Bryan Fischer: False Prophet


Now that the Boy Scouts of America has voted to allow gay teens to join troops, Bryan Fischer says that BSA now stands for the “Boy Sodomizers of America.” Right Wing Watch rewinds the clock to February, when Fischer claimed that this change in policy was completely unthinkable and would never happen.

“The chances that this 1,400 National Council is going to remove the ban on homosexuality,” Fischer guaranteed, “is nonexistent. It does not exist. It’s infinitesimal. It is off the charts in remoteness. So in other words, ladies and gentlemen, this decision today means that the ban on homosexual scout masters and homosexual participants, that ban is going to be upheld. It’s going to be defended. It’s going to be in place. It’s not going anywhere. It’s not going to be changed. Sodomy is not going to be normalized in the Boy Scouts of America. It’s the end of the game. This is game over. This is the Super Bowl and the good guys have won. Make no mistake about this, this is a huge win for the pro-family movement; it is a big, big, big setback for Big Gay”

Oops. Here’s the video:

Comments

  1. Mr Ed says

    I wonder if the Bible – an unerring source of wisdom – has anything to say about false prophets.

  2. brucegee1962 says

    Why is it that people put the adjective “Big” in front of things to make them more scary? Is the idea is that as soon as our opponents start getting organized, they morph from effeminate stereotypes to a bunch of cigar-chomping fat cats from an old Herblock cartoon? Didn’t we as a country use to be in favor of big things?

  3. caseloweraz says

    It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one of these dudes to get it right.

    That goes for Michelle Bachman too.

  4. says

    Mr. Ed,

    I wonder if the Bible – an unerring source of wisdom – has anything to say about false prophets.

    It does (as you know). It also has something to say, in the same testament, about sacrificing animals for sin atonement. So we have a precedent that what is commanded in the OT is no longer commanded in the NT era. Not only is sacrificing animals for sin atonement no longer commanded, it would be considered an abomination. So unless you are prepared to argue that Christians, within their own context, have misunderstood the work of Jesus from day one and in fact should (if they were not cafeteria Christians) be sacrificing animals, then you have to allow that at least some of what is commanded in the OT is now null and void.

    So no, I think stoning false prophets is no longer called for. Absent repentance, excommunication would be the correct punishment.

  5. zenlike says

    then you have to allow that at least some of what is commanded in the OT is now null and void.

    So, which parts of the OT have now become null and void? All of it? None of it? Or only certain parts? In the last case, where in the NT is a listing of which parts are still valid, and which are not?

  6. dingojack says

    Heddle – what? Christians believe is moral relativism now? That’ll be news to the Evangelist movement.
    Do you wanna tell ‘em?

    Dingo
    ——–
    PS: I don’t expect them to live up to my morals, I expect them to live to up to theirs. If they wanna keep Leviticus says homos should be stoned, then they should stone false prophets too. Not my rules, theirs.

  7. says

    Let’s see what JC had to say about disregarding the OT:

    “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:18-19

    Shorter version: “Two points, ah, two flats … and a packet of gravel,”

  8. vmanis1 says

    Well, I’m not a Christian, but it is fair to point out that Jesus specifically asked whether Man was made for the Sabbath (one of the Big Ten in the Commandment League) or the Sabbath made for Man. Christianity claims to have a new covenant between us and God that replaces the old one. (Reform and Liberal Jews got to pretty much the same place by careful re-interpretation of the OT.) So it’s fair enough not to require that religious Christians follow all of the strictures of the OT (notice that Fischer doesn’t round the corners of his beard).

    That said, Fischer engages in daily Bearing Of False Witness, which is one of the ethical no-nos that people of good will from all traditions tend to take pretty seriously. I think that when he gets to Heaven, he’ll find that his soul is seriously borked. Since his BOFW involves claiming that God told him these things (Taking The Lord’s Name In Vain), don’t be surprised if the Almighty himself is quite pissed.

  9. Synfandel says

    Sodomy is not going to be normalized in the Boy Scouts of America.

    Is heterosexual coitus normalized in the Boy Scouts of America? Parents might want to know about this.

  10. says

    zenlike,

    I have my view (all the laws are null and void), but it is irrelevant. The point is, if you try to paint us in a corner by saying we should stone false prophets but we don’t because we are cafeteria Christians, then to be consistent you should argue that we should sacrifice animals but we don’t because we are cafeteria Christians. Both are commanded in the Old Testament.

    If you are not willing to be consistent, then you are a cafeteria atheist. You are picking and choosing what OT commands which, as a matter of convenience to atheists trying to make a cheap point, we should obey.

  11. ambulocetacean says

    I’m more concerned about how the Boy Scouts have long since abandoned Baden-Powell’s anti-masturbation campaign. These days it’s all DYB, DYB, DYB, DOB, DOB, DOB, fap, fap fap.

  12. velociraptor says

    @heddle

    Matthew 5:17

    Fischer should be under an avalanche of stones, many times over.

  13. dingojack says

    Wait – aren’t the (two sets) of ten commandments in the OT? So Christians can bear false witness, murder, covet their neighbour’s ass* and hold any gods (or none) before their own. No need to worry about that OT morality stuff ’cause Jesus said all bets were off (except he didn’t).
    Just following the argument to the logical conclusion without picking and choosing.
    Dingo.
    ——-
    * Or god’s ass if you prefer. He likes that.

  14. says

    velociraptor ,

    Fischer should be under an avalanche of stones, many times over.

    That may be, be it should not be because of the commanded OT punishment.

    Re. Matt 5:17: What’s your point? Because I can explain that in depth. It doesn’t mean what you want it to mean. Can you explain:

    For when there is a change in the priesthood [Jesus as the new high priest], there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Hebrews 7:12).

    and

    For he [Jesus] himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, (Eph. 2:14-15).

    Both passages are referring to Jesus.

  15. slc1 says

    Re dingojack @ #15

    Ole Heddle’s position on the Hebrew scriptures seems rather interesting. He states on this thread that, in his not so humble opinion, the laws and requirements in that volume are inapplicable., At the same time, on this very blog, he reiterated his belief that the Sun stood still in the sky for a day, just as stated in the Book of Joshua. I hope his views of nuclear physics are not as convoluted.

  16. abb3w says

    Similar to the DuJan piece, this remind me of the classic Festinger study of the Keech group — and various later critical re-analyses — regarding what happens when “prophecy” fails.

  17. says

    slc1,

    At least you are no longer lying and claiming that I stated the earth stopped rotating. But I suppose it would be too much to hope that you would admit that you falsely attributed that statement to me.

  18. says

    I have my view (all the laws are null and void), but it is irrelevant. The point is, if you try to paint us in a corner by saying we should stone false prophets but we don’t because we are cafeteria Christians, then to be consistent you should argue that we should sacrifice animals but we don’t because we are cafeteria Christians. Both are commanded in the Old Testament.

    Fine by me.

    Is barbecue sauce allowed to be used on animal sacrifices?

  19. busterggi says

    Why thank you heddle, I hadn’t even realized cherries were in season yet.

  20. naturalcynic says

    Hmmm, Hebrews and Ephesians versus Matthew. Kinda makes Heddle a Paulian, not a Christian..

  21. says

    naturalcynic ,

    It is not Hebrews and Ephesians versus Matthew. In Matthew 5 Jesus says the “Law or the Prophets” (the first century name for the OT) has not been abolished but fulfilled. You fulfill prophecy, not ordinances (which you obey). Jesus is teaching that he is not an unknown deity unrelated to the Messiah prophesied in the OT, rather he fulfills the OT (The Law or the Prophets) prophecy. Including, by the way, the one that there would be a better covenant (of grace) to replace the old one (obedience to the law). Consistent with Hebrews and Ephesians.

    Kinda makes Heddle a Paulian, not a Christian.

    Ah. I detect a whiff of #20, the Super Duper Paul of Tarsus View.

  22. dingojack says

    Actually it says something like:
    I haven’t come to disband/tear down/destroy (καταλυσαι) the custom/law/usage/ordinance (νομον) indeed rather than disband/tear down/destroy I come to make full (πληρωσαι).
    Dingo

  23. says

    DJ,

    Your point being? The ambiguity is in the word for law (anglicized nomos) which means either law as in ordinances or law as in the archaic name the Pentatude. (And you conveniently left out “or Prophets” from your translation, the joining of the two in that fashion, with either an “and” or an “or” is a very strong indication that the reference is to the OT as a volume, not the specific laws in the OT). And the word translated as fulfill (pleroo) is used many other places as the fulfillment of prophecy. Such as in Matt 1:22, “All this took place to fulfill (pleroo) what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.”

    There is no escape. The paraphrase: “I come not to destroy the OT but to fulfill its prophecy” is much more consistent than “I come not to destroy the ordinances but to obey (or perfect) them.” For one problem (of several) the latter makes no convincing use of the “or Prophets” that you omitted. It just dangles there.

    But hey, I know atheists want sooooooooooo much that there is no way Christians can get out of the “stone this and that person” punishments. Can’t have that! Why, 83% of Raven’s posts would be apropos nothing. May it never be!

  24. slc1 says

    Re Heddle @ #23

    Gee, it would be nice if the good professor would inform us as to how the Sun could stand still in the sky for a day without the earth ceasing its rotation for the same period. I’m sure that its all very simple, we’re just stupid of we don’t understand it.

  25. says

    slc1,

    As I said before I don’t have a friggin’ clue. The same answer for all the assumed miracles. I don’t know how Jesus walked on water. Or how he changed water into wine. If I knew the physics of how they happened, then they wouldn’t be miracles,

    You assumed that my explanation was that the earth stopped rotating, when I in fact wrote that I do not believe that explanation. (See the footnote here.) And you turned your incorrect assumption into a false quote. And rather than admitting I never said that, you doubled down. You obfuscate by challenging me to offer another explanation as if my failure to do so validates your fake quote.

  26. dingojack says

    Heddle – I’d suggest you consult your Liddel and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon rather than the big book of apologetics, it’ll make you sound a little less like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass.
    Dingo
    ——-
    PS: Out of interest: πληρωσαι and νόμον

  27. slc1 says

    Re Heddle @ #27

    So it is Prof. Heddle’s contention that there may be some other explanation for why the Sun stood still in the sky other then the earth ceased its rotation. How about it never happened. That would explain why there is no evidence that anybody else in the world, other then Joshua and the folks he was addressing, observed this rather startling phenomena.

  28. slc1 says

    Re Heddle @ #27

    Here’s another explanation that I suspect that Heddle won’t like. Ole Yahweh put Joshua and his attendees in a trance that lasted for a day so that they observed the Sun in the same position as on the previous day and they thought that it had not moved in the interim. That would, of course, label Yahweh as a trickster god.

  29. says

    DJ,

    Heddle – I’d suggest you consult your Liddel and Scott’s A Greek-English Lexicon rather than the big book of apologetics, it’ll make you sound a little less like Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass.
    Dingo

    I consult several lexicons when I need to, and don’t have a copy of the big book of apologetics.

    What does that even mean, really? Did I dispute that nomos meant law? I did not. I only pointed it is the exact same Greek word used in the title for scripture that Jesus would have used in the first century, The Law and/or the Prophets. It would take about two minutes to verify this. For example:

    After the reading from the Law and the Prophets (Acts 13:15).

    Same Greek word for Law. νόμος (nomos). Are you suggesting that the OT as a volume is not what is being referenced in Acts 13:15?

    That is why you have to ask: is he speaking of the ordinances (laws) or the OT? The fact that he tacks on or the Prophets– which you conveniently ignored–is a compelling piece of evidence that he is speaking of the text, i.e. the OT (minus the wisdom books).

    And the other word, pleroo, a simple check reveals, is used throughout NT(I gave one example earlier) to mean to fulfill prophecy.

    Geez you can be dense at times.But as I said, I understand the motivation. There simply can’t be any explanation as to why Christians don’t call for the stoning of adulterers, blasphemers, gays and homosexuals except that they are cafeteria Christians. It just won’t be permitted.

  30. says

    heddle @12: The point is, if you try to paint us in a corner by saying we should stone false prophets but we don’t because we are cafeteria Christians, then to be consistent you should argue that we should sacrifice animals but we don’t because we are cafeteria Christians. Both are commanded in the Old Testament.

    You know what’s weird about your argument? Mr Ed didn’t actually say what you said he did. You, in fact, were the one who brought up stoning, whereas this is Mr Ed’s original question:

    I wonder if the Bible – an unerring source of wisdom – has anything to say about false prophets.

    That actually brought to mind something that had absolutely nothing to do with stoning for me: Matthew 7:15.

    Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

    Them’s Jesus’s words right there. And they apply directly to Bryan Fischer and his ilk and tell Christians exactly what they should think of him. Stoning isn’t even required.

  31. says

    Geds,

    OK, possibly I made an incorrect assumption. But since comments about the “stoning” punishments are commonplace here, I believe it was a reasonable assumption. If not, my apologies to Mr. Ed.

  32. bybelknap says

    Alright heddle, this is the last time I’m going to explain it to you:
    Jesus was the 7th horcrux, he had to die in order for Lord Voldemort to be killed too. It wasn’t so important in practicality how or when he died, but for the story arc it was essential that Voldie do it. Judas Wormtail had several opportunities to kill Jesus, but it just didn’t make for a good story. Jesus could have been killed by Desciple Matthew (Who is called Lupin) when he turned into a werewolf in book three (The Prisoner of Nazareth), but again, to have the hero killed in book three of a 7 book series just didn’t make any sense – economically for the author. So I hope this clarifies things for you, at long last, and you can get back to solving physics problems. You’re welcome.

Leave a Reply