Gay-bashing cult plans picket of Steve Jobs funeral Members of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) have announced their intention to protest at the funeral of Steve Jobs, in a Twitter message sent via an iPhone. The group, best known for their rainbow "God hates fags" signs and web page, are claiming the action is in response to Jobs not using his wealth to promote their …
By tutting loudly in their vicinity?
By getting annoyed and posting some nasty words on teh intaweb?
Oh please.
One presumes the church has run out of money (or is about to), so they'll crash the funeral (if they can find out where it is) and hold up some offensive signs in the hope that someone will tell them to clear off, leading to them suing for restriction of free speech.
Of all the people in need of a serious thrashing, it's the Westboro people. Their abuse of scripture is nauseating in the extreme. Only in America...
Google them, the counter protesters often outnumber them by several hundred percent. They ridicule them, and they LOVE it.
The WB church is fishing for lawsuits and media attention and LOVE controversy and attention. Most of them are lawyers, they are hoping that Apple will in some way interfere so they can sue them for many millions of dollars. And given ANY excuse they will.
A person's free-speech rights are only violated if a government body, say the police, force them to stop protesting on public land. Private security are absolutely allowed to physically remove protesters from private property. The problem with soldier's funerals is that they are indeed often buried on public/government owned land, which presents a problem for those soldier's families.
Presumably Steve Jobs will be buried at a cemetery owned by a private organisation and that means the company that owns the property can use hired security personnel to protect the dignity of families. In the US cemeteries are usually owned by private companies and as long as that is the case, it is perfectly legal for them to protect their private property from trespassers.
The common theme all the way through the Bible is "God loves the sinner but hates his sin".
So when these retards hold up signs saying "God hates fags", He doesn't. The Westboro people are just provocative idiots with no humility, no love for their fellowman, total disobedience to what scipture instructs Christians to be like and a good working knowledge of the American legal system.
One might venture to say "God hates the Westboro Church" because they trash His Name left, right and center.
'The common theme all the way through the Bible is "God loves the sinner but hates his sin"'?
Clearly you've been reading a very different version of the Bible to the one I've been reading. In mine, God *really* hates the sinner, and visits his retribution unto the seventh generation. He's all for slaughter, rape, pillage and general mayhem - the more the better. He thinks nothing of slaughtering (presumably) innocent babes and children.
As far as "God hates fags" is concerned, I'd say they're absolutely right. He commands us to kill any man who lies with a man as you would like with a woman, just as He commands us to kill any woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night.
If you call yourself a Christian, you'd better get a-stonin' fast before He returns or you'll be in deep shit.
"Interesting how this group "knows what god hates"
If he "hates" a group of people then why did he create them??
All knowing, all powerful, all made up??"
But how could any putative god hate any part of its creation? Would that not be tantamount to hating itself, or at least the fruits of its labour?
Below are examples of Leviticus 18:22 in "the bible" where most christian nutjobs get their authority to oppress others. The source text is the same for all versions of the bible but the variety of wording shows that it can be retranslated to better suit a particular point of view. Christ never said anything about homosexuality but he was a busy man and can't be expected to remember everything.
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
"It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man."
"No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."
"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
I think the best way to deal with these trolls is to ignore them or laugh at them.
The first of your translations is pretty much the accurate one; I've seen it commented before that the only things referred to as abominations in the Bible are homosexuality and the Anti-Christ. I'm not sure if that's true, but I think it shows that some people take things a teensy bit far.
Personally I think the late author David Eddings had it right when one of his characters commented, "Isn't it convenient that the prejudices of God always so closely match those of His prophets?" And if there's one thing God indubitably does hate, it's people who presume to speak for Him.
Seems to me that its gone through so many hundreds, or even thousands of years of translation and interpretation, that much like a horoscope you can conveniently read into it whatever you like.
And besides, there's an awful lot else in Leviticus that is generally ignored by modern Christians. Have a quick peek at the sort of dietary rules that Jews are supposed to follow, for example. But I guess picketing restaurants with GOD HATES SHELLFISH plackards isn't quite as likely to be taken seriously.
(incidentally, one interpretation of the various bits of biblical controversy would suggest that only the act of bumsex with men is bad, but everything else is just fine. knock yourselves out.)
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law... When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put death, should I do it or should I ask the police to do it?
5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of abomination?
6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there a little wiggle room there?
7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
The only reason we know about this tiny insignificant bunch of mindless haters is that media types have wet dreams about them and punt them to the front page: a symbiotic relationship between two groups of people who share a similarly slender grip on reality.
WBC is shameful, but what you have to remember about them is that it's really nothing more than a business. They use tactics designed to inflame and incite, then sue when somebody snaps and becomes physically violent. It's their source of income.
These people aren't representative of even the right-wing fringe. They're simply a group of scam artists.
>>"kill them all...with fire"
Well, technically, by what they claim to believe, that would be perfectly OK, since /anyone/ who dies shows that God hates them - there's no such thing as a wrongful death.
It'd be interesting (and possibly entertaining) to see if they *still* claimed to believe that when someone stepped forward to light the woodpile under them
I understand they've been having a lot of car trouble, lately.
They drive to the site of their protest in a couple of vehicles, which they park some distance from the protest site.
When they complete their protest, they return to their vehicles, only to find all the tires flattened.
Even worse, there seem to be no tow services able to assist.
This post has been deleted by its author
The only requirement being being considered "Christian" is belief in Jesus.
The bottom line has very little to do with morality, but salvation through grace... the good deeds are very much optional and denomination dependent.
Who's to say that they don't sincerely think that they're doing "good works", after all, some religious leaders thinks they're doing Africans a favor with awful advice on family planning and STDs.
Let's not kid ourselves; even the mildest protoylser who takes john 3:16 seriously is passing on a veiled threat; compliance or damnation. The westboro mob are just taking it one step further by stating the perceived terms of compliance, and the consequences of disobedience. It's plenty godly in an old testament way; although not very jesus-like and not good PR.
What you're logically suggesting is the the opposite of Pascal's wager. "Devils" and the odd satanist must be just about the only ones who both know that Jesus offering salvation is real, yet choose to damn themselves by not following him.
Claiming that the westboro mob aren't Christians, either requires psychic powers to be able to say they're not being sincere... or divine knowledge of the will of God to able to say that they aren't following him correctly.
"Claiming that the westboro mob aren't Christians, either requires psychic powers to be able to say they're not being sincere... or divine knowledge of the will of God to able to say that they aren't following him correctly."
Or, you know, the ability to read. What you say is only correct if we take the position that nothing in the NT's reporting of Jesus' words is reliable. But at that point we have to then question whether the claim of his existence is reliable.
IF Jesus existed AND the NT reports are reasonably accurate, THEN we can say that he laid down some requirements which can be used as tests as to whether someone is following his teachings or not.
In that light, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that WBC are not Christians, although they probably could qualify as some sort of extreme jewish sect as they're very big on the OT. But the whole point of Jesus is supposed to be that the OT is not the only requirement and, in fact, is out of date in several important areas (mostly involving revenge). If you don't accept that this is a fundamental point that divides Christians from other groups then what you're really saying is that there is no such thing as a Christian at all (which brings us back to the first schism in the religion, but that's another story).
"whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"
Threat: statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not.
In this case the tacit implication is that you will perish if you don't believe.
The threat is expanded upon by Jesus himself with comments about "wailing and gnashing of teeth", along with of course, the colorful language and imagery conjured up by various different churches re: the devil, hell, purgatory.
As Eddie Izzard said about the CoE: "cake or death?"
Put in other words: “salvation is an attempt to solve a problem of its own making — sin is just a concept from the teaching, like a doctor running around cutting people with a knife in order to sell them a Band Aid.”
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
