Westboro Baptist Church

Crooked Jack · 12-06-2012 04:15PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I am not ignoring the reasonable stuff or as i called it 'The Nice Stuff". To demonstrate this i have bolded it in a previous post. Look up there ^^^^^
I am simple saying that The Phelps have a biblical precedence for their view point.

Oh and BTW , What is my agenda?????

You clearly have an anti-religious agenda, you seem keen to link this WBC crowd to all christian groupings.
As for the Phelps having a biblical precedent, I dont believe that to be true. There are plenty of religions that point to the Bible as a blueprint for how to live your life but dont engage in this sort of behaviour.
The Phelps' interpretation of a 2500 year old document written for a different time is the problem here, not the document itself.

Pushtrak · 12-06-2012 04:19PM

I've already pointed out luckily here we have more modern, liberal understanding of the bible. However, this isn't the case everywhere. For instance, in the states:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40435_Gallup_Poll-_58_of_Republicans_Are_Young_Earth_Creationists

Gallup polls on Americans’ attitudes toward the scientific theory of evolution haven’t changed much in 30 years, and their latest poll continues this depressing non-trend: In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.

That’s right — according to Gallup, 46% of the American public are hard core young Earth creationists who believe the Earth was poofed into existence in its present form about 10,000 years ago.

And for Republicans, of course, the numbers are even worse; 58% of Republicans are young Earth creationists.

America, we have a problem.

Crooked Jack · 12-06-2012 04:45PM

Pushtrak wrote: »

I've already pointed out luckily here we have more modern, liberal understanding of the bible. However, this isn't the case everywhere. For instance, in the states:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40435_Gallup_Poll-_58_of_Republicans_Are_Young_Earth_Creationists

That is indeed unsettling, particularly given their military and nuclear might. Is there a possibility of a second crusade do ye think

kryogen · 12-06-2012 04:46PM

Hey! we haven't had a thread on this shower of inbreds in at least 2 or 3 months!

Nice

Ghost Buster · 12-06-2012 04:49PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

You clearly have an anti-religious agenda, you seem keen to link this WBC crowd to all christian groupings.
As for the Phelps having a biblical precedent, I dont believe that to be true. There are plenty of religions that point to the Bible as a blueprint for how to live your life but dont engage in this sort of behaviour.
The Phelps' interpretation of a 2500 year old document written for a different time is the problem here, not the document itself.

Pointing out what is actually in the bible is not directly anti religion but it is indirectly I suppose. Pretty much in the same way as saying smoking kills as a statement of fact is indirectly anti smoking.
I do find it hilarious that you are accusing others of cherry picking the bible before then claiming that others use it as a blue print for living and then pretty much dismissing it as 2500 year old irrelevant text for another era.

grindle · 12-06-2012 04:49PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

That's a ridiculous comparison. For a start I havent even referred to the content of either belief, merely compared the narrow mindedness with which they both hold their respective beliefs and the aggressive attitude with which they pounce on anyone who dares question them.

One is a fallacious, proofless belief, the other is a rational disbelief.
One is truly narrow-minded from the get-go ("It's real because I say it is/I was told so by my parents/look at the human eye! How could such a thing exist? It seems so implausible I simply must make something up.").
The other analyses and discredits baseless assertions, then waits for evidence.
Which has never been brought forward. In thousands of years.
Just empty assertions that bring hope (and also, more fear, re: Hell, Armageddon and purgatory) to people too weak and frightened, or in many cases, simply too stupid, to think for themselves.

Any assertion by the skeptic is treated as aggression against the believer's notions.

The believer and the skeptic are not on equal ground here.
There's a scapegoating of atheists nowadays simply for identifying themselves as such.
People hear 'atheist' and think 'Dawkins', and this apparently is a bad thing, just because he's continually trouncing bilious idiots in debates he's invited to.
It's his job when asked to speak on supernatural topics, to dismantle his opponent's arguments.
Like his style or not (and I'm never sure why not, because Hitchens was much more abrasive), he does his job.
In order to "question" his (or "our") "beliefs", believers need evidence in favour of their own.
Anyone still willing to call themselves an atheist is waiting, tapping their watch, stood up by believers.

Crooked Jack · 12-06-2012 04:58PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Pointing out what is actually in the bible is not directly anti religion but it is indirectly I suppose. Pretty much in the same way as saying smoking kills as a statement of fact is indirectly anti smoking.
I do find it hilarious that you are accusing others of cherry picking the bible before then claiming that others use it as a blue print for living and then pretty much dismissing it as 2500 year old irrelevant text for another era.

Hmm, you have an odd sense of humour. Anyway, as I stated clearly in my first post, I am not defending the Bible or religion, I'm just not comfortable with the WBC interpretation of it being linked to all other christian sects.
As for the three points you seem to take issue with

Some people are cherry picking it to suit their own ends
Some people do use it as a blueprint for their lives
It is a 2500 year old document from another era. The Old Testament is anyway. I fail to see how any of those points contradict each other

Ghost Buster · 12-06-2012 05:04PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Hmm, you have an odd sense of humour. Anyway, as I stated clearly in my first post, I am not defending the Bible or religion, I'm just not comfortable with the WBC interpretation of it being linked to all other christian sects.
As for the three points you seem to take issue with

Some people are cherry picking it to suit their own ends
Some people do use it as a blueprint for their lives
It is a 2500 year old document from another era. The Old Testament is anyway. I fail to see how any of those points contradict each other

No. I simply linked it to the bible. What Westboro refer to is there in black and white.
It is also a fact that other Christian groups use the bible as well.
The Old Testament pre dating the new is irrelevant. It is the word of a being who exists outside of space and time. Using the bible as a blue print for living is there fore cherry picking if you do not observe it in its entirety.

Crooked Jack · 12-06-2012 05:07PM

grindle wrote: »

One is a fallacious, proofless belief, the other is a rational disbelief.
One is truly narrow-minded from the get-go ("It's real because I say it is/I was told so by my parents/look at the human eye! How could such a thing exist? It seems so implausible I simply must make something up.").
The other analyses and discredits baseless assertions, then waits for evidence.
Which has never been brought forward. In thousands of years.
Just empty assertions that bring hope (and also, more fear, re: Hell, Armageddon and purgatory) to people too weak and frightened, or in many cases, simply too stupid, to think for themselves.

Any assertion by the skeptic is treated as aggression against the believer's notions.

The believer and the skeptic are not on equal ground here.
There's a scapegoating of atheists nowadays simply for identifying themselves as such.
People hear 'atheist' and think 'Dawkins', and this apparently is a bad thing, just because he's continually trouncing bilious idiots in debates he's invited to.
It's his job when asked to speak on supernatural topics, to dismantle his opponent's arguments.
Like his style or not (and I'm never sure why not, because Hitchens was much more abrasive), he does his job.
In order to "question" his (or "our") "beliefs", believers need evidence in favour of their own.
Anyone still willing to call themselves an atheist is waiting, tapping their watch, stood up by believers.

Again, youre talking about the content of both here whereas I was pointing out similarities in the attitudes of both sets of followers.
Also, without wanting to sound like Im playing Devil's advocate here (if you'll forgive the expression) neither science nor religion has provided any proof for the origin of existence. Im not talking about the Big Bang here, I mean before that, that stuff had to come from something, it didnt just explode from nothing.

Biggins · 12-06-2012 05:07PM

kryogen wrote: »

Hey! we haven't had a thread on this shower of inbreds in at least 2 or 3 months!

Nice

They are like mouth sores, once they exist, not easy to get rid of.

Crooked Jack · 12-06-2012 05:15PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

No. I simply linked it to the bible. What Westboro refer to is there in black and white.
It is also a fact that other Christian groups use the bible as well.
The Old Testament pre dating the new is irrelevant. It is the word of a being who exists outside of space and time. Using the bible as a blue print for living is there fore cherry picking if you do not observe it in its entirety.

I would agree with that.
However, while God may exist outside of space and time the beings the bible was intended for do not, so surely they would be expected to follow the most up to date version, y'know, the one thats all love and peace and sandals.
The WBC clearly do not love their neighbour, a concept Jesus seemed to be a fan of, so again, at the risk of going around in circles, I would suggest that the problem is with them and their interpretation of the Bible.

grindle · 12-06-2012 05:35PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Again, youre talking about the content of both here whereas I was pointing out similarities in the attitudes of both sets of followers.

The first half of all my blah-blahing was pointing out how dissimilar their attitudes are.

Crooked Jack wrote:

Also, without wanting to sound like Im playing Devil's advocate here (if you'll forgive the expression) neither science nor religion has provided any proof for the origin of existence. Im not talking about the Big Bang here, I mean before that, that stuff had to come from something, it didnt just explode from nothing.

True, but one has the edge over the other. The skeptics don't want to guess and still be wrong.
Amazing how a god (that nobody's ever known to exist) can be eternal, but the universe couldn't possibly. Definitely need a beginning for that.

Pushtrak · 12-06-2012 05:43PM

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Again, youre talking about the content of both here whereas I was pointing out similarities in the attitudes of both sets of followers.
Also, without wanting to sound like Im playing Devil's advocate here (if you'll forgive the expression) neither science nor religion has provided any proof for the origin of existence. Im not talking about the Big Bang here, I mean before that, that stuff had to come from something, it didnt just explode from nothing.

That is enough of an argument for many a believer to go along with a belief in god. Well, probably this in combination with Pascal's Wager, and the convenience of picking whatever their parents follow/is the "in" thing in the society of the person for whom we are speaking. It isn't really an argument for the existence of god, though. It is an argument from ignorance. Or, "I don't know, so I know."

But, where exactly is the science at? http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/2012-02-04/lawrence-krauss-universe/52951768/1

Nothing is something, it turns out, in physics. The equations that explain the innards of atoms produce so-called "virtual" particles that pop in and out of existence all the time on the sub-atomic level. These virtual particles cancel out each other at the end of the day, but in the meantime they lend atomic particles most of their mass. And their existence can be measured in electrical phenomena apparent at very small scales, such as the "Casamir" effect, observable as the attraction of two mirrors towards one another in a vacuum when placed very close together.

"We're like early mapmakers at this point," Krauss says, armed with a only few landmarks, such as the virtual particles. Although virtual particles can't add up to explain dark energy, his book says, they can explain the origin of the universe. Given a big enough emptiness, enough virtual particles can pop into existence, for free, to trigger a Big Bang and start a universe. "Nothing is doing something, and not only that. It has to do something," Krauss says.

If all this sounds a little philosophical, it might not be an accident. Forthrightly dubious of religion and theology, Krauss sees in the "something from nothing" result an answer to observers who see a need for a Creator to explain existence. That's a lot of folks, given that about four in 10 U.S. Gallup poll respondents feel that God created people about 10,000 years ago.

That's why he ended up doing the book, Krauss says, after a YouTube lecture (of course) on the origin of the universe went viral. "I really see a basic conflict between science and religion," he says. "I try not to be preachy, but I think it would be wonderful for the cultural debate if people saw what an amazing universe we live in, even if the evidence says it is likely an accident."

This is a long video, but might as well post it rather than not.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0mljE9K-gY&feature=player_embedded

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I would agree with that.
However, while God may exist outside of space and time the beings the bible was intended for do not, so surely they would be expected to follow the most up to date version, y'know, the one thats all love and peace and sandals.

Well, there are mixed signals in the bible. In the New Testament, I mean.

Romans 10:4
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)

Galatians 3:23 - 25
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matthew 23:1-3)

Ephesians 2:15
15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace

MadsL · 12-06-2012 05:54PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

WBC announced that they were sending a delegation to Helsinki to "burn Finland's filthy fag flag" outside the Presidential Palace.:D

Never understand why people get so upset about flag burning, two quotes always spring to mind for me when talking about flags.

Any flag that's worth a ****
Was woven from fire in the first place.
Satanic Reverses, Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy

and

People who enjoy waving flags don't deserve to have one
- Banksy

Pushtrak · 12-06-2012 07:37PM

14:30 - 23:00
45:10 - 53:00
56:50 - 59:00

That's the video I linked earlier, but figured people might be more likely to watch smaller segments than the full thing.

Naomi00 · 12-06-2012 08:34PM

Brendog wrote: »

#2 on my bucket list: Protest a Westboro protest.

That's already been done :pac:

Killer Wench · 13-06-2012 05:02AM

Regardless of one's views on religion, most Americans find the Westboro Baptist Church to be abhorrent. Not only for their extreme rhetoric and extreme interpretation of the Bible, but also because of their tendency to co-opt funerals and tragic events for their own sick agenda. Recently, here in Seattle, a man went on a shooting spree that resulted in 5 individuals being murdered. The WBC proclaimed their intent to protest at one of the victim's funeral because Seattle is such a gay-friendly, progressive city that it was obviously God's retribution that this happened :rolleyes:. I would have loved to attend as a human shield blocking these idiots from the family, but the family of the victim pleaded that no one attend the funeral, including anti-WBC protesters. As rational individuals, we respected their decision.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Gloria-Leonidas-memorial-157819605.html

DEFTLEFTHAND · 13-06-2012 05:08AM

Anyone have a FAG?

philologos · 13-06-2012 06:55AM

Pushtrak wrote: »

They're reading in to it what it says. That is why they are called "biblical literalists". They take it literally. I'm happy literalism isn't a common thing here and people have a modern interpretation on things, but this line doesn't fly.

I don't even believe they are Biblical literalists, I think there is strong grounds for regarding them as distortionists though. Christians aren't called to engage with society in anywhere near the same way either, unless picketing funerals is defending the Gospel with gentleness and respect? (1 Peter 3:15-16)

Ghost Buster wrote:

No. I simply linked it to the bible. What Westboro refer to is there in black and white.
It is also a fact that other Christian groups use the bible as well.
The Old Testament pre dating the new is irrelevant. It is the word of a being who exists outside of space and time. Using the bible as a blue print for living is there fore cherry picking if you do not observe it in its entirety.

Yes, that's true. The Bible is all God's word. However, the Bible clearly shows us that there are more than two covenant agreements (see Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8). One under Adam, one under Abraham, one under Moses to the Jewish people, and one under Christ. We're under the final agreement. The terms of those agreements differ. Christians are no longer under the Jewish state, and although God's standards remain the same, their consequences differ. That's clear.

The New Testament also makes abundantly clear that the Old Testament was a shadow of what was to come in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 10:1, Colossians 2, and many more).

MadsL · 13-06-2012 08:11PM

philologos wrote: »

although God's standards remain the same, their consequences differ. That's clear.

So, does God hate fags or what?

Some Christian groups seem very selective about Old Testament prohibitions/requirements. Upholding OT teachings such as;

Lev. 18:22, 20:13 wrote:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them"

whilst cheerfully ignoring other specific sexual conduct instructions;

Deuteronomy 25:5 wrote:

if brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

Ghost Buster · 13-06-2012 08:41PM

MadsL wrote: »

So, does God hate fags or what?

Some Christian groups seem very selective about Old Testament prohibitions/requirements. Upholding OT teachings such as;

whilst cheerfully ignoring other specific sexual conduct instructions;

It all depends on the text he was addressing to which the particular goat herding tribe and in what era.

BeerSteakBirds · 13-06-2012 08:50PM

MadsL wrote: »

whilst cheerfully ignoring other specific sexual conduct instructions;

Marrying your brother's widow wasn't something I ever considered before as it doesn't seem to happen or else I never heard of it happen. Is it illegal ? Provided there was no cheating involved, it's not exactly the worse thing that could happen amongst all the varying shades of strangeness. At least any kids would not be at high risk of genetic diseases.

grindle · 13-06-2012 08:53PM

BeerSteakBirds wrote: »

Marrying your brother's widow wasn't something I ever considered before as it doesn't seem to happen or else I never heard of it happen. Is it illegal ? Provided there was no cheating involved, it's not exactly the worse thing that could happen amongst all the varying shades of strangeness. At least any kids would not be at high risk of genetic diseases.

She's hypothetically forced to marry, so yes (for if she refused, rape & death would be certain).

Being held captive wasn't, but is now, illegal.

philologos · 13-06-2012 09:03PM

MadsL wrote: »

So, does God hate fags or what?

Some Christian groups seem very selective about Old Testament prohibitions/requirements. Upholding OT teachings such as;

whilst cheerfully ignoring other specific sexual conduct instructions;

Some atheists seem very selective about understanding the Bible.

Under the Old Covenant the penalty for sin and willful disobedience against God is death. Even in the New Testament we're told that we deserve to die for sin (Romans 1:32). God gives life and He has the authority to take it away (Job 1:21). However, we are also told that Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross, taking away the penalty of sin (1 Peter 3:18 for example). Therefore if God has done this for me, as a Christian I cannot expect this of others.

Sin deserves God's wrath, and by nature we are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). It is by believing and trusting in Jesus, that we can become children of God (Romans 4) as we were initially created to be.

All sin deserves God's judgement. The good news is that Jesus came to rescue us and to bring us back to God. God did this because He loves us. I.E - God is merciful, and God is just. We happen to be stubborn in response to it.

Ezekiel 18:21-24 wrote:

“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.

Westboro Baptist Church undermine the Gospel of salvation, and this can be shown Biblically. God hates sin, but He abounds in mercy and steadfast love.

Exodus 34:6-7 wrote:

The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

MadsL · 14-06-2012 01:25AM

philologos wrote: »

Some atheists seem very selective about understanding the Bible.

Well, there is a big chunk of assumption.

philologos wrote: »

Under the Old Covenant the penalty for sin and willful disobedience against God is death. Even in the New Testament we're told that we deserve to die for sin (Romans 1:32). God gives life and He has the authority to take it away (Job 1:21). However, we are also told that Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross, taking away the penalty of sin (1 Peter 3:18 for example). Therefore if God has done this for me, as a Christian I cannot expect this of others.

Sin deserves God's wrath, and by nature we are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). It is by believing and trusting in Jesus, that we can become children of God (Romans 4) as we were initially created to be.

All sin deserves God's judgement. The good news is that Jesus came to rescue us and to bring us back to God. God did this because He loves us. I.E - God is merciful, and God is just. We happen to be stubborn in response to it.

Sorry, I fully understand the 'good news' - I don't need an evangelical sermon, thank you. You have completely missed the question I asked. What I am asking is why some Christians take passages that refer to sexual misconduct (ie homosexuality or fornication) and make judgements about 'non-believers' lifestyle choices, yet fail to adhere to other sexual conduct passages that instruct about marriage (like the one I quoted).

For instance would most Christians consider sexual relations with their wife whilst on her period to be 'unclean'?

Leviticus 18.19 wrote:

You must not approach a woman for sexual contact during her menstrual uncleanness.

or are attitudes towards barbers consistent with those towards homosexuals?

Leviticus 18.27 wrote:

You must not cut off the hair on your forehead or clip the ends of your beard.

Westboro Baptist Church undermine the Gospel of salvation, and this can be shown Biblically. God hates sin, but He abounds in mercy and steadfast love.

Really? In many ways, it could be said that they are more consistent in respecting the Old Convenant, and not merely selectively chosing which Laws to unhold.

Andrewf20 · 14-06-2012 05:08AM

Ive never heard a convincing argument as to why the bible sees gay fornication as an abomination.

BreezyLou · 14-06-2012 06:43AM

I was surfing through some of the different forums on here, when I came across this thread on the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't live far (relatively speaking) from Topeka, Kansas ...which is where their "church" is located. After skimming through some of the posts, I just had a couple things to add. I've never met someone locally who doesn't find them completely vile. The members of the WBC are a group of crazy people, but smart. They know the law. They get their funding by counter suing the grief stricken families that take them to court in an effort to seek some kind of justice for their abhorrent behavior. For a long time, I'd watch the stories on the news, and be so angry that a law couldn't be passed protecting the people who were simply trying to bury their son or daughter (most of whom served in the military). So angry. Then one day, a friend pointed out that freedom of speech is one of the most important rights granted to us by the U.S. Constitution. He said, you know what would be the worst thing anyone could do to them? Ignore them. They lose their power if no one is paying attention. I thought about it for awhile, and realized it's a hard thing to do- but attention is exactly what has given them an international platform. We can't take away their right to free speech, but we can certainly stop listening.

philologos · 14-06-2012 07:09AM

MadsL wrote: »

Well, there is a big chunk of assumption.

No, it is actually the truth unfortunately.

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, I fully understand the 'good news' - I don't need an evangelical sermon, thank you. You have completely missed the question I asked. What I am asking is why some Christians take passages that refer to sexual misconduct (ie homosexuality or fornication) and make judgements about 'non-believers' lifestyle choices, yet fail to adhere to other sexual conduct passages that instruct about marriage (like the one I quoted).

For instance would most Christians consider sexual relations with their wife whilst on her period to be 'unclean'?

I'm not convinced you entirely understand the Gospel. In fact if you did, you would be a Christian.

I've answered your question, and I've given you three main points:
1) God doesn't hate anyone, but longs for all to be saved. (2 Peter 3:9).
2) God hates sin, and sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2) - All sin is equally to be avoided.
3) God sent Jesus into the world, so that we might be forgiven insofar as He has stood place on the cross (Romans 3-5).

It doesn't particularly matter whether or not that concerns sexual immorality or not. God's standards concerning these topics remain, however, they are dealt with differently under the New Covenant than they are under the Old.

I won't need to make any judgement about anyones choices. You will come before Jesus and be judged. I don't need to judge you, and indeed I couldn't.

Why? - I'm a sinner too, and I've only been saved by God's sovereign grace (Ephesians 2:1-10). I have no right to judge. However, if I care I should be telling people that we've sinned and that we need a Saviour.

MadsL wrote: »

or are attitudes towards barbers consistent with those towards homosexuals?

This shows that you don't understand the Bible. These ceremonial commands were given to the Jewish people so that they remain distinct from other nations. Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses insofar as ceremonial commands came to an end. Jews and Gentiles were one under the New Covenant. Again there are plenty of passages that we can use to back this up. Ephesians 2 for example talks about the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles being broken through Christ. Mark 7 talks about the Jewish dietary laws being fulfilled.

A better application would be to say. The Hebrew people were under the Old Covenant, and this was how they were to remain distinct from other nations. We today are under the New Covenant as a result of Christ, how are we to remain distinct from others in society.

That's the parallel. We are still called to be distinct, but as to exactly how that works. We're under a new agreement with God, therefore we look to the terms of the New Covenant rather than the Old. The Old fulfilled its purpose. It only pointed to Jesus (Hebrews 8).

You're clearly mishandling Scripture.

MadsL wrote: »

Really? In many ways, it could be said that they are more consistent in respecting the Old Convenant, and not merely selectively chosing which Laws to unhold.

See above. The Bible is quite clear that there are multiple covenant agreements. The purpose of the Old Covenant agreement was fulfilled insofar as it was pointing to the New (Galatians 4).

We're reading the Bible as Christians. Christians when they are reading the Old Testament say, how can I read this in the light of Jesus' coming. Indeed, this is what was practiced in the early church (2 Corinthians 3).

Are you sure you understand the 'good news'?

Pushtrak · 14-06-2012 07:12AM

BreezyLou wrote: »

I was surfing through some of the different forums on here, when I came across this thread on the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't live far (relatively speaking) from Topeka, Kansas ...which is where their "church" is located. After skimming through some of the posts, I just had a couple things to add. I've never met someone locally who doesn't find them completely vile. The members of the WBC are a group of crazy people, but smart. They know the law. They get their funding by counter suing the grief stricken families that take them to court in an effort to seek some kind of justice for their abhorrent behavior. For a long time, I'd watch the stories on the news, and be so angry that a law couldn't be passed protecting the people who were simply trying to bury their son or daughter (most of whom served in the military). So angry. Then one day, a friend pointed out that freedom of speech is one of the most important rights granted to us by the U.S. Constitution. He said, you know what would be the worst thing anyone could do to them? Ignore them. They lose their power if no one is paying attention. I thought about it for awhile, and realized it's a hard thing to do- but attention is exactly what has given them an international platform. We can't take away their right to free speech, but we can certainly stop listening.

In fairness though, don't they just notch up the antics? I mean, they are different in their delivery, for instance picketing funerals, but the message they preach of hatred is well founded in the bible. Evangelical ministers preaching much the same content it seems from my perspective not to be particularly abnormal.

Obviously the WBO are abhorrent, but when people discuss them on being abhorrent, what generally are the reasons that are mentioned? Is it the message? The vile way in which it is delivered? What makes them so atypical when they are a topic of discussion, in other words?

BreezyLou · 14-06-2012 10:04AM

Pushtrak wrote: »

In fairness though, don't they just notch up the antics? I mean, they are different in their delivery, for instance picketing funerals, but the message they preach of hatred is well founded in the bible. Evangelical ministers preaching much the same content it seems from my perspective not to be particularly abnormal.

Obviously the WBO are abhorrent, but when people discuss them on being abhorrent, what generally are the reasons that are mentioned? Is it the message? The vile way in which it is delivered? What makes them so atypical when they are a topic of discussion, in other words?

I struggle with this first point, because I'd like to believe it is abnormal, but sadly, in many cases you are correct. I think people will try to gather and interpret the 'evidence' (Bible, as you reference in this case) to support their own positions. Some people are positive in their interpretations and some people use fear and hatred. Surely, you are right in that they will notch up their antics. I think it's a lot like a kid throwing a temper tantrum, though. If you start screaming back, and engaging in the disruptive behavior, no one gains anything from it...it just creates a spectacle.

I loved the last couple of questions because they were thought provoking for me. I'd say the abhorrent behavior stems from the fact that they disregard societal boundaries of honor and decency. They're not breaking the law, but it's an understood courtesy that you don't kick someone when they're down. Protesting at a funeral is pretty brutal, especially when the deceased person is very young and being laid to rest by their parents. It's not a matter of religion or homosexuality at that point. It's a matter of cruelty. They use grief as a stepping stone for their agenda.

Westboro Baptist Church

Comments