Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

design219 · May 17, 2007, 09:22 AM

A pdf press release: http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/m...ll-funeral.pdf

It seems Phelps hate has no limits. This should make the spectacle spectacular!

analogika · May 17, 2007, 09:23 AM

That's just marvellous.

Now, just build a rubber cell around all of it and let them discuss things until the rapture.

Laminar · May 17, 2007, 09:30 AM

Falwell bitterly and viciously attacked WBC
because of WBC9s faithful Bible preaching - thereby
committing the unpardonable sin - otherwise known
as the sin gainst the Holy Ghost.

Haha...one of his three major sins was....disagreeing with them.

Graviton · May 17, 2007, 09:34 AM

haha.

"Satanic Sodomite Zeitgeist".

Sounds like the next Judas Priest album title.

Dakarʒ · May 17, 2007, 09:42 AM

If there were a hell, I expect they'd be made bunk mates.

zro · May 17, 2007, 10:29 AM

Where do these nuts come from? It sounds so outrageous that it must be an act. Or sheer paranoid insanity.

Chuckit · May 17, 2007, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

If there were a hell, I expect they'd be made bunk mates.

I didn't really care for Falwell, but he was a much better person than Phelps and company. He just didn't do much to publicize the good stuff he did, so all people ever heard was the occasional crazy rant. Although he had a hard time letting go of the very bigoted Southern values he was raised with, he did seem to care about people, and he actually apologized for some of his crazier statements (whereas Phelps would just have libeled some European royalty as a distraction or something).

Dakarʒ · May 17, 2007, 10:34 AM

You're right, I did overstate it. My loathing for overly arrogant political evangelists gets the best of me often enough.

Jawbone54 · May 17, 2007, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Graviton

haha.

"Satanic Sodomite Zeitgeist".

That's the first big thing that caught my eye as well. Hilarious.

Originally Posted by Laminar

Haha...one of his three major sins was....disagreeing with them.

So basically this one single family of certifiable nutjobs is the only group of people going to Heaven. Heaven must have a maximum capacity of 25. It's either smaller than I thought, or these people are going to have plenty of space.

Good god, these people are crazy.

design219 · May 17, 2007, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

...very bigoted Southern values...

I would say fundamentalist religious values, not Southern values.

Chuckit · May 17, 2007, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by design219

I would say fundamentalist religious values, not Southern values.

I would say you're making a distinction that does not exist. The South is traditionally fundamentalist Christian.

design219 · May 17, 2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I would say you're making a distinction that does not exist. The South is traditionally fundamentalist Christian.

To paint and entire region of the country as having intolerant values is just ignorance.

Dakarʒ · May 17, 2007, 11:47 AM

There's a reason it's called the Bible Belt.

design219 · May 17, 2007, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

There's a reason it's called the Bible Belt.

True, but I don't think the vast majority of Christians in the South adhere to Jerry Falwells hate beliefs.

Y3a · May 17, 2007, 12:24 PM

Shouldn't Phelps & Co. wait til GOD sorts it out, instead of pretending to do his work or something. Sounds like the road to Hell.

Graviton · May 17, 2007, 12:30 PM

Phelps looks a bit like that creepy old preacher guy from Poltergeist 2.

Rumor · May 17, 2007, 12:54 PM

I'm hoping that this group attends the funeral as well.

Jawbone54 · May 17, 2007, 04:29 PM

I'm a Southerner. I'm a Christian. I'm a conservative. I'm even Pentecostal.

1. I'm not racist. We're one of the most racially inclusive groups out there, as a matter of fact. Much more inclusive than the Democratic Party leadership, for example. I can't speak for every church, but we preach racism as a serious sin. My family came here in 1988, and we made a concentrated effort to eliminate racial prejudice in our church that several older families left. We have a growing minority membership (and staff members), and are making special efforts to reach out to the growing Hispanic population in NW Louisiana.

2. We're not intolerant. We don't approve of homosexual activity; we even preach against it, but we do not prohibit homosexuals from coming to our churches, and we make special efforts to prove that we're not going to call them names or insult them.

3. We treat EVERYONE who comes through our doors with the same amount of friendliness and respect. We're not called to be a country club, but to help our community and provide a place of shelter and comfort for everyone from all walks of life.

I'm beyond tired of being labeled intolerant, bigoted, backwards-minded, fundamentalist religious wackos when we've busted our butts to make a positive impact on our community and strengthen each family that we come into contact with. We've helped pull people out of poverty, helped them get jobs, provided medical assistance, paid people's bills, and provided countless other public services.

We're "conservative Christians," but to be mislabeled and misrepresented by people who turn their nose up at us for our stances against abortion, sexual promiscuity, and whatever other issues ruffle their feathers is getting pretty old.

[SIDE NOTE] We're nothing close to the WBC wackos, but I've heard such things insinuated on numerous occasions.

Dakarʒ · May 17, 2007, 04:33 PM

Your post just decimated by "breaks the tension with a joke" machine.

Laminar · May 17, 2007, 04:34 PM

My church is regarded by some as "that cult on the hill."

Dakarʒ · May 17, 2007, 04:35 PM

So I was right about the Mormonism.

design219 · May 17, 2007, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ

Your post just decimated by "breaks the tension with a joke" machine.

Well done! A refreshing break from the "creates tension with a joke" routine. Although, that is usually caused by subject not getting your jokes.

lpkmckenna · May 17, 2007, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

2. We're not intolerant. We don't approve of homosexual activity; we even preach against it, but we do not prohibit homosexuals from coming to our churches, and we make special efforts to prove that we're not going to call them names or insult them.

I love this kind of hair-splitting. "We don't hate homosexuals! We just condemn homosexual behaviour as immoral!"

It's your immoral "moral beliefs" that brand you as intolerant.

Laminar · May 17, 2007, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I love this kind of hair-splitting. "We don't hate homosexuals! We just condemn homosexual behaviour as immoral!"

It's your immoral "moral beliefs" that brand you as intolerant.

At least you're being tolerant of his beliefs.

Jawbone54 · May 17, 2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

It's your immoral "moral beliefs" that brand you as intolerant.

Morality isn't without foundation. I have found what I base my life upon.

To define something as "immoral," you have to have something on which you base your concept of morality. Morality by nature cannot be abstract. If you base your morality on your own opinions and perceptions, then what you have is a device constructed by your own hands to serve whatever purpose you decide to be worth fighting for.

My point in saying that is to say this: how can you call my "moral beliefs" immoral? On what basis have you decided such?

And preaching against homosexuality does not make me intolerant. If I treated homosexuals poorly or refused to associate with them, then yes; I would be intolerant. I have friendships with homosexuals. They know my beliefs, obviously. Do homosexuals demand my approval in order to their lives? Of course not.

I live a life that is (obviously) considered ignorant and backwards by some. I don't need other's approval to feel at peace. Do I get upset about being degraded for it? Well, obviously. Just look at my last post. But to be called backwards and ignorant by people who chastise me for my alleged intolerance is irony at its best.

Laminar, I wish my church was on a hill, or some other place that would distinguish us based on location. People just call ours "that cult," which leads to the question: "Which one?" "...the red brick one?"

Chuckit · May 17, 2007, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I love this kind of hair-splitting. "We don't hate homosexuals! We just condemn homosexual behaviour as immoral!"

It's your immoral "moral beliefs" that brand you as intolerant.

So tolerance not only means accepting somebody and treating him as an equal, it means fully approving of everything he does? That seems unreasonable to me — very much beyond the definition of "tolerate."

lpkmckenna · May 17, 2007, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

My point in saying that is to say this: how can you call my "moral beliefs" immoral? On what basis have you decided such?

Moral acts sustain life and bring happiness. Immoral acts cause harm and unhappiness. Preaching false "moral beliefs" causes harm and unhappiness.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So tolerance not only means accepting somebody and treating him as an equal, it means fully approving of everything he does? That seems unreasonable to me — very much beyond the definition of "tolerate."

Wrongly branding people as "immoral" because they don't live up to a false moral standard is intolerant.

Jawbone54 · May 17, 2007, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Moral acts sustain life and bring happiness. Immoral acts cause harm and unhappiness. Preaching false "moral beliefs" causes harm and unhappiness.

Wrong. That's not morality. It's called pleasure.

Wrongly branding people as "immoral" because they don't live up to a false moral standard is intolerant.

According to your own definition of morality, there is no such thing a false moral standard. If "morality" brings happiness and sustains life, then it's going to be something different for everyone.

morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior

Stop writing your own definitions.

It's interesting that, even as a resident Christian conservative on these boards, I'm not the one shoving my beliefs down other people's throats. As a matter of fact, the times that I've actually declared something as improper on these boards could have been done so without a Christian belief system. If someone asks what my views are, I'll share them. I can't say that I've observed the same behavior from SOME (obviously not all) secular humanists in these forums.

[side note] I think I blew up this thread. Sorry, everyone.

Mithras · May 17, 2007, 05:59 PM

If any of you have not seen the remarkable film A Time for Burning, I urge you to.

It's about mostly very decent folk in an all-white Lutheran church in Omaha, Nebraska, as they wrestle with racial integration and the changing culture of 1965. Very well-meaning people are hit with difficult choices as a new pastor urges the congregation to make gestures to racial reconciliation, such as volunteering to go meet black Lutherans in their homes, or to welcome a Sunday School class from a nearby black church. Ultimately the pastor is forced to resign, but not before some people that seemed progressive have turned rigid, and others that were skeptical and fearful at first have become impassioned spokesmen for change.

Rumor · May 17, 2007, 06:00 PM

I'd hang out and have a beer, er, iced tea with you.

Jawbone54 · May 17, 2007, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Mithras

If any of you have not seen the remarkable film A Time for Burning, I urge you to.

It's about mostly very decent folk in an all-white Lutheran church in Omaha, Nebraska, as they wrestle with racial integration and the changing culture of 1965. Very well-meaning people are hit with difficult choices as a new pastor urges the congregation to make gestures to racial reconciliation, such as volunteering to go meet black Lutherans in their homes, or to welcome a Sunday School class from a nearby black church. Ultimately the pastor is forced to resign, but not before some people that seemed progressive have turned rigid, and others that were skeptical and fearful at first have become impassioned spokesmen for change.

I thought the film was a just a relevant piece of fiction in the late 60's. I didn't realize from your post that it was a documentary; it was even nominated for an Oscar. If I can find it, I want to check it out.

Originally Posted by Rumor

I'd hang out and have a beer, er, iced tea with you.

- - e r i k - - · May 17, 2007, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

2. We're not intolerant. We don't approve of homosexual activity; we even preach against it, but we do not prohibit homosexuals from coming to our churches, and we make special efforts to prove that we're not going to call them names or insult them.

Pray tell, what mind-boggling excuse do you make to yourself to even start pretending that this isn't hypocritical?

C.A.T.S. CEO · 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

2. We're not intolerant. We don't approve of homosexual activity...

I find those sentences very amusing.

Chuckit · May 17, 2007, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Wrongly branding people as "immoral" because they don't live up to a false moral standard is intolerant.

It's not as though there's some universal authority on morality with whom they are disagreeing. It's also not like people aren't allowed to disagree even if there is. As long as they tolerate difference, I say they are tolerant. To say otherwise seems rather intolerant to me.

- - e r i k - - · May 17, 2007, 07:02 PM

Are you saying we should tolerate intolerance? That's pretty screwed up too.

Chuckit · May 17, 2007, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Pray tell, what mind-boggling excuse do you make to yourself to even start pretending that this isn't hypocritical?

How is that hypocritical? Sounds to me very much in the tradition of Jesus. Everybody is a sinner in Christian theology; you're supposed to love them anyway.

TheWOAT · May 17, 2007, 07:08 PM

Phelps? Why did you trade Buhner for Phelps!?!?!?!

Chuckit · May 17, 2007, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Are you saying we should tolerate intolerance? That's pretty screwed up too.

I am saying that disagreeing with someone is not intolerance. As an example, I have a Christian friend. This friend believes that Christianity is true, and that I am wrong for being an atheist. We are nonetheless very good friends and have a lot of respect for each other. I would say my friend tolerates me just fine even though we disagree about metaphysical concepts.

Rumor · May 17, 2007, 07:40 PM

You can not approve of someones actions or beliefs, but if you accept them anyways, that is being tolerant.

TheoCryst · May 17, 2007, 07:59 PM

There's just a fine line between "disapproval" and "intolerance," and many people are unable to distinguish between the two.

- - e r i k - - · May 17, 2007, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

There's just a fine line between "disapproval" and "intolerance," and many people are unable to distinguish between the two.

Indeed. And here's where the line is crossed:

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

We don't approve of homosexual activity; we even preach against it,

Chuckit · May 17, 2007, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Indeed. And here's where the line is crossed:

As I said, because my friend disagrees with my atheism, do you think that means he refuses to tolerate me? Certainly he's not going to go into church and say, "Well, I think atheism is just as right as Christianity." He nonetheless allows me to live my life and doesn't act negatively towards me. I have a hard time calling that "intolerance."

Railroader · May 17, 2007, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Indeed. And here's where the line is crossed:

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

We don't approve of homosexual activity; we even preach against it,

I disagree. They preach against, and disapprove of, the behavior, but the are accepting of the people and love them. That's tolerance.

It's the same as disapproving and preaching against being a drunkard, but accepting them and loving them. You may approve of someone being a drunkard, but that doesn't make him less tolerant.

You just happen to disagree with what he believes morally. You are more accepting of their behavior. That doesn't make you more tolerant or him less so. Now if he rejected or dismissed the person, then that would be intolerant.

He's tolerant of people, but intolerant of their behavior that he doesn't approve of. As long as this doesn't affect his treatment of people he's better than 99% of the people in the world.

Look - - e r i k - - , we know you hate religion. Your sig preaches it to us every time you post. How would you feel if our sigs preached to you? Are you the one being intolerant by your own definitions?

Railroader · May 17, 2007, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I am saying that disagreeing with someone is not intolerance. As an example, I have a Christian friend. This friend believes that Christianity is true, and that I am wrong for being an atheist. We are nonetheless very good friends and have a lot of respect for each other. I would say my friend tolerates me just fine even though we disagree about metaphysical concepts.

Good point, well said.

Originally Posted by Rumor

You can not approve of someones actions or beliefs, but if you accept them anyways, that is being tolerant.

Very well said.

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

There's just a fine line between "disapproval" and "intolerance," and many people are unable to distinguish between the two.

Good point.

Jawbone54 · May 17, 2007, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

As I said, because my friend disagrees with my atheism, do you think that means he refuses to tolerate me? Certainly he's not going to go into church and say, "Well, I think atheism is just as right as Christianity." He nonetheless allows me to live my life and doesn't act negatively towards me. I have a hard time calling that "intolerance."

So my moral system dictates that I disagree with homosexuality, atheism, abortion, premarital sex, and other issues (please note that I'm not lumping them into the same category). Big deal. I still have friends that are homosexual. I still have friends that are atheists. I have VERY close friends who have had abortions. And, dear God, I think we know I have many friends who have had premarital sex. They know what I think of these issues, but they would never tell you that I treat them any differently than my other friends. We can talk about different things, but that's the only difference.

In my eyes, that is being more tolerant than if I was their friend and agreed 100% with every decision that they make. I'll say this once with emphasis...

TOLERANCE CAN ONLY EXIST BETWEEN PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER

Someone has to say, "You know what? I disagree with you, even strongly, but you're still my friend, and I still love you." If that's not tolerance, I don't know what is. Chuck gets this. I don't see why others can't.

Originally Posted by Railroader

I disagree. They preach against, and disapprove of, the behavior, but the are accepting of the people and love them. That's tolerance.

It's the same as disapproving and preaching against being a drunkard, but accepting them and loving them. You may approve of someone being a drunkard, but that doesn't make him less tolerant.

You just happen to disagree with what he believes morally. You are more accepting of their behavior. That doesn't make you more tolerant or him less so. Now if he rejected or dismissed the person, then that would be intolerant.

He's tolerant of people, but intolerant of their behavior that he doesn't approve of. As long as this doesn't affect his treatment of people he's better than 99% of the people in the world.

Again...

Look - - e r i k - - , we know you hate religion. Your sig preaches it to us every time you post. How would you feel if our sigs preached to you? Are you the one being intolerant by your own definitions?

That's not intolerance. That's "operating on a higher level of thinking."

Jawbone54 · May 17, 2007, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

2. We're not intolerant. We don't approve of homosexual activity...

I find that sentence very amusing.

That's two sentences. Which one is amusing?

C.A.T.S. CEO · May 17, 2007, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

That's two sentences. Which one is amusing?

Fixinated.

Railroader · May 18, 2007, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

Edited.

No, that^^^ is fixinated.

C.A.T.S. CEO · May 18, 2007, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

No, that^^^ is fixinated.

- - e r i k - - · May 18, 2007, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Look - - e r i k - - , we know you hate religion. Your sig preaches it to us every time you post. How would you feel if our sigs preached to you? Are you the one being intolerant by your own definitions?

I do not hate religion. You may say that I'm a dreamer.