The Westboro Baptist Church and other Bible Thumpers

Post Reply New Topic

QFT

Have you been following the discussion, or are you just deliberately playing dumb?



But the Bible talks about punishing homosexuals for their behavior. There is no reference to accepting homosexuals in the bible at all. So explain how having pro-homosexual views makes you a Christian. Just from AngelRho really, since he says it is not compatible.



Please give a short reply describing what my argument is to actually show you have been reading along with the thread.



To actually post and say they practice aberrant behavior, claim it is not compatible with Christianity, call it sinful behavior, and try to get them not to marry, then turn around and say "they are not going to hell" despite doing all this is cowardly. And if you think they are not going to Hell despite believing the same things as him, you are also a coward as well. A lot of Christians stop short of directly saying the eternal damnation part when asked.

Intimate contact does not need to be sex, by the way. I know some Christians like to think they have sex every second of every day when the doors are closed, but my argument does not need for the couple to have sex.



How so? He gave a non-answer as if he is hiding something. That is why I asked for clarification. Stop making things up.



How is anyone outside of your branch actually Christian if that is true? It does not need to be extreme like the WBC to do that.


As for AngelRho:



I would imagine many homosexuals are not Christian, but apparently you think it is such a problem that they NEED to accept Christian ideals and convert to your belief system. Now the question of criminalization is more important, since based on the above quote, we might be talking about forced conversions (at least from a sexual orientation standpoint) now...

2 EDITS: Added part about AngelRho and fixed quote

Last edited by iBlockhead on 22 Jul 2012, 11:32 am, edited 2 times in total.

What really sickens me is when they come up with websites such as http://www.godhatesgoths.com/godhatesretards.html it is truly astonishing how stupid people can really be. If this is really true then I guess god hates me because I am autistic and damned to go to hell, not that I really care anymore because I stopped going to church because of fanatics like this.[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lORCuR84-_8&feature=related[/youtube]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is to my understanding that the God Hates Goths and God Hates ret*ds websites are parodies mocking the WBC and not to be taken seriously.

If you and other people who think like you had your way, the Civil Rights Movement would have been hindered if not stamped out. And it almost happened. In America, our laws concerning speech and expression have precedents and apply to every citizen. That is why "Hate speech" laws are laughable.

thing is there are things you cant even say in america, as there is in any other country.

one could argue that provoking people at a funeral is inciting violence, in quie a few cases it would be true.

Of course.



Would be? I would like for you to give examples.

There is actual precedent behind this. Jewish counsel defended the right of Neo-Nazis to march through Skokie, probably because they knew what would actually happen if they lost. Brandishing Nazi swastikas are not considered inflammatory in America. Having marches and demonstrations decrying Jewish world domination and immigrant-bashing on the steps of a city hall is not inflammatory in America. Denying the Holocaust is allowed in America. The Supreme Court gave an 8-1 decision allowing the WBC protests. And here is the kicker, and I am going to put this here directly (source):



They are not screaming in people's faces. They were given a certain place to protest from a certain distance from the church. The far-right can protest just as much as Communists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Atheists, Libertarians, and the list goes on, as long as they are within the law (in this case, police instruction) and get the proper things to do so. And you can have counter-protests in the same area. According to your view, would a counter-protest be considered inflammatory because of its very nature to confront the opposite view? Think about it, if the WBC is going to protest, one of the first things to think of was what if someone went after them. The counter-protest could be considered exacerbation and cause more trouble than it is worth. Not just for WBC protests, but for other controversial ones as well.

If you (not you directly, but the group) support "Hate Speech" laws, you are not an advocate of free speech, since some people have views that are deemed too "offensive" (which is what it really is) to be expressed freely. Because of hate speech laws, it looks like these people are being oppressed and persecuted, and it gives them a stepping stone to crow. Hate Speech laws don't protect anything, and in the Skokie case it would have taken away the basic freedoms of Civil Rights protesters under the excuse of 'incitement'. The legal system was not exactly fair in the South as well, so the laughable position of "well, they can just go through the court system to fix it" would cause the movement to fail, just like how "easy" it was to get rid of Dred Scott (which was never actually overturned) or Plessy v. Ferguson (Plessy was only one-eighth black as well, but that is a side note).

I AM A PRAYER WARRIOR!! !! !! !!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

This song was running through my head the entire video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIDaBF8LILk[/youtube]

You rambled a bit, then accused AngelRho of being dishonest. The ramblings appear to be connected with prop 8, but not the WBC. I was wondering why you bothered to talk about prop 8 at all. You did not (and still haven't) given a reason why you think your accusation of dishonesty was correct.

I'd prefer an actual answer to my questions over an accusation of being inattentive, stupid, and/or deceptive.


I think you missed my point. Regardless of whether someone has a pro or anti homosexuality viewpoint, that person can be a Christian. What makes a person a Christian is not what they think about homosexuality.


I'm not doing homework assignments.

If you have some specific problem with something I said, or think I've misunderstood something you've said, by all means say so.


Huh? What's cowardly?


What exactly is the connection between 'believing the same things as him' and being a coward?


You seem to be implying that they believe 'the eternal damnation part', but are unwilling to say so. Is that what you're implying here?


It didn't look like a non-answer to me. It might be pretty wordy and detailed, and it might not be the clear yes or no you'd prefer, but if it is a complicated subject you can expect a complicated answer. Just because you don't like his answer doesn't mean he's hiding something.


Your reply here literally does not make sense. How does my saying that relate to whether someone else is or isn't Christian?

Maybe I brought up Prop 8 because AngelRho brought it up. That was on Page 3. And I did state my reason, you just did not accept itand have to cover for someone else. I'll state it again: AngelRho tried to pass off that the most vocal support came from non-Christians, but in reality the REAL form of support was voting for Prop 8, which he more than likely would. I rambled about it for like two sentences, I am sorry you cannot honestly comprehend that.



I didn't miss your point. I think you have to explain that to other Christians. I guess the issues of evolution and the death penalty are also non-factors. Not that the Christian conservatives in America care, these are just small little things not to be concerned about. Apparently if you're Christian you can believe whatever you want as long as you have faith in God and Jesus...except when it comes to making the group look bad, of course, then they are not Christian.

The Bible states very clearly its views on homosexuality. Not a single reference saying it should be tolerated. But apparently you don't need to follow some parts.

And I don't think AngelRho agrees with that, I think you two need to iron that one out. I know it is hard on PPR for Christians to argue with each other since the atheists cause a lot of noise and it gives them comfort they don't need to go amongst themselves frequently, but I would like to see it happen more.



You're kidding, right?



You're kidding, right? x2 Multiplier



You bet.



What does the Bible say about it? Apparently this is not so important when it comes to real-life application. The fact it is not a clear 'no' bothers me and a lot of other people as well, probably.

Have AngelRho answer the rest of that one. He's the one that made the statement.



It doesn't make sense because you have to answer something you don't want to admit to. It is the worst kept secret among Christianity: the fact that in reality the only "real" Christians are the ones in your own branch. The rest aren't Christian and that is the most logical explanation and the one that makes the most sense.

How does one have "a true Christian outlook" if they do not agree with the views or practices your branch adheres to? You yourself stated it is not the beliefs, but the practice of those beliefs. Never mind this means their beliefs about homosexuals are fine (they just cannot conduct themselves like that, if they keep it to themselves that is better).

I really don't think I need to explain that.

If you have any other group (other than the WBC) that think that having an opinion (one way or the other) on homosexuality determines whether or not someone is a Christian, then why don't you give me a link to where they say this?


That's correct.

I'm assuming (because of the way you said this) that that isn't the answer you expected, but I can't see why it would be surprising. If you did expect this answer, I'm not sure why you said it.


Would you please stop putting words into other people's mouths?


There actually is a debate about this. The words that are translated as referencing homosexuality are not quite clear. In the OT, I believe that the words used generally reference temple prostitutes, which would have been disapproved of if they were heterosexual. In the NT, it is generally referred to by a word whose meaning isn't certain and isn't found in any other ancient Greek literature.

It's my position that homosexuality isn't sinful. I realize that there are people who disagree with me on this, but that is what I think. I used to have the opposite position, more or less in line with what AngelRho said. At no point would I have looked at what the WBC does and said "they're acting like good Christians". They aren't.


Why do we need to iron it out? Certainly if he wants to argue and/or discuss it he can, but I don't see why we would need to. People disagree with each other sometimes. Both people being Christians does not prevent this from happening.


No. Can you explain?


Your implication is in general incorrect.

Christians believe that sinfulness sends people to hell, and that everyone is sinful, but that God has a workaround for this. Christians also believe that lying (for example) is a sin. But they would not say that anyone who lies goes to hell. The same exact thing would apply for homosexuality, assuming it is a sin (which not everyone agrees on).

You seem to want Christians to believe in the damnation of homosexuals as a special category. That simply isn't how it works, even for those who think it is sinful.


Why should every issue of interpretation of scripture or theology be easy for someone who doesn't know anything about it? Some things are quite clear. Some things are complicated. I don't see why that would bother anyone.


That isn't a 'secret', it just isn't true. There are some branches of Christianity that think like this (Roman Catholics come to mind), but most do not.

There is a big difference between thinking someone is wrong about a theological issue and thinking that they are not a Christian.

That's a very interesting strawman you just came up with.

Why would I hate them? They're hilarious!

The only way that the liberals will become more tolerant of Christians (meaning regular, ordinary Christians), is if the Bible is revised to remove the entire book of Revelation, to where it implies that hell doesn't exist, and everybody gets into heaven no matter what, with no repentance necessary.

Hi. Liberal here. I don't particularly care if Revelation is in the Bible or not (though I do find it kind of odd that the New Testament kinda segues all of a sudden from, "Jesus loves you," to, "DIE! BURN! DIE! SUFFER! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"). What I care about is if its insanity is used to guide foreign policy and, rather more importantly, when people use it as a justification for discrimination and/or murder (both have been done in the past).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgfSjW-LJ6E&feature=related[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq87S5eXumY&feature=related[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1Ck4m9EXeo&feature=related[/youtube] I normally dont care for Tyra Banks "because her shows are usually chick shows" but spot on Tyra!!