Westboro Baptist Church

Capt'n Midnight

The King of Moo wrote: »

They are a vile bunch, but I do approve of their strong anti-smoking stance.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church's position

grindle

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is what I mean. This is the exact same attitude you get from staunchly religious people when you dare question their beliefs. You seem to have a lot more in common with them than you would like to admit.

If someone says "Gays are inherently evil.", and someone else says "No they're not.", that doesn't make both arguments equal.

People who go "Oh, for fuck's sake, not another staunch pro-gay, they're just as bad as the homophobic bigots!" are as stupid as they sound.

Can you see the parallels with your own reasoning?

Capt'n Midnight

Father Damo wrote: »

France and Britain judges sometimes rule what they view as nuisance lawsuits by awarding the claimant one pound or one euro, plus costs)

It's a pity RTE didn't bankrupt Beverly Cooper Flynn :mad:

She sued RTE and technically won the case.

BUT, didn't get compensation or costs.

http://www.simonmcaleese.com/asp/printf.asp?RecordId=215

On the 3 March 2001, the jury delivered its judgment. The jury firstly found that there was insufficient evidence that Cooper-Flynn had induced Howard to evade tax.
...
Asked in view of their decision in relation to the “Howard claim” to assess damage to the material reputation of Cooper-Flynn, they replied “none” on the issue paper.
...
"the tort of defamation protects those whose reputations have been unlawfully injured. It affords little or no protection to those who have, or deserve to have, no reputation deserving of legal protection”.

MadsL

retalivity wrote: »

they also hate ireland
http://www.godhatestheworld.com/ireland/index.html
nice people

You know that is a spoof site, right?

Ghost Buster

Crooked Jack wrote: »

This is what I mean. This is the exact same attitude you get from staunchly religious people when you dare question their beliefs. You seem to have a lot more in common with them than you would like to admit.
The athiesm thing I wrote was a side note to an earlier poster who suggested if I read the bible fully I would become an athiest.
The main point I was making was that these WBC clowns seem to be picking bits out of it that suit their agenda (as a number of people on here are doing as well.) There is more to the book that fire and brimstone, particularly in the new testament, and I'm merely voicing my opposition to people here making sweeping generalisations about it, as I would on any issue.

I have not a clue what point you are making. I have a lot in common with who because of what
It is very very simple. The bible says mean , vile stuff in black and white which The Phelps take at face value rather than the usual head in the sand attitude of all other Christians, you know the one -
"Nice stuff = face value"
"Nasty Stuff= makes me uncomfortable so i shall interpret it as a parable/metaphor"

Crooked Jack

grindle wrote: »

If someone says "Gays are inherently evil.", and someone else says "No they're not.", that doesn't make both arguments equal.

People who go "Oh, for fuck's sake, not another staunch pro-gay, they're just as bad as the homophobic bigots!" are as stupid as they sound.

Can you see the parallels with your own reasoning?

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.

Crooked Jack

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I have not a clue what point you are making. I have a lot in common with who because of what
It is very very simple. The bible says mean , vile stuff in black and white which The Phelps take at face value rather than the usual head in the sand attitude of all other Christians, you know the one -
"Nice stuff = face value"
"Nasty Stuff= makes me uncomfortable so i shall interpret it as a parable/metaphor"

Yes, but it also says some very reasonable stuff in black and white that both they and you seem keen to ignore as it suits your agenda

Ellis Dee

Several posters have wondered where Phelps and his gang get their money. One way is that they are mighty quick to sue anyone who they believe has defamed them. And I suppose there are plenty of rabid homophobes willing to put their nickels and dimes where their mouth is. Many a mickle makes a muckle, they say in Lancashire.:eek:

I first became aware of their existence in 2000, when Tarja Halonen was elected Finland's first woman President. A lawyer by training, she had some years earlier done some legal work for an organisation that promoted equal rights for sexual minorities. That was enough in their eyes to brand her a lesbian (which she almost certainly isn't, and I have met her personally, but so what if she were anyway?). WBC announced that they were sending a delegation to Helsinki to "burn Finland's filthy fag flag" outside the Presidential Palace.:D

They also said they had applied for 25 visas for Finland (which Americans don't need:rolleyes:) and declared that they would protest to the UN if the visas were refused. Thus they do a lot more talking the talk than walking the walk, and most of their travelling around the USA is done in pickup trucks.;)

A Helsinki radio station went for the bait and interviewed Fred Phelps by phone. Among other things, he boasted that one of his daughters had a big role in executing prisoners in a Kansas prison. Without doubt, a total whack job.:rolleyes:

As it happens, it is not, I believe, illegal to burn a Finnish flag, but it would not be the smartest thing to do in a country with so much genuine patriotism and national pride.

For a while I was looking forward to the spectacle of Phelps and his boys burning the flag outside the palace and a couple of policemen rushing --- as fast as a snail in low gear -- to the scene to prevent some irate grannies from kicking the shit out of those nutters.

BTW, I have a link to a URL about their "burning Finland's filthy fag flag", but I'll be banned for ever and one day if I post it here. PM me if you'd like to see it.:cool:

Ghost Buster

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I have not a clue what point you are making. I have a lot in common with who because of what
It is very very simple. The bible says mean , vile stuff in black and white which The Phelps take at face value rather than the usual head in the sand attitude of all other Christians, you know the one -
"Nice stuff = face value"
"Nasty Stuff= makes me uncomfortable so i shall interpret it as a parable/metaphor"

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Yes, but it also says some very reasonable stuff in black and white that both they and you seem keen to ignore as it suits your agenda

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?????

Pushtrak

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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

If it is to be said I'm of the same agenda then I guess it might be to get people to read the bible. Us and our agenda, ne'er do well rapscallions.

Crooked Jack

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

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

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

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

Nice

Ghost Buster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brendog wrote: »

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

That's already been done :pac:

Killer Wench

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

Anyone have a FAG?

philologos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BreezyLou

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

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

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

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.

Pushtrak

BreezyLou wrote: »

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.

That is really what every person does with every holy text ever. It can be used by very caring individuals or very sadistic individuals and they can both assert their interpretation is the true one.

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.

It reminds me of a quote of never argue with a fool because an observer will not be able to tell the difference. It doesn't gain anything, However, in the case of people attending a funeral that gets the WBC turn up, I can't say I wouldn't understand a person having choice words.

MadsL

philologos wrote: »

No, it is actually the truth unfortunately.

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

That's some fairly breathtaking arrogance right there, Calvin would disagree with you by the way; I could fully understand the Gospel but not be predestined to be a part of the Elect. Equally, I'm sure most Muslims would claim to fully understand the Gospel and the further revelation of God through the prophet.

I've answered your question

No, you have dodged it twice. Let me quote it for you...

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

So let me rephrase. Do you think the Bible prohibits homosexuality, if so, is that binding on the modern Christian. If yes, why is it acceptable to touch a woman on her period but not practice homosexual acts?

, 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).

In your view. However Calvin would argue that God has predetermined who is a member of the Elect and therefore has already damned some to Hell.

2) God hates sin, and sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2) - All sin is equally to be avoided.

Sin. According to which moral code? Or is that Original Sin? So, to direct my question at this 'avoidance' is homosexuality a sin 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).

So all sins are forgiven? Do you have a point of view on the 'unforgivable sin'?

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.

Does nothing from the Old Covenant apply to Christians then? If so, why are Christian so fond of quoting the commandments and other selected passages?

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.

Are homosexuals welcomed as part of your congregation/fellowship?

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.

What is your definition of sin with regard to sexual morality?

This shows that you don't understand the Bible.

I beg to differ. This is my alma mater - again breathtaking arrogance on your part.

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.

So all commands are now redundant? Is that your position?

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.

How do you define that distinction?

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).

And the place of Jews now under God's plan? In or Out?

You're clearly mishandling Scripture.

Is it any wonder there are so many sects/churches/denominations in Christianity? Any different interpretation and bam, there's another church because the others are 'mishandling scripture' or don't 'understand the bible'.

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).

And the function of the Old Testament now is?

We're reading the Bible as Christians.

You might be. Others are not. Still others use passages selectively to justify a moral position.

Christians when they are reading the Old Testament say, how can I read this in the light of Jesus' coming.

Really? Sounds good, except Jesus didn't dismiss the law...

Matthew 5:18-19 wrote:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Indeed, this is what was practiced in the early church (2 Corinthians 3).

No, that is what was written by Paul. As to Early Church practice that varied; for example, the Council of Jerusalem removed requirements for circumcision but retained restrictions on flesh from strangled animals and the eating of blood (no pudding with breakfast for Christians?)

Anathema also to him who condemns the eating of flesh, except that of a suffocated animal or that offered to idols.

This canon also, like the preceding one, is not directed against the Gnostics and Manicheans, but against an unenlightened hyper-asceticism, which certainly approaches the Gnostic-Manichean error as to matter being Satanic. We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html

Are you sure you understand the 'good news'?

Are you clear as to how strongly the modern church has rejected Antinomianism? So, ceremonial and dietary laws can be ignored, slavery is out. Bizarre marriage obligations are gone, barbers are now ok. Yet dire warnings against fornication and idolatory remain favourite passages. I find it bizarre that circumcision is no longer a requirement, yet adherence to 1st century moral codes is a requirement for most fellowships.

philologos

MadsL wrote: »

That's some fairly breathtaking arrogance right there, Calvin would disagree with you by the way; I could fully understand the Gospel but not be predestined to be a part of the Elect. Equally, I'm sure most Muslims would claim to fully understand the Gospel and the further revelation of God through the prophet.

Is it? - All I'm simply saying is, if one understands the depth of what took place on Calvary, that one would have no other choice but to submit to Christ.

MadsL wrote: »

So let me rephrase. Do you think the Bible prohibits homosexuality, if so, is that binding on the modern Christian. If yes, why is it acceptable to touch a woman on her period but not practice homosexual acts?

God's standard is that the place of sexuality is within a marriage. This is affirmed within the New Testament as well as the Old.

As for uncleanness, we need to do a bit of homework as to what the New Covenant agreement says concerning this. Jesus' words in Mark chapter 7 are a good place to start:

Mark 7:14-23 wrote:

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

None the less, I'd have to say, it's a practice that I would avoid.

I've not much interest in casting judgement on anyone, what I am interested in is discussing what God has already declared.

MadsL wrote: »

In your view. However Calvin would argue that God has predetermined who is a member of the Elect and therefore has already damned some to Hell.

I'm not wholly sure if he would disagree for the record. I'm simply pointing to what is Biblically stated at the moment.

MadsL wrote: »

Sin. According to which moral code? Or is that Original Sin? So, to direct my question at this 'avoidance' is homosexuality a sin to be avoided?

God's standard. I've answered your question already. It is a sin, like all others. My point's clear. The Gospel is applicable to all sin, not just some.

MadsL wrote: »

So all sins are forgiven? Do you have a point of view on the 'unforgivable sin'?

Sure. My point would be to encourage you to read the passage in Mark and note the tense:

Mark 3:28-30 wrote:

“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”—for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Whoever blasphemes - present tense. It's rather simple, for as long as you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, you cannot be forgiven. If you blaspheme against the Holy Spirit - there is no way to know God or to enter His Kingdom.

In Mark this makes perfect sense, given what comes around it. I.E - Jesus' family rejecting Him, and indeed the scribes rejecting Him (3:20-25). Jesus in the following section explains who is true family are. This section in the middle is explaining what is happening on either side of it.

MadsL wrote: »

Does nothing from the Old Covenant apply to Christians then? If so, why are Christian so fond of quoting the commandments and other selected passages?

Not at all. You're missing the point if you got that from my posts. We use the New Testament to determine what has been fulfilled from the Old. We read the Old Testament in the light of Christ, and that's what the early Christian church encouraged from the beginning. Jesus Himself, was profoundly aware of the New Covenant and even spoke of it at the last supper. Like how Moses brought the Old Covenant into being by animal sacrifice (Exodus 24), Jesus brought the New Covenant into being by standing in our place on the cross (Luke 22:20).

You're misunderstanding that Christians are under a New Covenant and that even the Old Testament is unequivocal that this is going to happen (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

MadsL wrote: »

Are homosexuals welcomed as part of your congregation/fellowship?

As much as anyone is. That is, people are encouraged to repent of their sins and believe in Jesus, and as a result live for God rather than for themselves.

MadsL wrote: »

What is your definition of sin with regard to sexual morality?

See above.

MadsL wrote: »

So all commands are now redundant? Is that your position?

No, I've not said this. I've said that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ. God's standards remain the same, the difference is we are under a New Covenant agreement and that has consequences for our relationship with God. The New Testament is fairly clear as to what they are.

MadsL wrote: »

How do you define that distinction?

How does the New Testament define that distinction? - It gives us clear guidance as to how Christians can live distinct from others in a secular world, or in a world that largely rejects Christ in favour of other Christians.

1 Peter is an astoundingly good example of a New Testament that tells us how Christians can live distinctly.

MadsL wrote: »

And the place of Jews now under God's plan? In or Out?

Jews who believe and trust in Jesus are saved as much as anyone else is if they believe and trust in Him.

MadsL wrote: »

Is it any wonder there are so many sects/churches/denominations in Christianity? Any different interpretation and bam, there's another church because the others are 'mishandling scripture' or don't 'understand the bible'.

Covenant theology is a hugely significant part of Christianity. Missing that, is missing a huge amount.

MadsL wrote: »

And the function of the Old Testament now is?

Still abundantly useful as long as you understand how circumstances differ insofar as Christ has come into the world. If you want a text that will help you to understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants, I'd suggest looking at the book of Hebrews if you want to find out more about this.

If one looks to Acts 17:11, and 1 Timothy 3:15-16 bearing in mind that when he uses the term Scriptures, it means the Old Testament:

Acts 17:11 wrote:

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1 Timothy 3:15-16 wrote:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

MadsL wrote: »

You might be. Others are not. Still others use passages selectively to justify a moral position.

And Christians do as well. You're still not understanding my point. God's standards remain, the nature of the covenant agreement differs.

MadsL wrote: »

Really? Sounds good, except Jesus didn't dismiss the law...

I agree, He didn't. He fulfilled it, as the passage says.

MadsL wrote: »

No, that is what was written by Paul. As to Early Church practice that varied; for example, the Council of Jerusalem removed requirements for circumcision but retained restrictions on flesh from strangled animals and the eating of blood (no pudding with breakfast for Christians?)

And is one required to be circumcised to be justified? - Even in the book of Genesis I don't think that has been suggested. Rather the circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of the covenant between God and His descendants.

Abraham was justified by faith long before this occurred.

Genesis 15:6 wrote:

And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

MadsL wrote: »

Are you clear as to how strongly the modern church has rejected Antinomianism? So, ceremonial and dietary laws can be ignored, slavery is out. Bizarre marriage obligations are gone, barbers are now ok. Yet dire warnings against fornication and idolatory remain favourite passages. I find it bizarre that circumcision is no longer a requirement, yet adherence to 1st century moral codes is a requirement for most fellowships.

Here's a definition of antinomianism:

the theological doctrine that by faith and God's grace a Christian is freed from all laws (including the moral standards of the culture)

I don't believe this. Actually what I do believe in is that because we are justified by faith, we live to glorify God. This is entirely Biblical:

Ephesians 2:1-10 wrote:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Andrewf20

Philologos, your knowledge of the bible exceeds mine - does it say anywhere in it as to why God forbids intimate relations between gay people. Why would he create this homosexual nature in some people, then command against their natural impulses, baring in mind that there seems to be no victim in this sin? I really cant see what harm its causing to anybody for it to be considered an abomination like the bible suggests.

grindle

[QUOTE=Andrewf20[/Quote]Why would he create this homosexual nature in some people, then command against their natural impulses, baring in mind that there seems to be no victim in this sin?[/QUOTE]

It's a test(-icle).

MadsL

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Philologos, your knowledge of the bible exceeds mine - does it say anywhere in it as to why God forbids intimate relations between gay people. Why would he create this homosexual nature in some people, then command against their natural impulses, baring in mind that there seems to be no victim in this sin? I really cant see what harm its causing to anybody for it to be considered an abomination like the bible suggests.

I just wrote a long reply and inadvertantly hit F5 and lost it.

I'm interested as to why women can now preach and speak freely in most churches yet homosexulaity remains a sin.

1 Corinthians 14:34 wrote:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

More selective moral thinking.

Andrewf20

Louise Theroux did a program on them and heres the followup:

Biggins

The church said they would turn up for a soldiers funeral again, Soldier Roy Tisdale - 650 people however turned out to form a totally peaceful human barricade though.

According to KBTX.com, the group, which is based in Kansas, frequently targets military funerals because of "a belief that God punishes soldiers because of America's tolerance of gays."

When Ryan Slezia, a former Texas A&M student, heard of the group's plans, he hatched a plot to foil their efforts.

"In response to their signs of hate, we will wear maroon. In response to their mob anger, we will form a line, arm in arm. This is a silent vigil. A manifestation of our solidarity," he wrote on Facebook, inviting others to join him in a peaceful protest.

On Thursday, as Tisdale's funeral was held at the Central Baptist Church in College Station, Tex., hundreds of students and alumni responded to Slezia's invation, linking arms to create a human barricade surrounding the church's entrance.

Most wore maroon -- A&M's school color. One participant tweeted that over 650 people showed up, creating a formidable "maroon wall."

“We are standing here quietly. We are here for the family,” Lilly McAlister, a Texas A&M student, told KBTX.com. "We are positioned with our backs to them. Everyone has been told there's no chanting, no singing, there's no yelling anything back."

The hundreds gathered were prepared for a potentially aggressive confrontation, but the protestors from Westboro Baptist Church never showed up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/06/texas-am-students_n_1653002.html

Guess they might have got word they were slightly out numbered?