[thunderous_funker]

Just when I think no one understood or cared about my supposition, ViO comes in a demonstrates it perfectly.

I'll repeat.

Phelps is merely more devout then the Christians who discredit him, but actually hold exactly the same fundamental belief. They merely don't act on it and Phelps tirelessly pursues it.

Phelps' tactic is essentially "scaring them straight". Telling homosexuals that they cannot escape Eternal Damnation if they engage in the grievous sin of homosexual sex. Tough Love.

The only difference between Phelps and a Christian who also believes that homosexuals who have sex are going to Hell is that Phelps is trying to do something about it, even if his methods are controversial.

Christians can say his methods won't work, for whatever reason, but his cause is ultimately Righteous because Christianity does indeed teach that having homosexual sex will result in Damnation.

So Christians have little room to criticize Phelps. That is, of course, unless they break with the Churchs' dogma concerning homosexuality.

[catsank]

Stop your calls ladies and gentleman, we have a winner.

[NYCFarmboy]

This is so rediculous.

It is patently obvious that Phelps is in self denial about his own homosexuality.

Anyone that bent out shape over what others do in their own homes is obviously personally facinated with it.

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Just when I think no one understood or cared about my supposition, ViO comes in a demonstrates it perfectly.

I'll repeat.

Phelps is merely more devout then the Christians who discredit him, but actually hold exactly the same fundamental belief. They merely don't act on it and Phelps tirelessly pursues it.

Phelps' tactic is essentially "scaring them straight". Telling homosexuals that they cannot escape Eternal Damnation if they engage in the grievous sin of homosexual sex. Tough Love.

The only difference between Phelps and a Christian who also believes that homosexuals who have sex are going to Hell is that Phelps is trying to do something about it, even if his methods are controversial.

Christians can say his methods won't work, for whatever reason, but his cause is ultimately Righteous because Christianity does indeed teach that having homosexual sex will result in Damnation.

So Christians have little room to criticize Phelps. That is, of course, unless they break with the Churchs' dogma concerning homosexuality.

I would say that homosexual sex without remorse or a attempt to disregard it would be sinful. Meaning, just because one has had homosexual sex, doesn't mean he or she is automatically damned.

Jesus also said those without sin, to cast the first stone.

These people probably already know what the Bible says about it without Phelps. They make their choice on their own.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I would say that homosexual sex without remorse or a attempt to disregard it would be sinful. Meaning, just because one has had homosexual sex, doesn't mean he or she is automatically damned.

Jesus also said those without sin, to cast the first stone.

These people probably already know what the Bible says about it without Phelps. They make their choice on their own.

And I rest my case.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And I rest my case.

Did you even understand what I said?

Not being condescending, just wondering.

Had you, your reply wouldn't have been the one you choose.

Meaning this guy IS going against what Jesus taught. To show LOVE, and NOT condemn. By showing through your daily ACTIONS. It's the whole attracting flies with honey ideals.

And sin or lack of is not the key to salvation. He needs to be preaching what that key is. The other will follow.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The only difference between Phelps and a Christian who also believes that homosexuals who have sex are going to Hell is that Phelps is trying to do something about it, even if his methods are controversial.

Christians can say his methods won't work, for whatever reason, but his cause is ultimately Righteous because Christianity does indeed teach that having homosexual sex will result in Damnation.

So Christians have little room to criticize Phelps. That is, of course, unless they break with the Churchs' dogma concerning homosexuality.

Well said, TF. Well said indeed.

Another observation, if I may. I think what we're running into here is the influence of modernity and even political correctness on Christians.

All Bible-thumping Christians understand that homosexuality is an abomination.

But several factors militate against their religious urge to "pull a Phelps." For example, an increasingly number of them know and have befriended homosexuals who (shock and awe) are actually decent human beings who add meaning and join to their lives.

Add to which, we live in an increasingly secular world where most of us feel comfortable judging people by their actions towards us but not by their private sexual preferences or their skin pigmentation....yadda yadda yadda...religious bigotry is no longer the hip thing it was in centuries past (Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.).

Then there's the whole "personal relationship with God" new-agey stuff which is essentially a democratization of religion: "I don't need institutions or artificial hierarchies as "middle men" in my religion." This phenomenon is basically positive because it shows at least a trend towards independent thinking, however error-laden it may be. And it's at the root of Zimphire's and other Christians' disagreements between themselves in this thread.

Basically, it has become "cool" to be a Christian enlightened enough not to believe that all nonbelievers are damned, even if the Bible is unequivocal about their fate, because of the consequences of being such an asshole. Virtually everyone here agrees that Phelps is one... the cognitive dissonance is over the indisputable fact that he's one in large part because of his Christian premises.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by awcopus:
the cognitive dissonance is over the indisputable fact that he's one in large part because of his Christian premises.

I believe he would feel the same way about homosexuals, Christian or not.

I believe he honestly hates homosexuals. I believe it really has nothing to do with spiritual matters.

I also believe he is using the Bible to somehow try to justify his hatred.

I have known many Christians in my life. This guy isn't of the norm.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Meaning this guy IS going against what Jesus taught. To show LOVE, and NOT condemn.

Yeah, okay Zimphire. So I guess the bastard who said the following wasn't Jesus.

Matthew:
10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[awcopus]

"Hostility in the Bible? In the NEW Testament? No, surely you jest."

ROMANS: 1:26 - 1:32
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death" and should be killed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by awcopus:
Yeah, okay Zimphire. So I guess the bastard who said the following wasn't Jesus.

Matthew:
10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Ah the old take Bible versus out of context to try to make a point.

So you actually know what Jesus is saying here?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by awcopus:
"Hostility in the Bible? In the NEW Testament? No, surely you jest."

ROMANS: 1:26 - 1:32
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death" and should be killed.

For one we are talking Christianity. Not the OT.

But it you want lets also put it into context.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


And the VERY NEXT Chapter

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

[nonhuman]

If the Bible is to be taken literally, context is irrelevant. So where's this sword that Jesus was supposed to bring, surely you don't mean to say that it's a *gasp* figurative sword?

As much as Phelps really pisses me off, it's funny how he actually does a lot of good for the homosexual community. I find it incredibly amusing that people will "sponsor" him and give money to various pro-lgbt organizations for every hour he spends picketing and such. Maybe someone will pledge money for every hour this monument doesn't get torn down. Hehe, maybe we can get phelps to tear it down himself that way.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So you actually know what Jesus is saying here?

Ahh, the old claim to authority about what Christ really means when the straight-up words of the text might lead to confusion make a sheep consider being an independent, free-thinking human being.

What I and others who read the Bible and shake our heads know is that there is enough contradictory logic, virulent bigotry, and absurd daydreaming in this book to render it effectively useless as a guidebook for leading a sane, joyful, moral life.

All of the cognitive dissonance it causes you, Zimphire, when confronted with Phelps should help you to "snap out of it." Instead you turn up the volume on this absurdity by simultaneously holding that Phelps is substantially correct in his conclusions about homosexuals, but stylistically abhorrent to you.

What I and others find unsettling is the arbitrary distinction between peaceful Christians and violent Christians. Don't take me wrong, I'm glad you don't like Phelps. I just wouldn't ever be able to trust you to stand up for what's right, since one of these days God might tell you to do something horrible and suddenly you won't think it's so bad.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
For one we are talking Christianity. Not the OT.

... the VERY NEXT Chapter

You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

So where do you get off judging Phelps or me or anyone? And where are these "riches" of kindness? Where is the evidence of God's tolerance or patience? How can you unblinkingly digest this silliness?

I just sat on a jury. We passed judgment on a guy who did something I'll certainly never do (randomly stomping on some guy's head while shouting racial epithets). Was this wrong? How am I supposed to read the Bible here? Please somebody help me think this through, it's all so confusing!

With that, I'm through here. Zimphire, this is our second run-in, I'm sure we'll bump heads again, peacefully, with words, on a discussion board. Again, regardless of how arbitrary its origins may be, I do appreciate that your opinion of Phelps is at least sort of right.

[Spadesman]

First thing, Mr. Phelps does not represent a Christian whose sole authority in life is the Bible. I can only judge a man by his fruits, and from what I see, they are looking a little rotten. I just finished reading the entire New Testament and his methods are no where to be found.

Interesting story regarding Mr. Phelps that most of you probably don't know involves a "protest" Phelps and his cronies staged outside Focus on the Family's campus. Seems they were protesting the fact that FOTF had 2 employees who were former homosexuals and he believes that they can't change. Of course this ideology contradicts scripture, and this shows me more of his rotten fruit. He is saying that homosexuals can't be saved, but that is a lie.

Some trademark slogans from Phelps:
"Once a fag, always a fag."
"Dr. Dobson Has Anal Intercourse With Fags"
"God hates fags"
"Fags can't repent"

As you can see, you will not find this attitude anywhere with the New Testament. We are supposed to love our neighbors, not hate them. This is NOT how a Christian conducts himself when trying to reach the lost.

"A little leaven leaventh the whole lump"


Regarding the lack of free will, Calvinism is a very flawed theology which I won't go into, nevertheless, when the bible says Jesus died for all, it exactly means that, not just for some "elect."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by awcopus:
Ahh, the old claim to authority about what Christ really means when the straight-up words of the text might lead to confusion make a sheep consider being an independent, free-thinking human being.

No you purposely took it out of context.
That was dishonest.

What I and others who read the Bible and shake our heads know is that there is enough contradictory logic, virulent bigotry, and absurd daydreaming in this book to render it effectively useless as a guidebook for leading a sane, joyful, moral life.

Well you have a right to your interpretation and opinion. Only you will be effected by your choice.

All of the cognitive dissonance it causes you, Zimphire, when confronted with Phelps should help you to "snap out of it."

No dissonance. You are projecting

Instead you turn up the volume on this absurdity by simultaneously holding that Phelps is substantially correct in his conclusions about homosexuals, but stylistically abhorrent to you.

He is correct as in we shouldn't be sinning, and making excuses for our actions. You don't believe in that? Fine. That is on you. Why should it bother you if you don't believe in it? Why does it upset you?

I am talking against his ACTIONS. His ACTIONS are not Christian like.

What I and others find unsettling is the arbitrary distinction between peaceful Christians and violent Christians. Don't take me wrong, I'm glad you don't like Phelps. I just wouldn't ever be able to trust you to stand up for what's right, since one of these days God might tell you to do something horrible and suddenly you won't think it's so bad.

Again you have shown you really have no clue about spiritual matters. Or how the work For some reason it upsets you that Christians want to disassociate themselves from this man. As if you WANT people to believe this is what all Christians think. He isn't the norm. He is a rarity.

Originally posted by awcopus:
So where do you get off judging Phelps or me or anyone? And where are these "riches" of kindness?

I am not judging him. Only one being can say or know what he is thinking. I was offering my opinion as to his actions. I am not pointing and saying he is going to hell for his actions.

Where is the evidence of God's tolerance or patience? How can you unblinkingly digest this silliness?

Who said I was blindly digesting anything? You assume too much.

I just sat on a jury. We passed judgment on a guy who did something I'll certainly never do (randomly stomping on some guy's head while shouting racial epithets). Was this wrong? How am I supposed to read the Bible here? Please somebody help me think this through, it's all so confusing!

The Bible also says to obey the laws of the land or be punished. I believe the Bible is talking about a spiritual condemnation.

With that, I'm through here. Zimphire, this is our second run-in, I'm sure we'll bump heads again, peacefully, with words, on a discussion board. Again, regardless of how arbitrary its origins may be, I do appreciate that your opinion of Phelps is at least sort of right.

I never said Phelps was wrong. I said actions weren't Christian like. You seem to have a large chip on your shoulders about Christians. It reminds me a lot of how Phelps reacts to homosexuals.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spadesman:
First thing, Mr. Phelps does not represent a Christian whose sole authority in life is the Bible. I can only judge a man by his fruits, and from what I see, they are looking a little rotten. I just finished reading the entire New Testament and his methods are no where to be found.

Interesting story regarding Mr. Phelps that most of you probably don't know involves a "protest" Phelps and his cronies staged outside Focus on the Family's campus. Seems they were protesting the fact that FOTF had 2 employees who were former homosexuals and he believes that they can't change. Of course this ideology contradicts scripture, and this shows me more of his rotten fruit. He is saying that homosexuals can't be saved, but that is a lie.

Some trademark slogans from Phelps:
"Once a fag, always a fag."
"Dr. Dobson Has Anal Intercourse With Fags"
"God hates fags"
"Fags can't repent"

As you can see, you will not find this attitude anywhere with the New Testament. We are supposed to love our neighbors, not hate them. This is NOT how a Christian conducts himself when trying to reach the lost.

"A little leaven leaventh the whole lump"

Regarding the lack of free will, Calvinism is a very flawed theology which I won't go into, nevertheless, when the bible says Jesus died for all, it exactly means that, not just for some "elect."

Exactly. See it's just not me that sees it this way. It's not the Bible according to Zimphire.

[catsank]

Originally posted by awcopus:
Ahh, the old claim to authority about what Christ really means when the straight-up words of the text might lead to confusion make a sheep consider being an independent, free-thinking human being.

What I and others who read the Bible and shake our heads know is that there is enough contradictory logic, virulent bigotry, and absurd daydreaming in this book to render it effectively useless as a guidebook for leading a sane, joyful, moral life.

All of the cognitive dissonance it causes you, Zimphire, when confronted with Phelps should help you to "snap out of it." Instead you turn up the volume on this absurdity by simultaneously holding that Phelps is substantially correct in his conclusions about homosexuals, but stylistically abhorrent to you...

lucid and sapient.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by catsank:
lucid and sapient.

Highly Subjective. And drips with juvenile angst.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

No you purposely took it out of context.
That was dishonest.
[/b]
Well you have a right to your interpretation and opinion. Only you will be effected by your choice.
[/b]
No dissonance. You are projecting
___________________________________________

Just observing that he's in your neck of the woods.

[/b]
He is correct as in we shouldn't be sinning, and making excuses for our actions. You don't believe in that? Fine. That is on you. Why should it bother you if you don't believe in it? Why does it upset you?

I am talking against his ACTIONS. His ACTIONS are not Christian like.

Again you have shown you really have no clue about spiritual matters. Or how the work For some reason it upsets you that Christians want to disassociate themselves from this man. As if you WANT people to believe this is what all Christians think. He isn't the norm. He is a rarity.

___________________________________________

Don't give yourself more credit than you deserve here, Z. You actually AGREE with him and just find his tactics repugnant. The different between you and him is one of degree not kind.


[/b]
I am not judging him. Only one being can say or know what he is thinking. I was offering my opinion as to his actions. I am not pointing and saying he is going to hell for his actions.
[/b] Who said I was blindly digesting anything? You assume too much.
[/b] The Bible also says to obey the laws of the land or be punished. I believe the Bible is talking about a spiritual condemnation.

I never said Phelps was wrong. I said actions weren't Christian like. You seem to have a large chip on your shoulders about Christians. It reminds me a lot of how Phelps reacts to homosexuals. [/B]

Nice, Z. Nice. I remind you of Phelps. But you're not a passive aggressive weenie or anything.

Of course, we're all supposed to nod understandingly as you casually observe that people are sinning when they find love with members of the same sex. And my response to this is to point out that it is, in fact, religious bigotry... and for that you compare me to Phelps.

Your posts constitute empirical evidence that you're not only an idiot, you're a dangerous idiot. When I say these things about you, they are not unfounded ad hominems. You think homosexuals are going to a fictional place called "hell" when they die because of words ina book. I think you're a dangerous idiot because of the content of your mind on display in your posts.

You may draw a line in the kinds of behavior that you personally condone because of your own random religious ethics, but you bolster a spiritual justification for religious bigotry, and that has to be called out for what it is. Idiotic and dangerous. Because regardless of your claim that these are just ideas in your own head that you would never act on in aggressive way, you do act, in a matter of speaking, when you take the time to express and defend your religious bigotry. In this way, you give comfort to those who like to be reassured that their own bigotry is normal, even sanctimonious. Others have and will continue to act more pointedly on your irrational suppositions and people's lives will be scarred and lost as a result.

[catsank]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Highly Subjective. And drips with juvenile angst.

I take it that's self descriptive...




leave it alone Zimple, we all agree he's a very bad christian -
and that Christianity is an abstract ideal and therefore can
do no wrong - we've all got the idea.


Thunderous_funker and awcopus both said some
lucid and sapient remarks - I thank them for it - end of story.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by catsank:
I take it that's self descriptive...

Thunderous_funker and awcopus both said some
lucid and sapient remarks - I thank them for it - end of story.

Thanks, catsank. Appreciate the props.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by awcopus:
Nice, Z. Nice. I remind you of Phelps. But you're not a passive aggressive weenie or anything.

I didn't say YOU reminded me of Phelps.

Of course, we're all supposed to nod understandingly as you casually observe that people are sinning when they find love with members of the same sex. And my response to this is to point out that it is, in fact, religious bigotry...

Call it what you want. If you don't believe it is a sin, why does it bother you? Why the angst?

and for that you compare me to Phelps.

I didn't compare YOU to Phelps. I said what you were saying about Christianity is a lot like what he is saying about homosexuals. Yet you condemn him for it. But feel your angst is just.

Your posts constitute empirical evidence that you're not only an idiot, you're a dangerous idiot.

100% Silliness. And you wonder why I compared your text with what Phelps is saying.

When I say these things about you, they are not unfounded ad hominems.

Sure they are.

You think homosexuals are going to a fictional place called "hell" when they die because of words ina book.

I do not. I think any homosexual has a chance to get to heaven. Just as much of a chance that I do.
You assume too much. You aren't thinking clearly.

I think you're a dangerous idiot because of the content of your mind on display in your posts.

Well you have a right to your own subjective opinion.

You may draw a line in the kinds of behavior that you personally condone because of your own random religious ethics,

It's not random.

but you bolster a spiritual justification for religious bigotry, and that has to be called out for what it is. Idiotic and dangerous.

Nonsense. your hatred is showing. So is YOUR bigotry.

Because regardless of your claim that these are just ideas in your own head that you would never act on in aggressive way, you do act, in a matter of speaking, when you take the time to express and defend your religious bigotry.

So your believe is somehow more justified than mine? Because I don't accept everything as being 100% ok? Come on. You do know by not accepting that these are valid beliefes and that people do have a right to believe them without being called idiots makes you a bigot too right?

In this way, you give comfort to those who like to be reassured that their own bigotry is normal, even sanctimonious. Others have and will continue to act more pointedly on your irrational suppositions and people's lives will be scarred and lost as a result.

What people choose is on themselves.

[dav]

Originally posted by catsank:
Thunderous_funker and awcopus both said some
lucid and sapient remarks - I thank them for it - end of story.

i typically enjoy awcopus' comments

[Zimphire]

I see more homosexuals bashing Christians in here than vice versa.

But I guess that is ok to be a bigot as long as you think your cause is just.

Just like Phelps.

The irony.

[DKeithA]

Phelps and his followers are truly taking the Lord's name in vain when they call themselves Christians. They make me want to vomit.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Exactly. See it's just not me that sees it this way. It's not the Bible according to Zimphire.

No, the problem is Phelps reads "the Bible according to Phelps." Honestly, I can't believe he would call himself Christian. If he's going to only twist the Old Testament to say what he wants, he may as well admit he's Jewish. Mind you, I'm not saying Judaism preaches this stuff either, but at least then he'd have more of a right to stick to the Old Testament.

Has he ever used a quote from Jesus to defend himself and his actions? I doubt it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Has he ever used a quote from Jesus to defend himself and his actions? I doubt it.

He couldn't. He is taking his hate and trying to use the Bible to justify it. He isn't even "interpreting" it. He is being all out dishonest.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So your believe is somehow more justified than mine? Because I don't accept everything as being 100% ok? Come on. You do know by not accepting that these are valid beliefes and that people do have a right to believe them without being called idiots makes you a bigot too right? [/B]

My beliefs are based on logic that reasonable people can agree on. Yours are based on beliefs that only people who may or may not be rational in most of their lives nonetheless cling to for irrational reasons.

For example, I believe you're a religious bigot. As evidence I quote you as stating unequivocally that homosexuality in the form of unrepentant homosexual sexual relations in and of itself is a sin according to your religion. A sin is a moral failing. Your religion holds that we're all born with original sin, but unrepentant homosexual love is above and beyond that kind of sin. It's special enough that your book of revelations refers to it time and time again as an abomination.

Why are you a bigot? Because you cast an entire group of people who engage in peaceful, life-affirming behavior based on mutual consent as morally inferior on the basis of that behavior. You actually believe that a homosexual person who denies this aspect of their identity is doing a good and moral thing. Well, there it is. Bigotry rooted in your religious beliefs established. Fortunately, for some reason, you're not given to acting on this understanding in a violent way. You restrict yourself to demeaning, bigoted remarks. And you're so proud of this distinction. Bully for you.

Now, you see hatred in my remarks. And how do you like that, on the basis of your self-righteous bigotry, I hate you. This should not come as a surprise. The ideas and opinions you express run so contrary to a civilized view of life that respects the prerogative of each individual human being to pursue happiness peacefully and justly, how could I not find them despicable and you despicable for uttering them.

What SHOULD shock and disturb everbody at this point in history is your completely anachronistic sense of morality. A group of people who engage in noncoercive behavior are sinning because it says so in a book written before people understood that the world is not flat. Could you and your cohort be any more absurd if you tried?

You are fond of kind of hinting at the idea that we'll all be judged AFTER WE DIE for the ideas and beliefs we hold. I'm more than happy to give you a preview of what real and just judgment tastes like.

You also have this way of saying that I'm full of angst for no reason. Dude, what you're getting is a reflection of the inhumanity in your posts.

[awcopus]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I see more homosexuals bashing Christians in here than vice versa.

But I guess that is ok to be a bigot as long as you think your cause is just.

Just like Phelps.

The irony.

Bigotry = Prejudice.

I'm not gay, but if I were I would say to you that I had no opinion about you whatsoever before I encountered you, whereas your preconceived notions about the existential moral status of gay people are in fact PREJUDICIAL.

Your guess about it being "ok to be a bigot as long as you think your cause is just" applies to you exactly. Just tack on delusions of grandeur about a moral position being hitched to an almighty, "always-right-just-because" superpower in netherspace... you've got ZIMPHIRE!

The irony indeed!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by awcopus:
For example, I believe you're a religious bigot.

And your a non-religious bigot. What's the difference?

As evidence I quote you as stating unequivocally that homosexuality in the form of unrepentant homosexual sexual relations in and of itself is a sin according to your religion.

Yup sure is. So is a lot of other things.

A sin is a moral failing. Your religion holds that we're all born with original sin, but unrepentant homosexual love is above and beyond that kind of sin.

It's the same as any other sexual sin. Why you never see adulterers making a big deal like you do homosexuals is beyond me. Well not really.

It's special enough that your book of revelations refers to it time and time again as an abomination.

Actually it refers to a lot of things as being a abomination.

Why are you a bigot? Because you cast an entire group of people who engage in peaceful, life-affirming behavior based on mutual consent as morally inferior on the basis of that behavior.

I cast no one. I am not one that can cast. That isn't on me.

You actually believe that a homosexual person who denies this aspect of their identity is doing a good and moral thing. Well, there it is. Bigotry rooted in your religious beliefs established.

And your constant slamming and intolerant actions towards Christianity makes you a bigot. I've never denied being a bigot.

Fortunately, for some reason, you're not given to acting on this understanding in a violent way.

For some reason? I told you what reason. As if I am not the NORM. This guy isn't the norm Sorry. No matter how badly you want to paint him out to be "the norm" it wont happen/

You restrict yourself to demeaning, bigoted remarks. And you're so proud of this distinction. Bully for you.

I do? What do you know of how I feel and what I am proud of?

Now, you see hatred in my remarks. And how do you like that, on the basis of your self-righteous bigotry, I hate you.

Now who here is being a hate monger? Not I. I see your true nature coming through. You hate, yet you are not a Christian. Hate isn't something that Christianity obviously has a corner on.

This should not come as a surprise. The ideas and opinions you express run so contrary to a civilized view of life that respects the prerogative of each individual human being to pursue happiness peacefully and justly, how could I not find them despicable and you despicable for uttering them.

And you railing against me pursuing that SAME happiness is you doing the SAME thing. But you somehow feel your bigotry is just. You are doing the EXACT same thing. What do you care what I think? If you don't believe homosexual sex is morally wrong, what do you care? I don't care what, say Wiccans believe. It doesn't mean anything to me.

What SHOULD shock and disturb everbody at this point in history is your completely anachronistic sense of morality. A group of people who engage in noncoercive behavior are sinning because it says so in a book written before people understood that the world is not flat. Could you and your cohort be any more absurd if you tried?

What does when we found out what shape of the earth have to do with anything?
You aren't making a point. More or less just rambling now.

You are fond of kind of hinting at the idea that we'll all be judged AFTER WE DIE for the ideas and beliefs we hold. I'm more than happy to give you a preview of what real and just judgment tastes like.

Is that a threat?

You also have this way of saying that I'm full of angst for no reason. Dude, what you're getting is a reflection of the inhumanity in your posts.

I am humane. Just because you don't see it as so, doesn't make me not. I have said many times I am no better than anyone else. I don't put myself up on a higher pedestal. You have no point.

Man it would suck if there was someone in here that hated homosexuals as much as you seem to hate Christians.

It's a pity.

[ThinkInsane]

This is growing tiresome, and hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I think everyone here, with the exception of one person, can agree that Phelps is an utterly repellent human being. Regardless of your race, creed, or nation of origin, he's a bad guy in any culture (except for the little exclusive one he's created for himself). What more needs to be said? Should we leave this open so someone can broad discriminatory generalizations about homosexuality? Should we leave it open so someone can make broad discriminatory generalizations about christianity? Folks, this ground has been covered many MANY times before. Live and let live.

I reopened this at T_F's request, but I would just like to point out that the reason I closed it the first time is this is exactly where I saw this thread heading: Right down the toilet.