The Three Stooges Are Alive & Well

The 3 stooges were funny.  These clowns are not.

ya, you got a point there doc....

Maher: Nothing new. This is the guy who said that flying an airplane into a building was much less cowardly than bombing someone from the safety of a stealth bomber. He has his own brand of logic.

But... have you watched it? I don't agree with a good part of it, but he wasn't saying anything worse than I heard people say irl, and he definitely wasn't saying what Catholics think he was saying. He honestly has a point about Falwell. Falwell spent his life blaming sweeping tragedies on people's sinfulness, and that God was the author of the punishment. AIDS, 9/11, etc. This is the guy who said one of the Teletubbies was gay.

I don't believe in smearing the dead, but I really, really hate it when we, out of politeness, FORGET the insipidness of such people. Maher was caustic about it, but Falwell was too, and walked rough-shod over the feelings of millions of suffering Americans at one time or another. I didn't watch or respect Falwell, and I don't watch or respect Maher. They're BOTH caustic people, both too stupid to know how stupid they are (were).

Regarding the Catholic thing, he was poking more fun at gay guys than Catholics. Definitely no worse than many comedians give Catholicism in terms of child molestation scandals, etc. If you've lived as long as you have and never heard anyone make "thy rod and thy staff" into something dirty, well, you've stayed in quite a bit.

Re: Ham, I have zero sympathy. Ham deserves all the derision he gets. He's making up stories and calling them science, and a generation of kids who have the misfortune of living in literalist-creationist homes will be misled by him now that he has his little dog and pony show going. People can believe what they want to believe, but when you mislead kids who will be made worse off in life because of your lies, you deserve what you get.

I haven't watched this HBO program but I used to watch Maher in his late night talk show thing where he had on guests on both sides arguing politics and other current events. I wasn't impressed with him then. That's my only experience with Maher.



Actually Falwell has done so much good but unfortunately these two events keep on coming up. He apologized for both these comments. Did you hear that or see his apology?

He said on the 9/11 tradgedy he was thinking of that scripture in Proverbs 14 where it says:

"Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people."

He said when he said what he did (and very quoted) it came out all wrong and he apologized.

If you read any of my articles on Falwell, you know I have a personal connection not knowing a hill of beans about this man before 1999. He's nothing compared to what the media is portraying him to be. My two sons are a walking talking testimony to what that college is doing for young people. Many people have remarked on my boys, their integrity, charm, and politeness does not go unnoticed. They are just two of tens of thousands coming out of Liberty. We have five now going from our church next year as a result of what they've seen in heard. Franklin Graham said the same thing on Tuesday at the funeral. His three boys and daughter went there and he was very impressed. He had no regrets in NOT sending his children to Wheaton where both he and his very famous dad graduated even tho the pressure was immense to do so.

I watched Falwell's funeral live. Did you? Did you know that the church held 6,000 people. The football stadium holds about 10,000 more and the Vines Center at Liberty holds another ...at least 6,000 people. All were filled to capacity. The only thing shown on CBS news was the very small group of protestors outside including the Phelps guy. Nobody in our area saw anything on this funeral broadcast on tv. We cannot trust our own media. You should know that by now Baker.



Now I'll ask you the same question you asked me regarding his museum. Have you seen it? Do me a favor...go check it out (grand opening is on Monday) and tell me what it's like. It will be a while before I get a chance to get there...but if I get there before you....I'll be sure to write about it. He is having (at last count) 70 different secular media groups there either today or tomorrow including a Muslim media group. So obviously this is creating quite a stir...even the atheist groups are already out picketing.

To see the funeral check this out:

WWW Link

You know that I know a lot about Ham, and I know what Ham believes, and why he believes it. Should I expect something different than his widely documented views of natural history? I doubt seriously that there is anything in his little show that contradicts what he believes, is there?

If they made a Satanic themepark, I doubt you'd need to go scrutinize before deciding what you thought of it. After all, you know the source material the work is based upon. Granted, if Ham's sideshow is teaching totally counter to what he puts in his books and on his site, well, I could be wrong. Dunno why he'd do that, though.

Re: Falwell, I have been acquainted with the man's work since I was a child. It most certainly isn't just a couple of quotes. You have no idea how many hours I have sat through his sermons. If you started in 1999, I have a distinct feeling I've heard more of him than you. I started in the 1970's.

You're right about that but that's a totally diff contrast. That's believer against non-believer to the extreme. You are a Christian right? You know Ham says that also. So now we're talking creation vs evolution not belief in God. I have gone to many secular, humanistic evolutionary thought, museums and exhibits across the years. There hasn't ever been anything like what Ham is doing for the other side until now. There hasn't been a choice for me before this.

It's sort of like you're saying in the year 1517 "I'll only go to the CC. It's got the right doctrine. Afterall, we don't believe in what that Luther (Ham) is saying because everyone knows the CC (evolutionary Science) is the absolute right teaching."

What other choice was (is) there?



I've known about him for years but not a big fan or was all that interested in Him before 1999.

As far as his sermons? He never was my type of preacher. That's not where I'm coming from. He was ok. In fact I even disagreed with his free will stance which is what many of the professors at Liberty believe. It's just not enough to divide over.

I loved his vision. I loved his work ethic. I loved his love for the college kids and his family and most of all his love for his God was very apparent. His motivation was right from what I can tell and as a spokesman he put his foot in his mouth a few times but he was willing to take the heat for the rest of us. He was willing to say things that we wished we had the guts to say many a time.

Did you know he said we all need a Bhag? It was a favorite saying of his. Do you know what that is?

I would be interested in exactly how you were acquainted with him as a child sitting thru these sermons. At least you had a better foundation in theology than I did.

Nope, we're talking about someone who believes that the world is a few thousand years old. I'd feel the same way about someone who was teaching that the world was flat, or that your relative goodness somehow impacted your success in life. I wouldn't really appreciate people who taught that to kids, either.

A myth isn't a choice in terms of science. If he didn't shroud it in science I wouldn't care, any more than I care about people who believe in alien UFOs or vampires. I like people with imagination. It is the opposite of imagination, though, to doggedly hold on to an idea that died a natural death a long time ago; it is closing your mind.

In that way, I can put Ham in an analogy about the Catholic Church. They, too, come late to many things, and stubbornly hold on to goofy, bronze-age ideas for centuries beyond their lifespan. Not something I would let my kids be influenced by, at all.



Given that religion has nothing to do with the natural sciences, there SHOULDN'T be a choice. That's like saying there should be an Amish choice of Computer Science classes, or a class on Middle Earth as a requirement for history majors.

If you don't like scientists spewing irreligious philosophy with their science, then in order not to be a hypocrite wouldn't you need to have the same venom for people who do the same, only from a religious perspective? That isn't what science is for, and science is hobbled by it. No one should teach your kids not to accept religion through science, and people definitely should NOT teach kids to reject science through religion.



Judge not is a core Christian value, wouldn't you say? Granted, it is as rare as hens teeth in Christianity, but still, if you are going to pose yourself as he did, it would be tough to overlook it. He was a segregationalist when it was a popular stance, speaking out against interracial marriages, etc. He spent so much of his public time condemning that, well, that's what he is known for. That isn't by accident.

He paid a lot of money to promote scandals against Clinton, most filled with lies. he paid the troopergate state troopers to come forward with a story that eventually was proved false. He even put out a documentary chocked full of little non-facts. That wasn't 40 years ago, that was the mid 90's. Bearing false witness, I seem to remember that being mentioned somewhere in the Bible.

You could write books about how much time Falwell has spent with his foot in his mouth, or lying, or saying hateful things. Even when he "apologized", he did it in a backhanded way. He spent so much of his time making money and sueing and being sued that I am surprised all you can really come up with are these little glammed up things you are talking about. He was a businessman and a professional voice of condemnation.

In reality, people like Jerry Falwell put a big, giant anchor around your neck as a Christian every time they open their mouth. The next time you have to deal with some idiot here on the board who got their impression of Christianity from people like that, you re-evaluate the good he did. In reality, most of the bitterness toward Christianity in the last 30 years is directly due to people like him, Pat Robertson, Jim Baker, and the rest of that little sewing circle.

Re: Bhag, it is a a Big, Hairy, Audacious Goal. Falwell borrowed the phrase from someone else, I dunno who. It is a relatively new word, though. I never heard it once before the Internet.

Bhag, it is a a Big, Hairy, Audacious Goal

hahahah YES!! You win the top prize!! How'd you find out? The kids all know this. In fact at his funeral this came out as well.

I've never heard it outside of Falwell but he could have picked it up somewhere...dunno either.

It's obvious you have an ax to grind regarding Falwell. He stood up and spoke up...no doubt and was vilified in the process. You either loved him or hated him. I don't put him in the same boat as Baker and Robertson tho. They were on diff roads by the end of their ministries. They may have started off together as younger evangelists but I think Jerry stayed the course and the others didn't. Robertson was in the audience at the funeral but was not a speaker nor had any part in this service.

There were 6,000 people in a prayer service an hour after he died (including my son). I know for sure I'm not going to have that many even at my funeral when I die. How about you?

He was very loved and very hated. All I know is I owe him a debt of graditude for what he's done for my family and for countless others that I know personally. I can only go by what I've seen with my own eyes and that of my sons. That's what I base my judgment on.

As far as Science and Religion is concerned with Ham and his museum....... Remember the evoloutionary thought out there is much more represented than the Creation side. As far as I know this is the first of any such Museum representing the "other side" and it's a long time coming. What's to be afraid of?

We need to remember that Science is Science. There's no disputing real science. What is being disputed is the theories out there outside of what we know. On one side we have the Evolutionists with their explanations and on the other we have the Creationists with theirs. While we have the same Science, we have come to diff conclusions.

I do know that many Ph.D's were consulted during this whole thing but yes, they were all Creationists backing up their belief with evidence in the fields of astronomy, geology, biology, etc.

Creationism is well represented in religion, and science isn't. Should scientists start opening churches? Apples and oranges. Like I said, a creationism class is like an Amish computer science class.

Keep your philosophy out of science, especially if you don't like scientists sticking theirs in it. I don't want my kid going to a natural science museum and hearing that there isn't a God, so frankly I have to avoid hypocrisy and refuse to support the ones that say there is.

It's like teacher-led prayer in school. Religious folks are all for it until the kids' next teacher is a Muslim...



I dunno, maybe you overlooked the paying people $200k to commit perjury, and creating a video of falsehoods. To the day he died he refused to take back anything. That's not a small matter, thats a commandment. Bearing false witness.

He wasn't just acquainted with Baker and Robertson. He was in business with them. He was in business with Baker when the scandal hit. He was a regular guest of Robertson, saying the same things, right up until his death.

He's was a closet Phelps, like most of his ilk, always ready to credit God for any catastrophe and blame the nearest sinner. I see nothing Christ-like about Jerry Falwell.



Ever seen film of Ayatollah Khomeini's funeral? How about Sheik Ahmed Yassin? Would you say because tens of thousands of people showed up for their funeral they're obviously good people? You can count on brainwashed people to overlook anything in their religious zeal.

Why do you call everyone that you don't agree with in a religious context a Phelps relation? You've called me that as well even tho I strongly disagree with his whole philosophy.

As far as Falwell.....well then we'll agree to disagree. I don't think he credited God so much for the catastrophes so much as he believed that our not honoring or following God will bring these things on. God will not help us. It's our own doing, basically we're thumbing our noses at the blessings we could be having instead of what we are experiencing.

Someday all this will be extremely clear.

No, you don't. You've argued his points over and over and over.

• Do you believe that God killed every firstborn in Egypt?
• Do you believe God told Israel to do what it did to the people of Canaan?
• Do you believe that the Bible is right when it says that for the iniquities of a people God sent plagues, famines, and natural disasters?

Do you believe this passage in Chronicles 21:

7. And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.
8. And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.
9. And the LORD spake unto Gad, David's seer, saying,
10. Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.
11. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee
12. Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.
13. And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.
14. So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
15. And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
16. And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.
17. And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O LORD my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.

Do you believe what it says will happen in Revelation? I know you believe all of this. So, yes, you have the exact same views as Phelps, you just randomly pick and choose, usually through what is socially acceptable, to apply it to. You've said openly here that people who are doing what God wants are less likely to fall into misfortune.

You believe God sends sweeping punishments on a whole nation or reason because of their "wickedness", even if everyone there wasn't wicked. That's what your Bible says, and you claim it is inerrant. If you can't swallow it, then rethink the evil of that belief and stop making God a monster tyrant.

So long as you believe these things, you aren't much different than Phelps.

I sat there talking to my father the day Falwell died, and he made (what I considered) a funny statement.

"I would love to see the look on old Jerry's face when he gets to the other side and sees just how misled he was."

I mean, KFC, you just basically summed up Phelps in one line:



You don't go to funerals and say it, no, you keep it under a bushel.

That's a bunch of balony Baker. You're full of it.

To answer your questions....yes. I believe the bible is inerrent. I have NO idea what Phelps belives as far as Revelation.

What I do know is that I strongly disagree:

when Phelps does his whole picketing thing...
When Phelps says God hates the world
When Phelps says God hates fags
when Phelps says Falwell is in hell

so obviously Phelps and Falwell were NOT on the same page any more than Phelps and I are. If so, Phelps would not have been have protesting Jerry's funeral now would he?

And you might as well paint Christ with the same brush you're painting me. He sure as heck believed in the literal OT at least by the way he quoted it so much.

And Revelation? Well if you compare Luke 21, Matt 24 you will see Jesus gave a preview of Revelation himself.

Why are you so adament and bitter about this Baker?

I'm not bitter about it. I just see you making meaningless distictions trying to distance yourself from Phelps, when in reality you say the same things. Phelps believes that God punishes the innocent along with the good.

You take issue with the word hate, but you'll just ignore it when I post scripture that says God, indeed, does hate PEOPLE, not just sin.

I should have said that the BIBLE says God hates people. I don't believe God does any such thing. Then again, I don't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, either. KFC does.



Christ was painted by the early Church, not me. They're responsible for that source material, Christ wasn't around. They as a hand puppet for all the apocalyptic crap just as they used Him for everything else. If you want to believe whatever they say, fine, but when I see something that runs counter to everything I know in my heart to be good, I refuse to tar Jesus with it.

Anyway, I quote Shakespeare, and I can learn alot from it. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was a prophet.

You say God doesn't hate the world, but you condemn things that are "of the world". I've heard you do it. I've heard you excuse the idea that God smites whole nations because of the evil of a few, or even one in the case of David above, or even because they are of a different religion.. That's all Phelps is saying, that because of the worldly wickedness of America, we are suffering these problems.

I'm sure you're well acquainted with John 3:16. I'm so sure I'm not even going to post it for you.

You don't understand scripture Baker, ie God's hatred against evil doers because you've already set your bias against scripture. Instead of searching it out and going deeper you would much rather make up your mind against it. You're not being logical here, because I can give you many things in scripture like John 3:16, like "no stone will be left on another" in Matthew 24 etc. and you'd have to agree that you would take that literally right? So why pick and choose? Why take some scriptures literally and others dismiss because you can't wrap your mind around it?

Let's look at the whole hatred thing. I know from your past comments you're struggling with this. If this is what's stopping you from believing in the inerrancy of God I'll take a stab at it.

We need to remember that God's ways are not our ways. Too many times we try to put a human spin on terms that are not meant for God. How can a God of love and mercy be categorized as one who hates?

Scriptural talk about God's hatred involves an idiom that does not suggest a desire of revenge. Why would God feel any need for revenge when he's God? Our problem with any description of God's displeasure with wickedness is that we define this anger against it as retaliation.

A third century church father Lactantius defined God's anger or hatred as a correct definition of Godly anger as "a motion of the soul rousing itself to curb sin." It's ok to get angry at sin, wickedness or evil as long as it's defined with the second definition, not the first. An example would be Christ clearing out the temple of the moneychangers and their ilk.

We know the problem with anger can be dangerously close to evil when left unchecked and uncontrolled right? Who could charge God with any of these common human faults? That's why we often object upon being told that God is angry or hates our sin and that he absolutely hates wrongdoing, violence and sin. Our concept of anger and our experiences with it have all too frequently involved loss of control, impulsiveness and sometimes temporary derangement. No wonder we don't want to link this kind of thought with God.

God's anger toward sin is never explosive, unreasonable or unexplainable. It's never a force that controls him rather it's an instrument of his will. His anger has not shut off his compassion, Psalm 77:9.

God cannot and will not remain neutral and impassive in the face of injustice, evil or any sin. He will eventually unleash his anger and wrath against all sin.

One thing you forget Baker is that scripture pictures his anger as lasting only for a moment in contrast to his love which is much more enduring Ps 30:5. His love remains Jer 31:3, Hos 2:19 while his anger passes quickly, Isa 26:20, 54:7-8, 57:16-19. Yet, why do you fixate on his anger and not his great love?

Are you a follower of Marcion Baker? His view was that God never took offense, was never angry and remained entirely apathetic. Is that where you're coming from? I'm at the point where I'd be surprised if you said no.

God's anger or hatred against sin or evil is measured and controlled by his love and his justice. Expressions of his outrage against evil perpetrated on earth ae actually signals that he continues to care deeply about us humans and about our good.

That's why I believe God loves the world. His anger/hatred is for our protection out of his great love for us.

Anyway, I quote Shakespeare, and I can learn alot from it. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was a prophet.

Yes, but you can learn more about life from Scripture than you ever will from Shakespeare. But, If you read Shakespeare, you'd see that he quotes scripture.

I sat there talking to my father the day Falwell died, and he made (what I considered) a funny statement."I would love to see the look on old Jerry's face when he gets to the other side and sees just how misled he was."

You know SC what the diff between me and you is?

I would never have said such a mean thing to you about your Momon leaders or prophets even tho I could easily say the same thing. I do believe hell is truth seen too late. You know, how I felt about Jerry and yet you had enough hatred to put down this statement? Was that a nice thing to say?

As a matter of fact, you know I know much about the Mormon church yet I have decided not to say anything derogatory against it out of respect for those like yourself who adheres to their doctrine.

I don't think it's funny at all to tell you the truth.

I have no problem with the inerrancy of God, KFC, I don't believe the work of men can be though. You correctly point out that in one spot it says that God loved the world, and in other places derides the world vehemently. That isn't God's confusion, that's ours.

I don't believe for a moment that God is apathetic, but I don't believe God is less than we are. We have moved beyond the caveman mentality of liquidating the inhabitants of a place because they choose to worship other gods. Have we become more good than God?

Nope, but we hold endlessly to a bronze age view of an angry God striking down anyone who differs with Him with plagues. We would never, ever murder all the firstborn of a nation because of the evils of its leaders, especially when it is in our power to destroy the leader himself. Are we better than God? Nope, God was never that evil.

But here we are, thousands of years later, praising God for doing things that we would call crimes against humanity. Worse, we wag our fingers at people we disagree with when there is tragedy, blaming their behavior for the fact that it happened. Then, we claim to be different than Phelps.

Why? Because we are too tactful to TELL people that we believe they are causing the deaths of their sons and daughters? That isn't the problem. The problem is the awful frame of mind that poses the idea that God would smite an area with a hurricaine because we tolerate homosexuality.

Falwell did that, too. So does Pat Robertson. You may not say it out loud, but you believe God capable of it, since you believe God DID it, and that God will do it again in the end. So in the end this isn't really about whether or not you scream it at a funeral or think it silently to yourself. It's about the ugliness of a religion that would worship a God that isn't much better than Hitler.

(And before you express your distaste at the comparison, Hitler murdered people because of their race and religion and sexual orientation. You don't need me to show you numerous places in the Bible where God did the same thing. I won't worship such a beast.)

I would point out that Falwell added to his apology:



Which to me is basically apologizing by saying the same thing again. Whether you believe God sent the hijackers, or just watched and did nothing is immaterial. In the end you believe in a God that would allow bad things to happen out of vindictiveness over some people who sin, punishing the guilty and innocent alike.

That's Phelps' sick ideology in a nutshell. In the end, the Bible says, in black and white, that God sometimes intends evil, and even repents of doing evil. If you believe that, then you can't really believe in a perfect God.

Who said anything about vindictiveness? Not me. Yes God allows everything good and bad to happen but not because he's vindictive. Only he has the control to stop it once the ball starts rolling. But many times he lets us receive the logical consequences for our actions. Saul is an example. The people wanted a king because all the other nations wanted a King. It was God's desire to be their King. There was no need for the Nation to have an earthly King or Kingdom, but God allowed this to happen. If you know anything about the whole Kingdom Stage, you'd see much wickedness. It wasn't God's desired will but he allowed these things to happen to a stubborn and hardhearted people. They needed to learn the hard way.

I believe it's the same with our Nation today. It's not God's desire that we kill the unborn or that men are having sex with men. When we have things happen to us as a result of logical consequences, I don't blame God but I do think he allows these things to happen and he could stop it if he wanted to. So in many minds it's as if God is doing these things.

It's as though he takes his hands of protection off us and says...ok, have it your way.

Ok let's look at God repenting.

We do know from the getgo that God's essence and character, his resolute determination to punish sin and to reward virtue are unchanging. These are absolute and unconditional affirmations that Scripture everywhere teaches. But this does not mean that ALL his promises and warnings are unconditonal. Many turn on either an expressed or an implied condition.

Since you didn't give an example I'll give one. Jer 18:7-10:

"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned represents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if he does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."

This principle clearly states the condition underlying most of God's promises and threats even when it is not made explicit say as in the case of Jonah. So whenever God does not fulfill a promise or execute a threat that he has made, the explanation is obvious; in all of these cases the change has not come in God but in the individual or nation.

I'm not sure where you mean that God intends evil so I can't respond to that because I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Well actually it's in much more than one spot. Now you know the Phelps gang doesn't point this out right? So again, like I said, I'm not related at all physically or spiritually to Phelps and his possee.

Romans 5:8 says:

"But God commendes his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

The extent of God's love is shown in the fact that Christ died for men in whom there was nothing that evoked that love. Now that....love.

1 John 4:9 says:

"In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

We know that he loved us, even tho we were enemies at the time. The question isn't why God unleashes his wrath from time to time as he sees fit. The question is why he didn't unleash his wrath on all of us instead of allowing his Son to die for us in the first place. Why didn't he just start all over?

The only reason that I can think of is God's greatest attribute is Love. God desires us to love him as he loves us. He is long in patience, longsuffering and love.

Good grief, you most certainly do, I've pointed it out in other discussions. It's up there in the scripture I quoted, too.



It's also in Jonah:



You'll say that they just mean "bad things" or something, but evil IS the appropriate word for what was going on there. God killed seventy THOUSAND people because of a sin that David, alone committed. Sounds evil to me. To bad for the rest of the world at that time, given he wasn't apt to repent if your people are Egyptian, Canaanite, etc.



It's vindictive by definition:




If a leader has a problem with a part of his country, and during a natural disaster decides not to send help because of it, I'd call that vindictive, wouldn't you? I'm not saying God is vindictive, you are. Phelps is. Falwell did.