The Westboro Baptist Church and other Bible Thumpers

Post Reply New Topic

It's also a more appropriate fixation for someone than why Bible-believing Christian think homosexuality is a sin.

Actually, Jesus tells Bible-believing Christians that they have to sell all that they have and give the money to the poor. For the slightly less Bible-believing, they can play the part of the Good Samaritan whenever the opportunity arises.

I suspect that the reaction of most people who self-identify as "Bible-believing Christians", to the picture of the starving boy who is about to be feasted upon by vultures, would be "No big deal. As long as the kid believed in Jesus, he will go to Heaven. If not, then too bad for him. It isn't through works of charity that I'm saved--it is through my faith in Jesus. Trying to do anything for a kid like this would be socialism, which is almost as sinful as homosexuality. Now, where's my bacon?"

The reality is, at least based on the Biblical interpretation I was taught, that acceptance of Christ through faith is all a believer must "do." There is nothing more to being saved.

The problem, though, is that it is expected that salvation will produce a changed heart. A believer COULD act the way you described and still go to heaven. What I want to know is why would he WANT to? Wouldn't we WANT to heal the sick, feed the hungry, give to the needy? That's why I often suggest that people who don't do those things and don't even have a desire to do those things aren't even really Christians at all.

About Christians living as socialists/communists: You do understand that the first Christians did live that way, right?

It worked for a while, but what happened was that certain members of those societies were caught being dishonest about disposing of their possessions and contributing.

Every SBC church I've been to encouraged (but never required) regular, voluntary 10% tithing, plus setting goals for voluntary giving to NAMB and other missions organizations, not to mention gifts designated for specific local church projects.

Incidentally, WBC claims, if I understand correctly, to be a "primitive Baptist" church. The word "primitive" as applied to Baptists refers to how they believe "primitive," or "first," Christians worshiped. My grandfather was raised primitive Baptist, and there wasn't a communist or socialist bone in his body. So despite their claims to worship as the first Christians worshiped, I suspect in actual practice they're falling way below the mark.

I'm sure he can speak for himself. I don't think I've misinterpreted him, but if I have I would like to know what he really thinks.

I was beginning to wonder whether I was making a mistake taking you seriously. I think I have my answer.

...But the crux of our argument here is one about whether WBC/Bible Thumpers have a scriptural basis for condemnation of homosexuality. It seems pretty clear to me that the Bible condemns it...

This whole thing got derailed when it took a heterophobic turn for the worst on page 2. I just responded by saying I didn't think that WBC or Mormons were really Christian, and then we're back to whether the Bible condemns homosexuality or not. In fact, it was BreezeGod who brought up Prop 8. It seems to me he's the one you need to ask as to why everyone (on both sides of the argument) is so obsessed with homosexuality.

]I'm against torture, but I also might disagree on what constitutes torture and when/where it's appropriate. I don't think torture is appropriate for crime and punishment, for example. If something is illegal, either kill them or imprison them. There is no point to torture.

If a society believes something to be immoral, then society must live according to its convictions. I think we DO have the right to tell other countries what to do. I just happen to believe that homosexuality is immoral and would support societies that hold that it is a criminal activity…

Apparently, a "heterophobe" is anyone who doesn't particularly think that homosexuals ought to be stoned to death.

The homosexuality fixation is more a fixation of WBC-style fanatics. Saying that we believe something is morally wrong is one thing, but I think it appears to be a fixation because heterophobes just keep bringing it up. If you don't like the Bible, move on and leave us alone.

At this point in my life I'm very happily married with three children, all 5 and under. I'm so busy not having sex with my wife that I'm certainly too busy to have sex with men. I just don't have time to be gay, even if I wanted to be.

You know, come to think about it, that really does feel better getting that off my chest. Time for some wild, crazy action spooning with my wife before she has to nurse our 3-month-old. Compensating for not being gay is starting to take a toll on me.

When he (the narrator of the video - iB)mentions that nowhere did Jesus condemn homosexuals, he conveniently leaves out the fact that Jesus called sinners to repentance...

That's quite astonishing because not only are you making a generalised judgement on any relationship I may have with God while knowing neither me nor that, you also determine that if I had formed any relationship with God it should of necessity curtail my relationship with others.
You are also assuming, somewhat arrogantly I might add, only your concept of God exists and that I must therefore subscribe to the same concept.
It does not and I do not.

Hey, I was supposed to get some persecuting...

Can I persecute you about not returning my last PM?

Hey, I was supposed to get some persecuting...

I cannot think of anything about Quakers or X-Men. There is nothing else?

Hmm, I can't either. Wow. It's like passing a recycling bin, but realizing you don't have a properly marked plastic...

If you noticed maybe a week ago, I made a long post and then deleted it. The reason why I deleted it was to not feed AngelRho's persecution complex and make him say he is being "bullied" into saying something that will get him banned (anytime he wants to fulfill his threat and get a moderator is fine with me). I should still repeat that making that excuse means you are guilty of believing something you feel is homophobic. It is not homophobic to say you don't want homosexuality criminalized, so make your own conclusion.

But I decided I am going to repost. I have to tell you, I have had people tell me through PM I did a good job, but there was an implication that he was just going to do this again. It is the dirtiest trick in the book on Internet forums to just play ignorant and “win” by having people stop talking to you. This gives the person the chance to say anything he wants, no matter what it is, to make people disgusted and have them stop talking. Someone else will take their place and only have the same result. Seeing another thread, it appears AngelRho is using this tactic rather frequently.

Then I realized that these tactics are completely dishonest since there is a specially made LGBT forum, and if you are going to imply these people are participating in illegal activity and should get punished, then that is really bad. It’s bad enough in real life for some of them, only to see this cowardly drivel where a person cannot say something directly so he is going to imply it and then quash criticism by pulling out the persecution card and threatening to get a moderator if I continue with this. I did continue and double down calling him a coward again, but I have not heard anything from a moderator yet, so that tells you something right there.

So I am reposting to defend al the LGB&T’s here. It is worth it when I think about it, since exposing someone’s true position about them is more important than the person declaring themselves a victim of bullying. It is implicit in the position that WP is too tolerant of homosexuals and the hammer needs to be dropped on these sinners to repent despite the fact that some might be non-Christian, even though you are not going to Hell for homosexual behavior (because that is logical, of course).

There is some added material because I thought about this more. Sorry for it being so long:

BEGIN POST



You had your chance when I asked you what you thought my argument was. You also defended AngelRho against me “putting words in his mouth”; apparently you cannot even read your own posts to be consistent.

The more amusing part is AngelRho was refuting your opinions and was in opposition for some things, but you still tried to get me to show proof that this was happening. So I’m afraid an attempt at energy vampirism won’t work anymore with me at this point.



Explain how something hypocritical is automatically false. The reason why you think it is hypocritical is because your reading comprehension disappears when you read something that opposes your worldview. There were at least 3 posts where you asked me to explain what I already explained, including one where you quoted me explaining why something was cowardly, only to ask what was cowardly when responding. You asked why I brought something up TWICE despite the fact it was in the normal flow of discussion at the time. Excessive asking for clarification to slow down an argument appears to be one of your tactics, and it is bush-league and weak at best, but coming from a person like you I should have expected it. I don't expect anti-gay Christians to play fair since all they have is quotes from a Magic Book that they won't admit to if it is disadvantageous to them.

In America, you commit libel when you know what you write is false and it is shown to witnesses. AngelRho could not have possibly thought I was going to “try to get him banned” until I called him out on it since he answered my question. You would think when you answer it that way the logical response would be why he actually thought that way unless he wanted it illegal. Him saying he was going to get a moderator and not doing it says something about the persecution complex he has. I am going to keep bringing this up: AngelRho said for me to stop or moderation will get involved, but when I continued he did not do it. It was just an attempt to quash criticism of his views.



OK, so they have a scriptural basis. Tell that to Ancalagon, he seems to have the opposite opinion, you know, since he does not find it sinful. I am expecting a lively debate to settle this.

These two just go to show how embarrassing this is. I like how Ancalagon finds homosexuality not sinful but still defended AngelRho saying criminalization is a tricky issue. A wrong Christian is obviously better than the non-Christian pointing out why they are wrong. When people are arguing, the focus would not be on the other Christian whose view you could be completely against. It is on the non-Christian with the uncomfortable questioning who gets spoken to.



Yes, I am obviously a sex traitor. You got me. I'm sorry I questioned your religious views about homosexuality since you feel having a religious belief automatically should get respect and consideration. I forgot that while I can criticize any other opinion, I cannot criticize religious opinions because they are held dear to you. Never mind you would throw this away if someone stated they were an anti-Semite because they say in the Bible the Jews killed Jesus. That's a religious belief just like how Biblical quotes are used to condemn homosexuality, but you would respect that view too since it is religious, right?

Not that I actually care, but you would have voted yes to Prop 8, right? Since the reason why I called you out is because you tried to say the most vocal support didn’t come from Christians (in reality it was Christians that made you look bad). But voting for it was more important. You fail to understand that simple concept.

I wouldn't be so "obsessed" about it if the people I were talking to could say their views directly instead of giving indirect statements then trying to quash criticism or obfuscate matters. This is a good example of a direct quote against homosexuality, maybe you can learn from it:

LINK



I guessed you learned not to say that again, so you threatened to get a moderator if I pushed you on it? Again, anytime you want to call one you can. If I were you, I would not be lamenting how bad you are being treated and how WP moderation should do something about this if you won’t get the moderator (you said you were going to get) if I continued.

But this question is valid I think:

You said you grew up in Mississippi. Do you still live in the state? They used to have sodomy laws until 2003, which carried a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail. Were you in favor of those sodomy laws? I think you can answer that.

My argument is “How can you call the WBC not Christian if you hold the same beliefs as them?” So it actually does matter what you believe, as much as you say it doesn’t. You already said it once, so could you clarify some more if you support it and what the punishment should be if it is illegal? I am leaning towards you believing the death penalty since I don’t feel jail is the best way to deter homosexual sex. You did say something about idolatry, and we all know what the punishment is for that in the Bible. I think the “you are trying to get me banned for saying something homophobic” card is not the best choice when I ask you if the death penalty is OK for homosexuals. That of course means you want imprisonment instead if you do not believe the death penalty is applicable, but you obviously did not think that one out concerning what goes on in prison, now did you?

The post where you said “it would be easier if we were a theocracy” makes more sense now. You are on the record saying the big point was to get them to stop having homosexual sex (or even make them turn straight).

Why are so you concerned if they are not going to Hell for their behavior anyway? Well…except you do think they are going to Hell because on this page ArrantPariah exposed you as actually believing they go there despite you trying to avoid it.

I know you said you rethought this whole criminalization issue, but I don’t think you really did given this other thread. You appear to have a reputation for being a coward on this issue here. Part of the reasoning why I reposted was because of the disgraceful and false apology you gave on page 5 there, only to repeat everything you said here about how homosexuals are sinners and need to repent although they are not going to Hell (which is logical obviously):

This apparently is your MO: 1.) Show up looking reasonable; 2.) Make indirect and shrouded statements implying how bad you think homosexuality is; 3.) Say your opinion is valid and should be respected because it is a religious one; and 4.) Play the persecution card when things get too hot and (3) does not work. You apparently keep doing this about homosexuality and there is a revolving door of people exposing your spineless attitude, but I guess you think you “won” by outlasting them? If you do this again I am just going to point people here or maybe to the thread were you said you supported it, since I am not getting this detailed again your insistent ignorance and cowardice on this issue. You cannot openly say what you want and I know full well you think WP should not tolerate LGB&T’s this much, but instead of going somewhere else to freely express them you stay here and imply it. When people call you out for implying it, you cry about how your view is not being respected. I’m not having any of that, and I am not respecting your views of punishing people who participate in consensual sex or refusing to let gays marry because of a religious definition they might not prescribe to.



(See above)



Oh, imagine that, the heterophobe reference was NOT sarcasm! I think you are breaking if you are resorting to this open mockery.

The amusing part is how often you gloat about the different forms of sexual activity you want to participate in around PPR. But apparently some forms should not be tolerated.



Why should they repent, exactly?

And why did you not respond to the Desmond Tutu video the same way? Or respond to Cornflake when he told you this:



Unfortunately, he admitted he was gay, so you are not going to talk to him, but since I am not gay (just a sex traitor), I am going to rephrase the statement so you can answer it:

You seem to imply very arrogantly that homosexuals must subscribe to your Christian beliefs. Explain why homosexuals have to adhere to your beliefs.

I think we all know based on how you said that what you really feel about it being illegal.

This is not about “bigotry” or you crying about how I am not respecting your beliefs. I am not going to take it from someone with an axe to grind, with a reputation for being a coward (I said it again) on this issue. You dance around trying to skirt the rules, and I really don’t know why you are still here if you are that upset you cannot say “homophobic things.” You are not going to answer any legitimate things like the Tutu video or Cornflake and instead play the victim card because you got caught.

END FIRST POST

I know AngelRho and Ancalagon are just going to play their games and try something to deflect this. No big deal. Instead of having to do this all over again, I compacted the important parts into one page so if he tries this again I just need to copy and paste to expose who he really is. I think that is the best way to stop dishonest tricks like the "ignorance into avoidance" tactic.

EDIT: personal attack removed by moderator

Dear Natural Plastic, as you blame the Quakers for foisting Richard Nixon upon the world, may I point out the the author of 'Black Beauty' was a Quaker?
More than balances things out, I think.

Sylkat

Dear Natural Plastic, as you blame the Quakers for foisting Richard Nixon upon the world, may I point out the the author of 'Black Beauty' was a Quaker?
More than balances things out, I think.

Sylkat