Blatant Intolerance

[The Elder Brain]

Sometimes it's just hard for me to believe. I was surfing myself up some interwebs, when I found an article. You know how cyberspace is, and in time I found loads of them.
* http://www.missionamerica.com/homosexual.php?articlenum=12
* http://www.missionamerica.com/homosexual.php?articlenum=54
* http://www.christianteenforums.com/index.php?showtopic=52504
* http://www.christianteenforums.com/index.php?showtopic=49049

Stuff just defeats me. Basically it's just with Christianity as a whole. I understand that it is the teachings of God to forgive. This entire religion was built on forgiving others, and salvation, but have you seen the churches do anything other than suppress minorities, and try to combine church and state? The first 2 links are the dangers of homosexuality when exposed to children. It clearly reads that if your child is exposed to the fact the gays are people, and they have feelings, and hopes, and dreams, that they themselves will want to have sex with other boys. There are instructions for separating children from their best friends, if one of them is possibly homosexual. There are warnings, stating that their gay friends will convince your children to sodomize, and sin, and that their only out for the destruction of them. What is this? Is this love and redemption? Thats not what I see! The third link is a young boy, confused at angry at his inability to suppress his sexual urges. The things that make him human, the sole reason he exists, is shunned, and is unholy and wrong. The 4th post is about a boy, who wants to get married to his girlfriend. He is unsure about this though, because although she accepts, and supports Christians, she is not one herself. He is told to not marry her, and even if he loves her, it is unchristian-like. Is this the love and turning the other cheek that is taught? Is this the support of our differences, and loving one another that this religion supports? Because all I see, is an organization taking out minorities, and anything they deem "Unfit." What justifies this hate, and why does America support it?

[WesScog]

I have said this before in another thread, and i'll try to explain it again, and once again i'm not support of support these ideas, i'm simply EXPLAINING them.

Christians who are against homosexuality do not necessarily "hate" gay people. They see homosexuality as a sin, and want to HELP homosexuals become "normal".

But it's not "hate" (for a few freaks like Westboro it is, but he isn't christian) it's a hate the sin, not the sinner kind of situation.

Now why does AMERICA support it? AMERICA is more than 300 million individuals, with over 300 million opinions on the matter. America overall doesn't HATE gay people, plenty of television shows that feature openly gay characters have succeeded in ratings, and things have changed a lot with how people can more openly express themselves.

Are things smooth sailing for every minority all the time? No, not at all. But overall, I think things in America are and have changed for the better in many respects, and in my experience people as a whole do not expressively support "hate".

Most of the stuff like a gay marriage ban, are once again related to trying to fight what they see as SIN, not necessarily expressing a hatred of the sinner.

[The Elder Brain]

I'm not lumping all Christians together, but I think a quote from Fisherking will do the trick

"I don't hate Negro's I just disprove of their lifestyle"

[KingNikan]

TBH i see thats quiet moronic im 100 Percent Sure If Jesus or God would be on earth they would not discriminate anyone. Especially god if he made evreyone why would he tell us not to like other people.

Tell me that

[Skycarl]

If a person says that they hate another person, no matter what
the reason, even if they profess to be a Christian and may have
a mega church, written many best seller books, they are not
a follower of Jesus and are not true Christians and do not have
the Spirit of Christ in them.
Do not assume or be deceived. That is why the Word says the
gate is narrow and few will pass through it.
If one shows hate and not love to another just because of who
they are or what they do or believe are less in God's eyes than
those that choose not to believe at all.
If someone talks like that may I suggest that you remind them
that they should read their Bible and not follow the false teachings
of those who have deceived them.

[Skycarl]

New Spark, let me add a clarification here so this is not
misunderstood. There are two meanings to "church".

The first, "The Church" referring to the body of Christ which is
all true believers and is something that is not just joined or attended
but a part of the Kingdom.
Now, "A church", being a building in your town where people
gather to worship in their beliefs. This church can have a pastor or leader
that either teaches and preaches from the Bible and doesn't
inject his or other beliefs that does not line up with the Word of God or not.

If that church that preaches straight from the Bible is your
church, then you are in a good place.
But if that church preaches doctrines outside of the Word of
God, then run from there as fast as you can.
If you hear a message of hate towards others, then that
church is not teaching the Bible and will only do you harm
in your spiritual walk.

[potentialenergy]

Jesus teaches to love one another as you would yourself, humans teach what ever the heck they feel like.

[Skycarl]

Amen Potential. Now I gotta go get ready to give a sermon today. Funny, some of this
is in my message today. You'll find info on false teachers in 2 Peter.

[trspballer7]

I saw this thread and almost died inside.

http://www.christianteenforums.com/index.php?showtopic=50427

[Wra1th13]

Do we honestly need ten threads on the exact same thing: hate and intolerance?

[The Elder Brain]

^
Yep

[operationivy5656]

there are serial killers who say they did it in the name of jesus. or god told them to kill people. yet the bible says the complete opposite. This is the same as the terrorists in the middle east. They say it is in the name of allah and the qu'ran. yet one of the main principles that muslims believe in is too respect the "people of the book". this being those of christianity and judiasm. If there is a god he would deffinatly not want anyof this to happen, and anyof this hate to take place.

[pcgfilms]

Personally I can tolerate most religions and their beliefs.
But I can't stand radical religions, where it's "we are the best and everyone else sucks and should die"

That is all.

[Fisherking]

I think I need to come into Norse mythology proper. They had an entire patheon of Gods, all drunken, preverted and vindictive. This gels a lot more with our experience than any loving patriarch of humanity, regardless of how good a PR move it may seem to suggest a kind, just deity, a spot of nonsense which can be justified only by the all-purpose cop-out "God works in mysterious ways."

As to 'hate the sin, love the sinner,' I think my Negro comment more-or-less hit the base absurdity: How can you seriously claim to love someone (whatever 'love' means in this case) while simultaneously dispising part of their character so intrinsic to the self? In much the same way as you can't honestly 'love' a Negro while disdaining their skin-colour, you can't love someone whilst hating their sexuality.

But it's really not worth the effort: When you buy the magic man in the sky, you can pretty freely chuck logic out the window.

[speekerphone]

Can't be gay and christian. That's like saying you can be a christian and be fat.

[ciwi286]

Some of these radical christians in America blow my mind! Ireland is so passive on religion...Almost everyone is christian and I have never come across a single Christian preaching anything but love, peace and forgiveness.

Then I found this site (courtesy of westboro): http://www.godhatesireland.com/

[WesScog]

Can't be gay and christian. That's like saying you can be a christian and be fat.



Wait. What?

[WesScog]

Then I found this site (courtesy of westboro): http://www.godhatesireland.com/

Ugh. I feel physically ill. Why does visiting any of their sites make me want to puke in a bucket? Twice.

[AaronHeld]

I'm sure there's many people who choose to be gay and choose to be Christians, it may be a sin but if you think about it everyone sins, even Christians. I bet there are many christians who have sex before marriage which is a sin in the bible, there are many things Christians do and have done that is considered a sin but they are still Christians.

"That's like saying you can be a christian and be fat."

Seriously what the hell? maybe you need something like thats like being a vegan but you eat meat or something, but what are you getting at with that comment I have no clue.

[WesScog]

I think he may have mistyped, I think he meant, "You can be a Christian and be gay, saying you can't is like saying you can't be Christian and fat."

But anyway, not everyone who is a Christian thinks homosexuality is necessarily a sin. And apparently if you take Leviticus literally, it's not homosexuality that is the sin, you can be gay all you want, it's "laying with a man as you would a woman" that is the issue.

So it's not being gay, or even being in a gay relationship that is the sin, it's technically just intercourse that is sinful under a face-value interpretation.

[speekerphone]

Haha, i mistyped. I meant, " If someone says, " You can't be gay if your a christian", that's just like saying, you can't be a christian if you're fat.

[WesScog]

I thought so. I was about to say, "Did someone slip you acid?"

I was expecting you to start ranting about the 12 galaxies next.

[Spleg]

But anyway, not everyone who is a Christian thinks homosexuality is necessarily a sin. And apparently if you take Leviticus literally, it's not homosexuality that is the sin, you can be gay all you want, it's "laying with a man as you would a woman" that is the issue.
Not to mention that Leviticus also condemns eating pork, shellfish, and wearing clothes of more than one material. And another important thing in Leviticus, 'do not oppress each other'. Sorry Fred Phelps, but it's in there!

[speekerphone]

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii178/stewieparker/80876964Nc6wcsCj.jpg

[WesScog]

Not to mention that Leviticus also condemns eating pork, shellfish, and wearing clothes of more than one material. And another important thing in Leviticus, 'do not oppress each other'. Sorry Fred Phelps, but it's in there!

Yea, i've yet to see someone try to start a "God hates pigs" movement, even though it's in the same book.

[Nonsensical studios]

I thought so. I was about to say, "Did someone slip you acid?"

I was expecting you to start ranting about the 12 galaxies next.

Zing.

[lowbudgetblockbuster22]

You know, my cousins, that is learning to become a vet to help animals, is gay. If someone like my cousin is capable of having literal HATE brought onto him, that's, well, that's not a world I want to live in.

[operationivy5656]

Some of these radical christians in America blow my mind! Ireland is so passive on religion...Almost everyone is christian and I have never come across a single Christian preaching anything but love, peace and forgiveness.

Then I found this site (courtesy of westboro): http://www.godhatesireland.com/
please dont think all american christians think this way
i wouldnt even consider these people christian

[Nonsensical studios]

Some of these radical christians in America blow my mind! Ireland is so passive on religion...Almost everyone is christian and I have never come across a single Christian preaching anything but love, peace and forgiveness.

Then I found this site (courtesy of westboro): http://www.godhatesireland.com/

That is HORRIBLE!

[speekerphone]

This makes me embarassed to be a Christian.

[Nonsensical studios]

This makes me embarassed to be a Christian.

It makes me kind of glad to be an Atheist.

[Fisherking]

It makes me kind of glad to be an Atheist.

Very few people willing to fight for what they don't believe in.

[Nonsensical studios]

Very few people willing to fight for what they don't believe in.

I can't tell if you are trying to be funny, or are just stating a fact.

[Fisherking]

Why not both?

[Nonsensical studios]

Why not both?

Touche.

[klick123]

Being Christian, I hate seeing things like these. It just upsets me and part of me finds it insulting.
I don't believe in what they are saying, I know people who fall under all of these categories (homosexual, lustful, athiest) and they happen to be some of the best people I know.
My first friend, for instance, just came out to everyone. No one has a problem with it and I still see him in church (I'm lucky at this church. We moved from another because all they started preaching about was giving them money to expand and how christian it is).

Sometimes hearing about things like these makes me feel alienated from my own faith, like I'm the one with the wrong ideals and will be paying for it when all is said and done.
I believe New Spark put it best: follow Christ not the Church.

Just my two cents.

The one thing I liked on these pages:
http://www.christianteenforums.com/uploads/av-17733.gif

[trspballer7]

well all of the got hates _____ websites are because of Fred Phelps, including godhates{buttercup}{buttercup}{buttercup}s godhatesireland godhatessweeden and much more.


Even christians hate him.

and his church got pipebombed, so that is awesome.

[Indymoguler]

now im just putting out an example here. (i dont hate gay people)

but my friend when he was little, his parents got divorced. he stayed with his mom a lot and she worked at a broadway place. she would have her friends (who were gay) babysit him almost on a daily basis. he is gay today but i have no idea if this was because of the babysitters characteristics and all.

[Fisherking]

but my friend when he was little, his parents got divorced. he stayed with his mom a lot and she worked at a broadway place. she would have her friends (who were gay) babysit him almost on a daily basis. he is gay today but i have no idea if this was because of the babysitters characteristics and all.

Not very exhaustive. I seem to remember studies suggesting kids in gay households were no more likely to be gay than kids from straight households. I'll see if I can dig anything up.

And I don't think you can easily dismiss Phelps and his clan as 'not really Christian.' They read the damn Bible, that's the conclusion they came to. What more do you want? I tend to think they're probably truer to the spirit of the text than any others. God is, from my reading, the most dispicable character in all of literature. He makes Cobra Commander look beign: A vindictive, petty, genocidal space-tyrant. The supreme fascist of Paul Erdos' ridicule.

[Skycarl]

Let me throw in a few words of thought in here.
First of all, anyone can call themselves a Christian.
That doesn't mean anything. They are just words.
Because most are naive and easily deceived, they will believe
what they hear or lazy and don't have the time to see if what
they hear is true, have a false concept of certain matters.

If one would take the time to sit down and actually read the
Bible, they can find references as how to know what a
Christian is. For example, let me refer to the book of 1 John
in the New Testament. In the second chapter, John talks about
this very subject.

First he reminds us of the New Commandment Jesus gave.
He said love your God Jehovah first above all. Then He said
love your brother as He loved you. ( no mention of hate)
Then John says That anyone who claims they are in the light
( a Christian, follower of Christ) but hates is in the dark.
So if they are saying "I'm a Christian" but showing hate, then
they are full of bull.

Those that proclaim hate have not accepted Jesus as their
Lord and do not have Him in their heart.

The only way one can become a Christian is to repent of their
evil ways and to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
That's it, no other way. You can't be born into it. Just because
your parents go to church and you go with them,
or you try to be a good person or even if you are a preacher
or a part of a church, that doesn't make one a Christian.
And because hate is a part of evil, then anyone that has that
hate have not repented (means turn away from) because
that evil is still there.

To understand Christianity, best place to start is read what
it's leader said. If you have or get a Bible with the words of
Jesus in red, just read what He spoke. You won't find Him
telling anyone to hate anybody.

[anomalie]

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii178/stewieparker/80876964Nc6wcsCj.jpg

In Toronto, Church St is actually a mainly gay neighbourhood. I just had to pop in to say that because I think it's amusing.

I am not going to get too involved in this thread because there's already been several like it. Basically, I agree with what SkyCarl said near the beginning; if you claim to be Christian and hate someone for who they are - if that person has done nothing to wrong you or hurt you - you are not a true Christian. Some people forget that whole acceptance and forgiveness thing, sadly.

Fortunately, most of the Christians I know are very accepting and tolerant (the one's who aren't are in my extended family). I think the only friend I have who disapproves of "gay lifestyle" only disapproves of anal sex itself. The thing is generally when people say that, they don't like that two guys would perform anal, but have no problem with a man performing it on a woman, which is completely hypocritical. This friend just dislikes anal sex (gay or straight) and actually had nothing against homosexuals or anything else their "lifestyle" consists of (personally, I don't see homosexuality as a lifestyle... note: I am bisexual).

PS: The Phelps don't read the Bible to spread God's word. They read the Bible looking for reasons to hate ANYONE. That young man who got he head cut off by that psycho on the Greyhoud bus this summer? One of the Phelps wrote an article about how he had the devil's ways and how he deserved to die that way and they actually tried to come up to Canada to PROTEST HIS FUNERAL. They didn't know anything about this man. They just like to start shit, and anyone who can't see that isn't paying attention. The Phelps are a cult who misinterpret the Bible to fit their ideas (as many people do, sadly). I am not Christian and even I know this.

[Fisherking]

Nonsense, or at least a convenient excuse for Christians to ignore the teachings of the Bible.

We have (and I don't think I need to list them) passages advocating the murder of blasphemers, false-prophets, heretics, and disrespectful children; passages telling us slavery is okay under X set of conditions; passages advocating the stoning of raped women for not raising a ruckus, appropriate repirations to a father for raping her daughter; and so on.

God's bodycount is surely in the millions, and of a manner indescriminate: Even children are not spared when he wants to make a point.

Do I think there's a Biblical basis for Phelps? Yes. In all the effort to cuddle up to Christ, we've ignored the rivers of blood in God's name, and the rivers of blood he commands.

God hates us all, he hates the filth and sin, the greed and sex we're drowning in (he's a bit like Travis Bickle, really) and Phelps shows his love for us by warning us of that, and by devoting his life in the service of a seriously pissed-off deity. His piety is unquestionable.

[NaziActionFigure]

now im just putting out an example here. (i dont hate gay people)

but my friend when he was little, his parents got divorced. he stayed with his mom a lot and she worked at a broadway place. she would have her friends (who were gay) babysit him almost on a daily basis. he is gay today but i have no idea if this was because of the babysitters characteristics and all.
That's pretty interesting. Although I'm the only gay person in my family.

[WesScog]

Fisher: He's going through the JEWISH book, and taking badly translated verses of stuff from thousands of years ago out of it's historical context.

Stuff that was largely deemed null and void when Jesus said that he had come with a new covenant and new rules and new laws.

People that were also to be murdered for many of the offenses you're pointing out were saved by Jesus, saying "lets those without sin throw the first stone."

Jesus came to overturn many of the old rules, almost none of that stuff applies anymore to Christians.

As for us Jews, most of it doesn't apply because historical context has changed, and we've evolved philosophically, so thus we have moved on from many of the old ways. Old ways which most of the English speaking world largely understands from poorly translated versions that are centuries old.

[Fisherking]

It's the same God. Unless we presume he changed his mind.

This is my understanding of Phelps' theology. The Bible, old testament and new, is the inalienable and perfect word of god. Every single passage, stoning and all, must be perfectly preserved, as it comes from god's own lips. How does that work? It's god. He can do anything. I don't see this as being any less reasonable than supposing it was merely divinely-inspired: Once you postulate a god, he can most certainly make sure the KJ Bible is perfectly translated and unambiguous (as I understand Phelps' church think the KJ version is the superior and inalienable version -- maybe conveniently, as none have the mental ability to tackle ancient Hebrew). According to which, the world we live in is pretty damn putrid.

Salvation is not impossible, but as difficult as the proverbial camel-through-the-needle trick. You need to give up most of the trappings of this world.

Phelps is the more-or-less the Christian version of the Iranian Ayatollahs, at least ideologically (certainly not in ability to enact his will).

As for 'he who is without sin' -- Phelps is the most pious man in the world. Who could possibly have less sin? He and his family alone are sufficiently rightous enough to make these proclamations.

I find most of modern Christianity a cop-out. Now that it has conquered hearts and minds with the crack of the rifle and the blade of the sword, it can blather about peace and love, dismiss its history with a quick 'that wasn't really Christian of them' and reap the rewards of centuries of slaughter.

I wonder, if Germany acheived its Reich, or if the world had fallen to Communism, that we might, 1000 years or more from that date, renounce the slaughter that imposed it without renouncing the benefits of that slaughter, or even excuse it, or someone write it off as 'not in true keeping with the real ideology underneath it.' It's so easy to feign kindness when you hold the power.

[Skycarl]

Something really bad must have happened at sometime.

[WesScog]

It's the same God. Unless we presume he changed his mind.

Or perhaps we've finally evolved philosophically enough to interpret him properly.

This is my understanding of Phelps' theology. The Bible, old testament and new, is the inalienable and perfect word of god. Every single passage, stoning and all, must be perfectly preserved, as it comes from god's own lips. How does that work? It's god. He can do anything. I don't see this as being any less reasonable than supposing it was merely divinely-inspired: Once you postulate a god, he can most certainly make sure the KJ Bible is perfectly translated and unambiguous (as I understand Phelps' church think the KJ version is the superior and inalienable version -- maybe conveniently, as none have the mental ability to tackle ancient Hebrew). According to which, the world we live in is pretty damn putrid.Well, suggesting that god COULD do such a thing isn't the same thing as suggesting he WOULD.

That's why Phelps theology has severe flaws. If God could make sure that the KLJV was translated properly, then he could also stop people from being gay in the first place.

Salvation is not impossible, but as difficult as the proverbial camel-through-the-needle trick. You need to give up most of the trappings of this world.

Phelps is the more-or-less the Christian version of the Iranian Ayatollahs, at least ideologically (certainly not in ability to enact his will).

As for 'he who is without sin' -- Phelps is the most pious man in the world. Who could possibly have less sin? He and his family alone are sufficiently rightous enough to make these proclamations.The man is a snake, he couldn't be further away from "piety". Believing yourself haughty enough to be judge and jury and to presume what god is thinking is one of the most severe of sins.

Those who think themselves clean of sin, when they were actually overflowing with it are the greatest sinners of them all.

I find most of modern Christianity a cop-out. Now that it has conquered hearts and minds with the crack of the rifle and the blade of the sword, it can blather about peace and love, dismiss its history with a quick 'that wasn't really Christian of them' and reap the rewards of centuries of slaughter.

I wonder, if Germany acheived its Reich, or if the world had fallen to Communism, that we might, 1000 years or more from that date, renounce the slaughter that imposed it without renouncing the benefits of that slaughter, or even excuse it, or someone write it off as 'not in true keeping with the real ideology underneath it.' It's so easy to feign kindness when you hold the power.How do you suggest modern Christians, centuries removed from the crimes of cultures that are largely alien to us, make amends for things they never condoned, done by cultures they aren't even descendant from (in most cases)?

And it WASN'T Christian of them. It took centuries for people claiming to be Christian to start picking up swords (largely converts, who converted long after they had developed their own moral codes, such as Constantine.) And it took several centuries for the people who didn't think that was the right way to regain control.

It's a matter of Christianity being assimilated by alien cultures, I don't see it as being a problem with Christianity itself, as a central Christian tenant is non-violence.

It's just a matter of people picking and choosing when they join a religion, like the Nation of Islam assimilating the things they like about Islam, then combining it with a whole bunch of Black Radicalism that is totally Alien to normal muslims. Or Hollywood Celebrities picking up Kabbalah, without the decades of intense study that is traditionally required. They just want what they see as the cool parts of a religion without fully understanding it.

If I make a system that says, don't kill people, and a bunch of people claim they follow my system and then kill people, you can't blame my system.

Christianity is non-violent, I just don't think you can't hold modern Christians (who are in many ways far more Christian than Medieval Christians) accountable for things that their less progressive predecessors, far removed from the modern world claimed to do in the name of god.

[RoughSketchPictures]

It pains me to see people publish articles like this. I don't consider myself a Christian, but I don't feel they're truly reflecting Christian belief. In my opinion, article like those are only published to 1) make people feel bad for being different 2) make them feel unnatural 3) tell people that they are "wrong" and mostly just to 4) split people apart to avoid "mixing" different types of people

It just makes me sick that someone always finds a way to turn what I believe is a generally good religion (even though I'm a non-christian and a non-believer) into a means of segregating and forcing people into a way of life that they aren't.

[Fisherking]

Or perhaps we've finally evolved philosophically enough to interpret him properly.

Well, suggesting that god COULD do such a thing isn't the same thing as suggesting he WOULD.

That's why Phelps theology has severe flaws. If God could make sure that the KLJV was translated properly, then he could also stop people from being gay in the first place.

I'll hit all this at once, as it more-or-less all hits into my central thesis.

There is no basis on which you can sensibly contrast the theologies of Phelps and, say, skycarl (in any real world physical sense, I mean, obviously there's an ethical basis, divorced from the intentions or otherwise of any hypothetical god). Leaving aside the existance-of-god question for a moment, there's simply no reasonable basis to assume anything about the actions or intentions of such a beast, nor any solid real-world observations or understandings against which to contrast it.

Whilst it's convenient to execrate Phelps for his theology, there's no coherent reason as to why it's less valid that anyone else's.

This sort-of feeds my hatred for the 'god works in mysterious ways' cop-out, which is great for when someone asks why there's suffering, but seems to summarily get pitched out the window when someone wishes to arbitrarily make up an attribute or intention of god to bolster some point or defend some heart-felt idea. Maybe we've evolved philosophically to interpret the Bible in the 'real' way (whatever that means), or maybe we've all fucked up pretty handily, as Phelps seems to think. It's all totally unsubstantiated in a profound sense -- it cannot be substantiated.

Lets go furthur - why can't god be maleficent, having written the Bible specifically to promulgate the evil he knew would be done in its name? Maybe he made all religions for that purpose? Maybe he's simply indifferent, and all these texts were the work of men who didn't want to believe god didn't give a rat's? Maybe Thor is really pissed we've forsaken him (though I hear he likes the comicbook about him)? There's literally billions of propositions, none any more or less likely than any other. Why is Phelps' reading any less vaild than anyone else's?

I know these comparisons seem to turn believer's minds off, but I'll do it anyway. I was initially going to compare theology to - referencing an earlier discussion we had - debating the physiology of the Loch Ness monster. But that doesn't go far enough. We know enough about the conditions in the lake and of the physiological features of large sea mammals that we could probably make a good guess. Theology is more like debating what colour socks goblins wear. We don't know if Goblin's exist, there's no reason to suppose they exist and there's no way to gauge their fashion-sense even assuming they did. So how can we say anything either way and what rational basis can we compare the likelihood of different sock-colours against one another?

The man is a snake, he couldn't be further away from "piety". Believing yourself haughty enough to be judge and jury and to presume what god is thinking is one of the most severe of sins.

Those who think themselves clean of sin, when they were actually overflowing with it are the greatest sinners of them all.Which is why we're lucky than Phelps have never sinned in his life, and has devoted his life to the service of our Lord. He makes Jesus look like Larry Flint. God smiles on Phelps, his favourite son, and tells him regularly that he's fighting the good fight against the horrors of the modern world and western decadence.

God will enjoy watching you burn in hell for the filthy lies you've spread about Phelps.

How do you suggest modern Christians, centuries removed from the crimes of cultures that are largely alien to us, make amends for things they never condoned, done by cultures they aren't even descendant from (in most cases)?I'm not suggesting they do anything, save considering more deeply why these things happened, and avoid the intellectual laziness of simply dismissing it as 'not Christian.' How many need to die in the name of your cause before you start to wonder why?

Facism fell out of favour for the misery it caused, not because of any fault inherent in the political philosophy. Why does religion get a special exemption?

And it WASN'T Christian of them. It took centuries for people claiming to be Christian to start picking up swords (largely converts, who converted long after they had developed their own moral codes, such as Constantine.) And it took several centuries for the people who didn't think that was the right way to regain control.Communists will argue tooth-and-nail that Communism need not be violent, and that we shouldn't hold its real-world manifestation against it, but that's absurd. If something consistantly promotes violence, regardless of whether it explicitly exalts violence, you have to worry about it. This becomes a No True Scotsman: Christianity can never be wrong. If it does wrong, it's obviously not Christianity.

It's a matter of Christianity being assimilated by alien cultures, I don't see it as being a problem with Christianity itself, as a central Christian tenant is non-violence.Communism, again.

If the manifestation of something is universally violent, you should probably stop doing it. The definition of madness, as the joke goes, is doing the same thing over-and-over-again and expecting a different outcome.

It's just a matter of people picking and choosing when they join a religion, like the Nation of Islam assimilating the things they like about Islam, then combining it with a whole bunch of Black Radicalism that is totally Alien to normal muslims. Or Hollywood Celebrities picking up Kabbalah, without the decades of intense study that is traditionally required. They just want what they see as the cool parts of a religion without fully understanding it.But everyone picks and chooses, to some extent, by necessity: That's why we have sects. It's a consequence of intrepretation. I'm sure you and I would disagree with the meaning of certain passages in a solely literal sense.

The Bible is long and very ambiguous at points (and sometimes contradictory -- so you quite literally need to choose or abstain from decision at points). And while you seem quite happy to tell me that certain bits apply, don't apply, were made to be illuminated by future understanding or otherwise, there's no reason to suppose that the case, and many will disagree. Picking-and-choosing is necessary as a function of intrepretation of any literary work.

If I make a system that says, don't kill people, and a bunch of people claim they follow my system and then kill people, you can't blame my system.I disagree. Sort of.

Let me first say that I have some major issues with Christ's philosophy in general, but that's an argument for another day. I have a deeper issue with religion, and one thing I think that ensures these things will happen with any such dogma.

I think the major issue with theism in general, and political philosophies like Communism, is it has some appeal to transcendental forces outside of the philosophy. Theism obviously has some deity, and Communism the more nebulous notion of 'ineluctable historicity' (to coin a phrase). It takes the ethical basis away from the individual, and embues their behaviours with a higher-purpose. I think is more pronounced in the case of Christianity, which it's nihilistic to the extreme (and I mean that in the sense that Nietzsche used the term), but it seems to me a universal consequence of appeals to some higher, non-base, or 'divine' thing.

This was the reason the Japanese emperor was made to assert his humanity.

All ethics must be based on secular morality, which gels well with the strong lessons of Christianity, without the repugnant lessons it also harbours and without unnecessarily granting the propensity towards abuse that is inherent in all ethics based on transcendental forces, or asserting supernaturalism.

Phelps, Jim Jones and countless others have claimed God talks to them (and I'm certain they think he did), and Lenin, Mao and their ilk have justified their behaviours as a consequence of the inevitable passage of history. All reason their behaviours as out of their control (as either pre-determined or as a compelling need). It's something good from otherworldly sources -- you wouldn't understand; hand me my thumbscrews and salt.

Religious morality is unnecessarily multipled.

Phew. I'm tired. Why do I post all my best essays for free on IM? I'm so bored right now. I hate holidays.

[Kaygee]

A interviewer asked Phelps if was gay. He didnt reply.


You guys may be interested in the Patriot Guard (http://www.patriotguard.org/). They escort the funeral processions of fallen US servicemen and keep Phelps and his incestuous little cult away.

[WesScog]

Well I think you can contrast them theologically, by how far the skew from the source text. Phelps skews wildly, taking all sorts of interpretation from a single badly translated verse in Leviticus, and ascribing all sorts of theological weight to something that is at worse a minor issue (thousands of years ago.)

He's made one of the least important health codes, and ascribed it as one of the central sins against god.

I call that skewing rather wildly from Christianity (who overturned the old ways, as why most Christians can eat pork.) and also sinful, as he is making assumptions about god.

But apart from that, I think that objective morality exists, and Phelps can be determined to be in severe opposition to most things we holds to dearly in Western society. Also, I think that it's an important point that Phelps has only been able to gather about a dozen followers. With all of his rampant promotion and media attention he still gets no real followers.

But the manifestations of Christianity aren't universally violent. The earliest Christians were killed almost constantly with little to no resistance. It wasn't until centuries later when the Roman's assimilated their philosophy (minus the pesky little parts about Non-Violence) that you started seeing, "Christians" with swords.

So I don't think you can say i'm being like communists when i'm saying that a certain real-world example isn't "real communism". Because when a philosophy says certain things, and the people refuse to follow the philosophy, then you can't blame the philosophy.

Communism murders people and is violent, because Marx said it HAD to be, but he of course said a lot of things that people didn't follow as well, so while the Soviets followed Marx on some parts, they aren't Marxists, but nothing stops them from being Communists.

Just like, while violent "Christians" aren't true Christians, they ARE really religious.

If I claim I am a pacifist, then go punch someone in the face twelve times because my order of mozerella sticks is missing a stick, then i'm obviously not a pacifist, and you can't blame pacifism for making me punch someone in the face twleve times.

No, I would have punched someone in the face twelve times because i'm a royal asshole, NOT because I claim to be a pacifist.

I don't think Christianity can be blamed for people refusing to be non-violent, and instead choosing to be dicks.

[Kaygee]

But apart from that, I think that objective morality exists, and Phelps can be determined to be in severe opposition to most things we holds to dearly in Western society. Also, I think that it's an important point that Phelps has only been able to gather about a dozen followers. With all of his rampant promotion and media attention he still gets no real followers.


And even then the overwhelming majority are his own family members. The number of non-Phelps in the WBC can be counted on one hand.

[Hunterr]

I think Fred Phelps is a prefect example of the term "A wolf in sheep's clothing".

You can't get any more real than that.

-Hunter

[Fisherking]

Well I think you can contrast them theologically, by how far the skew from the source text. Phelps skews wildly, taking all sorts of interpretation from a single badly translated verse in Leviticus, and ascribing all sorts of theological weight to something that is at worse a minor issue (thousands of years ago.)

He's made one of the least important health codes, and ascribed it as one of the central sins against god.

It's not badly translated: The KJV is the inerrent word of god.

Phelps read it and god said that it was an abomination. God obviously didn't change his mind - homosexuality didn't become not an abomination in the meantime - so hence the familiar god hates you-know-who.

To add to that, Paul had a few choice sections that can pretty easily be taken as anti-homosexuality, so I'm not sure you can so easily write off the prohibitions as being 'oh, some Old Testament stuff which doesn't really matter anymore.'

I think your issue is that your looking at Phelps through the lens of the Jewish intellectual tradition. Modern Christianity really doesn't share that. You don't think the Bible, you feel it. Judaism draws its strength, I think, from the mainstream acceptance that this is fragments of a book written by superstitious men a long time ago, and try to look at it not just theologically but linguistically, historically and socially. A lot of Christians - and Phelps is one - don't do that, and consider it something akin to apostasy.

I call that skewing rather wildly from Christianity (who overturned the old ways, as why most Christians can eat pork.) and also sinful, as he is making assumptions about god.I definately think he's made a lot about relatively small sections and a few choice quotes, but who knows? Doesn't he claim god's inspiration? Presumably he's cleared up these issues.

As far as assuming things about god -- isn't that the very basis of religion and theology? You were just telling me that the Bible also needs to be understood as a product of the social and historical context, which ultimately will come down to making assumptions. Assumptions on best knowledge, sure, but still assumptions. The point is that no unambiguous knowledge of god based on a holy text is possible -- no unambiguous reading of any other piece of literature is possible. And that's just taking it as 'holy book = inerrant word of god.'

I think Phelps' problem is some bizarre obsession with homosexuality that even the most contemptably homophobic preachers don't share, and an inability to seem reasonable. But his message, at its base, honestly isn't that much different from, say, Jerry Falwell. All problems with Phelps seem to stem from his tactics and the fact he's obsessed with the topic. God does hate eff-ay-gee-ess, but he says a lot of shit in that Bible, and why you're so singularly focused on the gay stuff is anyone's guess. Maybe he views it as representative of Western decadence? It's all speculation.

But I do wonder if he keeps kosher, sometimes. Though it's easier to see how you can explain away the old dietry rules.

But apart from that, I think that objective morality exists, and Phelps can be determined to be in severe opposition to most things we holds to dearly in Western society. Also, I think that it's an important point that Phelps has only been able to gather about a dozen followers. With all of his rampant promotion and media attention he still gets no real followers.Phelps would agree (probably). But what he sees is a disjunct between the things we hold dearly in Western society, and the things god holds dearly.

But the manifestations of Christianity aren't universally violent. The earliest Christians were killed almost constantly with little to no resistance. It wasn't until centuries later when the Roman's assimilated their philosophy (minus the pesky little parts about Non-Violence) that you started seeing, "Christians" with swords.The point is that they couldn't. As soon as they had the ability to do so, they showed themselves to be violent and repressive.

Communism murders people and is violent, because Marx said it HAD to be, but he of course said a lot of things that people didn't follow as well, so while the Soviets followed Marx on some parts, they aren't Marxists, but nothing stops them from being Communists.You're missing the point: Communism isn't violent, that's just an unfortunate consequence of the direction history has to make. Marx, or Marxists (or Leninists, or whatever), are no more responsible than any violence related to Communism than some Christian who recieves a divine vision of some natural disaster.

Just like, while violent "Christians" aren't true Christians, they ARE really religious.I still think you're giving me a No True Scotsman here. Christianity is never bad. If it's bad, it's not Christianity.

I don't think Christianity can be blamed for people refusing to be non-violent, and instead choosing to be dicks.It's not Christianity, specifically. I think the issue is ethical systems that anchor themselves based on transcedental forces. More specifically, when these systems are promoted to authority. The state is an inherently heirachical beast, and the leaders are those 'above the stack,' so to speak, and so closer to god as the ultimately authority from which all directives come -- authority becomes a function of holiness (in rhetoric; in reality: vice versa). These systems are by definition nihilistic and negate the individual, and from which these sort of dictatorships are inevitable.

A government is bad enough without the delusion that they serve a divine or non-base goal.

[WesScog]

Well I get what you're saying. It would indeed be largely impossible for me to try to reason with Phelps himself, he has a rather firm moral grip on his philosophy that seems unwavering enough that he finds it ok to call dead soldiers "{buttercup}{buttercup}{buttercup}gots" and yell at their mourning families.

But objectively, outside of "Phelpsland" it's quite easy to see, (not with 100% certainty, but with a degree that I am comfortable with calling reliable) that he is severely mistaken with many of his theological assumptions, once we break it down and put these things into context historically.

3000 years ago, we didn't have safe-sex, "laying with a man as you would a woman" would most likely be quite dangerous in a time period lacking antibiotics or soap. So taking it literally, it's reasonable infection preventative advice for the time period.

But in the common era, things have changed quite a bit (including many of our health and sanitation capabilities) while Phelps is still largely operating in axial age stuff.

[Fisherking]

Make no mistake: I think Phelps is a cunt. But he's trying to do what he thinks is best.

You're applying standards which he can't meet because he isn't trying to. It seems unkind to say, but I simply don't think modern Christianity shares the cerebral focus and introspection of modern Judaism. There's less effort to understand religious texts in an encompassing and deep sense (I question how many adherents have actually read the entire thing, sometimes). You might read the Bible like literature: History, culture, circumstance and so forth all come into understanding it. Fred reads the Bible like a mathematics text book.

But likely if modern Christianity emphasised a historical and cultural understanding of the Bible (and, more importantly, an intellectual and physical understanding), Christianity would find itself less pervasive, and have some of the doubt and uncertainty that seems to come more often to the Jews. The most intelligent people I know share a sad whimsy, and an uncertainty as to whether their covictions are really correct. I feel, in science and in mathematics, as I learn more, I am less convinced of the obduracy of such things, and am pulled furthur and furthur from a fictitious truth that once seemed so obvious.

When I was born, I knew everything. When I die, I will know nothing at all.

God is easy to love with your heart. He is less easy to love with your mind. You can cultivate a stupid love easily. An intellectual love is far truer, but more nebulous, and more difficult to maintain. Intellectual love requires no embellishment, and so a greater appreciation of the profundity and commitment. Christianity thrives on stupid-love. The Jews are too smart for their own good, sometimes.

I think I've fairly well covered the issues I have with these sorts of ethical systems. I have to take special effort with these ones, as unfortunately the skeptical movement, in their overzealousness, have pretty much poisoned that well.

[ericslovechild]

You're overgeneralizing. You can't base the truth of a concept on the actions of it's followers. Yes, there are many who blindly follow the Bible without stopping to think about it. But that doesn't mean that Christianity is automatically about "stupidly loving" God. There are plenty of us Christians (myself included) who understand and believe pretty much exactly what Wes is saying. I'm sure there are also plenty of Jews that follow the Torah blindly. And as far as religion being the main cause of violence, Atheism isn't blemishless either. People have used Darwin's theory of evolution as an excuse for racism for years. But does that mean that all Atheists are evil? No. Does it mean that all Christians are good? Hell no. Yes, we have a bloody trail. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition (who nobody expects), The Westboro Baptis Church, and the list goes on. But up north here (although from what I've seen on an Australian world map, I suppose we're south to you) I don't know anyone with such radical views. Most are like me. We read the Bible and believe that it was meant to be (emphasis on that it was MEANT to be) the word of God. But we understand that there have been mistranslations, additions, removals, and that some things require interpretation to fully understand. As far as thinking with the head or with the hard, a sort of disagree. I am 16, and although I may occasionally act as if I do, I don't know everything. I cannot figure everything out from what I think I know, because that range is limited. I can go ahead and say that I don't believe that Global warming is man made but honestly, what do I know about it? Nothing. Where's by environmental sciences degree? And even if I had one, I would still know nothing for sure. I'd only have a bunch of theories that have thus far apeared to be correct, but could at any time (as history shows us) be proven wrong. So someyimes I can't go with what I think. Sometimes I have to go with what feels right and wrong. When a man falls in love (truly in love, not just the sort of attraction that eventually withers and dies) with a woman or a man, they need to base it on how they feel. They don't go home and mak a T-Chart of "oh well s/he's really nice to me, but s/he doesn't have a good job, but s/he is a good cook, but s/he is occasionally annoying..." generally if you have to resort to that, then it means that you clearly do not love that person. When you find someone who, when you are around, you just feel so happy and it feels so right, then you know it is love. It cannot be described, you just love them. The same is true for religion. I cannot necessarily explain why I believe in the Bible being true, but it feels more real to me than this computer that I'm currently typing on. The fact that I can't explain it is why I never try to force someone over to my beliefs. If they need to understand it, then they obviously don't feel the same as I do about it. You can't force someone to feel anything (except pain). So I follow what feels right, but if there is any doubt, then I have to think "why?" Sometimes I stumble and fall in my beliefs, but that is merely a learning experience. Through that, I find out that what I was feeling was wrong, and I can add that to what I "know." That makes it easier to think about things such as this. But I "know" that I will never be able to fully. And although I question my faith constantly, and end up trying to think and rationalize as to why I should or shouldn't have it, it always comes back to one thing: that I feel so strongly about it, and thus it is important to hold on to. Oh, if it turns aout to be wrong, It'll all come crashing around me (that is if I find out... if I don't, I probably won't care...meh, it's basically Pascal's Wager, but I really do believe in it) and I will then be full of knowledge about thinking and feeling. But for now, I know nothing, and I feel everything, and that is how I will live my life until I learn to live it otherwise.

One thing that I would like to make clear before I wrap this up is that I do not intend to convince you of my being correct, Fisherking. As I stated before, I completely respect people's rights to believe other things if they do not feel the way that I do. I just wanted to get my thoughts (or feelings as it were) out there. And even if I did want to convice you, I'm not an idiot. I know it would be friutless. Although I don't know you all that well, I do know that you are not going to ever let yourself be swayed by someone in an internet forum- especially not a "child." And strangely enough, I repect that. I really do. All that I ask (although I do not expect it) is a little repsect in return.

EDIT: I want to apologize for that wall of text, but I honestly can't decide where I should break it up... Do so as you chose.

[bubblefax]

I am a Christian so here is what we think about them. Taking a line from a Plane White T's song

Hate is a strong word but we really really really don't like them.

No but honestly Wes is right

[Fisherking]

Dude, you really need to break up your paragraphs. This is like trying to read Molly Bloom's soliloquy.

You're overgeneralizing. You can't base the truth of a concept on the actions of it's followers.

I didn't say that at all.

And of course I'm generalising. That's the point. My experience with one religion has shown me a cultural emphasis on one thing I think is good - and seriously restricts its ability to spread rapidly - and no comprable thing in some other religion, which allows it to spread like wildfire.

Yes, there are many who blindly follow the Bible without stopping to think about it. But that doesn't mean that Christianity is automatically about "stupidly loving" God. There are plenty of us Christians (myself included) who understand and believe pretty much exactly what Wes is saying. I'm sure there are also plenty of Jews that follow the Torah blindly.

Probably, but that's not really what I'm getting at, nor is it really individually-focused.

And as far as religion being the main cause of violence,I didn't say that, either.

Atheism isn't blemishless either. People have used Darwin's theory of evolution as an excuse for racism for years.That has nothing to do with atheism. Why is it that every time someone wants to wag their finger in atheism's direction they tell us 'science did X bad thing?' Science is not atheism. Scientism != atheism.

I don't think you're understanding my argument. Nothing to do with 'religion is evil' -- it's that ethical systems which anchor themselves in transcendental forces are not appropriate to be placed in powerful positions. And I gave an example of a non-religious philosophy that I considered had the same problem.

But up north here (although from what I've seen on an Australian world map, I suppose we're south to you) I don't know anyone with such radical views.No you're not, you're in the nothern hemisphere. Australia is about as far south as you can get.

Australia's fairly areligious.

As far as thinking with the head or with the hard, a sort of disagree. I am 16, and although I may occasionally act as if I do, I don't know everything. I cannot figure everything out from what I think I know, because that range is limited.I don't think you've quite got that one, either.

I mean -- look, man, this is all based largely on my individual experiences with both Christianity and Judaism, though I'm weighted far in favour of the latter. My experiences with Judaism showed me a cultural emphasis on the importance of education, and on what I might term a smorgasbord of ideas. I've never seen something comprable in Christianity. I saw people encouraged even to look at and understand things in utter contradiction to their individual dogmas. I don't see Christians encouraged to educate themselves and to seek their own conclusions: I see one ready-made, shrink-wrapped conclusion.

I don't know. Spend some time in a synagog. It's not really the kind of thing you can quantify.

When a man falls in love (truly in love, not just the sort of attraction that eventually withers and dies) with a woman or a man, they need to base it on how they feel. They don't go home and mak a T-Chart of "oh well s/he's really nice to me, but s/he doesn't have a good job, but s/he is a good cook, but s/he is occasionally annoying..." generally if you have to resort to that, then it means that you clearly do not love that person. When you find someone who, when you are around, you just feel so happy and it feels so right, then you know it is love.That's not true. At least not in my experience.

First of all, I mean, you do to an extent. It's not as systematic as you suggest but your experiences of people do inform your opinion of them. Whilst it's hardly scientific - there's no quantitiative metric, surely - you doubtlessly do consider these things.

Second of all, feelings are an appropriate way to gauge it as it is a feeling. When I'm pissed off, I know I'm pissed off because I feel pissed off, and the reason that's a reliable indication that I'm pissed off is because being pissed off is singularly predicated on feeling pissed off.

But feelings are not an appropriate way to gauge philosophical systems or objective truth.

The same is true for religion. I cannot necessarily explain why I believe in the Bible being true, but it feels more real to me than this computer that I'm currently typing on.That worries me.

I had a discussion with a Mormon once, who had never heard any philosophical criticism of Christianity, but told me instead that 'you just feel it.' That's the kind of stupid-love I'm talking about. And, for better or worse, that's been consistant through all my experiences with Christianity. Not only do you not have any reason to suppose as you do, you don't have any understanding - intectuallly or otherwise - of why people don't agree, or even why you do. Don't think about it too much. And that seems encouraged.

So I follow what feels right, but if there is any doubt, then I have to think "why?" Sometimes I stumble and fall in my beliefs, but that is merely a learning experience. Through that, I find out that what I was feeling was wrong, and I can add that to what I "know." That makes it easier to think about things such as this.So everytime you become doubtful of your religion, you know you must be wrong, and rebuild yourself so that you don't think such things again? That's not good.

And although I question my faith constantly, and end up trying to think and rationalize as to why I should or shouldn't have it, it always comes back to one thing: that I feel so strongly about it, and thus it is important to hold on to.The same could be said of alcoholism.

Oh, if it turns aout to be wrong, It'll all come crashing around me (that is if I find out... if I don't, I probably won't care...meh, it's basically Pascal's Wager, but I really do believe in it) and I will then be full of knowledge about thinking and feeling. But for now, I know nothing, and I feel everything, and that is how I will live my life until I learn to live it otherwise.I do not think this is a good philosophy at all: 'We don't really know anything, so don't bother, but god'll educate my arse in the end. Or not, if he doesn't exist.'

It's logic-impenetrable armour, especially coupled with Pascal's-fucking-Wager. That one drives me up the proverbial brick-shithouse, especially given how Pascal so carelessly discarded his mathematical brilliance for piss-poor theology (even by the admittedly-low standards of theology in general).

And this again is what I mean by stupid-love. It's encouraged to exclusively grok something by gut alone because it 'feels right.' Colbert's 'truthiness.'

I think you've really thrown the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. There are, perhaps, no big-T Truths to grasp (except logical and mathematical, obviously), but there is certainty, or a degree to which you can hold something plausible. This sort of thinking, a pretension towards total apathy as high-intellectualism, has retarded liberal arts for god-knows-how-long.

I just wanted to get my thoughts (or feelings as it were) out there. And even if I did want to convice you, I'm not an idiot. I know it would be friutless. Although I don't know you all that well, I do know that you are not going to ever let yourself be swayed by someone in an internet forum- especially not a "child."I've had a lot of opinions changed by some weird sources. But theology probably isn't going to be one. I found Thomas Aquinas' scholarship to be lacking (on theology topics, of course, but he far was broader than that). If I can't be swayed by the best, I'm not sure anyone'll do it.

And strangely enough, I repect that. I really do. All that I ask (although I do not expect it) is a little repsect in return.I'm not a total cunt, you know. I think you're totally, utterly wrong, but I'm trying not to be a dick about it.

EDIT: I want to apologize for that wall of text, but I honestly can't decide where I should break it up... Do so as you chose.Yes, break your damned paragraphs up! That was painful. Only do it 'cause I love you, man.