myself as I opened my bible that morning. I was one gullible chirstian. WOW!!!!

Trancelation said...

Anonymous:

"With its reincarnation, Buddhism leads some to regard as great sinners in a pass life those who suffer much. One needs this religion no more than any other one! Skeptic Griggsy"

. . . huh?

In Buddhism, people who suffer much are great sinners?

I was never aware that, the entire time I've been practicing Buddhism, that the concept of SIN existed within Buddhism.

Considering the countless Buddhist texts I've read, the many Buddhist retreats I've attended, and the numerous Buddhists I've met, you would have thought that I would have heard of it by now. I suppose not.

Sin is not present in Buddhist concepts. Suffering is not sin; suffering is a fact of life. People who suffer are not sinful. They are human. I'm not aware of any Buddhist that will call you a 'great sinner' because you suffer.

Do people need religion? Only when they need it. Religion is like a raft that gets you across a river. When you are across the river, you discard it. You don't drag the raft along with you. That will only cause suffering. So, no, people don't need religion. But it would definitely help if someone UNDERSTOOD the tenets of that religion before they discarded it, especially if they've never used it to get across a river.

Rebirth is a complex idea in Buddhism. Many people (such as yourself) call it reincarnation, and infuse a Hinduistic view of past lives into it. This is to be expected; the Buddha was Hindu before seeking out enlightenment. You would do better to think of reincarnation (or more properly, rebirth) as an evolution of consciousness, not of an actual rebirth into a new life as a new being because of being a 'great sinner'.

Here's a wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

Nvrgoingbk said...

Obviously, being that we here are all EXCHRISTIANS, you'd have to assume that we are well aquainted with the tenets of the Christian faith, dogma, and creed. We did the sniff test already, remember? Yeah, and it smelled like shit. How many more years should we have studied the Christian religion before we are considered authoritys on the subject? I spent sixteen years, but not everyone needs that long to see the obvious truth that Christianity and the Bible are NONSENSE. This is an EXCHRISTIAN site NOT an atheist site. We don't reject the notion of a god so much as we reject the notions that man has so far been able to come up with. You don't even have to study a religious test in its entirety as you propose before you're able to count it rubbish. All I need to hear is that Allah will reward the faithful with 72 virgins in eternity and that if you blow yourself up, you are guaranteed eternal life, for me to say "Bullocks!" I don't need to hear anymore. That is quite enough, thank you. I don't need to know anymore about the many gods of Hinduism for me to chuck it up as the musings of men and/or dillusions of the mentally ill.

Anonymous said...

So Stan

What is your source of this story about Mary and the Priest raping her? I have never heard it.

Why would Mary, the Priest AND Joseph be stoned to death? That does not seem in line with th mizvot.

But then again I didn't go to Yale.

Hickory

Stan said...

It was strict law back then, to have a baby out of wedlock, one was to be stoned to death immediately, the same applies today in some Africian states.

Anonymous said...

Stan

I think you are wrong. Could you provide your source for this "law"?

Was Mary the only one to be in this situation and come up with such a clever ruse and her illigitimate son carried on the plot to his death?

Hickory

Bentley said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bentley said...

Hickory you "think" I'm wrong, but I am "not!"

Since you have access to a computer, try using it to learn something.

goto: http://www.amitiesquebec-israel.org/texts/stoning.html

Jesus even supposedly said, let the one without sin, cast the first stone, do you think Jesus just invented this type of punnishment?

Take a peek out of your religious Hickory box, and try to learn something!!!

Go to my blog to get an education, click on my name above, and read the entire blog, but I know you will not!!!

Bentley said...

P.S. If that link does not work, just google in these words: stoning to death


And come back and tell me I'm wrong!!!

Bentley said...

You have to put some effort in finding out that your religion and beliefs are a fraud, if you keep your head in the sand, which exactly what preachers want you to do, then you'll never realize what a fool you have been for believeing such nonsense!

Anonymous said...

Stanley

Why do you call me a fool? I never said I belived anything other tahn I think you are mistaken about the origins of the virgin birth story and you have yet to show me any source for your claim.

The stoning link you provide took me to a site talking about stoning in Iran by Muslims. What does that have to do with Mary and Joseph?

If Mary wasn't married she wasn't an adultress and so wouldn't be stoned. Especially if the "priest" you mentioned was single. He would be required to marry her.

I will now try to go to your blog.

I have been out of town is why I haven't replied earlier.

Be civil!
hickory

Anonymous said...

Stanley or is it Ben

I did not know that exchristian was your web page.

It certainly is diffrent than your blog.

This web page is much more intelligent than the rambling rhetoric on your blog.

Mary visited a Nun? I did not know there were Jewish nuns!

I never said if I was religious or not yet you think I am in a box. Why?

All I ask was where did you get the story about Mary and you began attacking me.

Obiviously you are too full of yourself to carry a civil discussion and answer reasonable questions.

I don't think this is your web site.

Peace!
Hickory

Anonymous said...

Ben Stanley

Mind if I call you BS for short?

What program are you studying religions in at Yale? Juast curious why a 52 y.o. would be studying religion at Yale if he wasn't in seminary.

hickory

Anonymous said...

BS

Long commute from Alabama to Yale isn't?

And I thought you were in search of TRUTH.


Hickory

boomSLANG said...

Hickory--I think there may be some confusion. I don't think "Stan", the "Yale grad" who seemingly posted for his first time on this thread--and "Stanley", the guy who frequently posts here, including the "Forbidden Scriptures", are one and the same person. Maybe one of them can clear it up.

BTW, if you don't mind me askin'--what religious/non-religious philosophy to you subscribe to, if any? Thanks in advance.

Bentley said...

First thank you for visiting my blog, how long where you there 15 sec. perhaps....lol

Does Hickory stand for dense in the brain, as like a peace of wood?

You seem alot Tense, you on medication?

What is so significant about Yale, does one having graduated from Yale make one brilliant or a bible scholar?

Did Jesus or Mohammad or Buddha, graduate from Yale?

Besides how do you know there were no Jewish Nuns, where you there?

If you were not so in love with your ego self, you would have realized that a woman being stoned in this century, regardless of where it's being done or to whom, you must realize, although it's hard, that 2000 years ago women with babies born out of wedlock were stoned to death.

Who was Mary married to? Pick one, 1. Joseph, 2. Her Preist, 3. God, 4. Jesus? bzzzzzzt~~answer! None of the above!!! You lose, next fundy please!!!

Mary was not married! Get It!!!

She was raped by her: Pick one! Preist, Preacher, Rabbi, Monk, Cardinal, Vicar, Bishop, Pope, Papal, Rabbi, her Father, Pontiff, Pastor, her Brother, her Uncle her Grandpa, her Psychologist, her Gynocologist, a Holy Ghost.

Answer---a religious official!!!

Of all the answers above, which one would appear to you to be the most probable in your intellectual honesty of all reality? Hint!!! A religious official!!!!

Why are you so afraid to find out that your stupid beliefs are false?

You've been out of town, have you been wondering along in the desert all this time?

Hick: (This web page is much more intelligent than the rambling rhetoric on your blog.

All I ask was where did you get the story about Mary and you began attacking me.

Obiviously you are too full of yourself to carry a civil discussion and answer reasonable questions.)

Me:
Could you please post where I attacked you? Perhaps I made you think, which I could see how you would think I'm attacking you, it's more like I'm Persecuting You, wouldn't you think? There it is again!!!

Your reaction is very typical, I know it hurts, we live in a world with millions just like you...so sad :-(

You sound like a scared, confused little boy, where is your fear founded?

Your dear friend, Stanley, Ben

Anonymous said...

Boom

Looking back I can see where they might or might not be the same person.

I am an agnostic of Catholic background.

I am not trying to defend the biblical story of Mary as BS seems to think - I am saying his story is just as made up as the bible story. All I did was ask for his source for HIS story and he ranted about how I should read hsi blog and learn something. Isee only more rantings there.


BS are you the same Stan? If not my apologies for my confusion.

Maybe I shouldn't have said attack. You just are less than civil in your discussion. Where did I say I was a believer?

Don't you get it. It is truth we are after. If I am wrong about something ( and frankly I have not propsed anything so far for you to have to try and prove me wrong as you seem wont to do) I will be glad - in fact ecstatic - so that I may know the truth.

But you have just replaced one fable with another of your own making. AGAIN what is the source for YOUR Mary story.

Hickory

Anonymous said...

BS

Your wrote
"Besides how do you know there were no Jewish Nuns, where you there?"

No I wasn't - but of all I have read I have never come across any mention of "Jewish Nuns". If you can show me evidence I will admit my ignorance, will have learned something and will thank you for enlightening me. Till then I say your are just blowing hot air to see yourself in print.


On your blog you wrote regarding your Mary story

"I wrote it on the presumption of what most likely really happened, instead of a cover up to make everyone look like they were Saintly and pure, by pretending to have ties with God, this guaranteed their safety."

And on this thread you write:

"Who was Mary married to? Pick one, 1. Joseph, 2. Her Preist, 3. God, 4. Jesus? bzzzzzzt~~answer! None of the above!!! You lose, next fundy please!!!

Mary was not married! Get It!!!

She was raped by her: Pick one! Preist, Preacher, Rabbi, Monk, Cardinal, Vicar, Bishop, Pope, Papal, Rabbi, her Father, Pontiff, Pastor, her Brother, her Uncle her Grandpa, her Psychologist, her Gynocologist, a Holy Ghost.

Answer---a religious official!!! "

How do you know that. You don't. You admit to making it up.


More than likely what happened was more along the lines of a Man - who we'll call Joseph and a woman - who we'll call Mary - were married and had a child in the usual natural way.

This child - a boy we'll call Jesus - grew up and became a preacher. At some point he was killed and later followers of his ideas made up stories - borrowed in part from earlier god myths - about him. How he was born of a virgin, escaped death as an infant, etc.

That is probably more in line with the truth than your made up vitriolic story.

However after reading some more of your blog I see your bitterness. I just don't see how making up stories as mythical as the ones you are trying to disprove works for your cause.

hickory