Another "WTF is wrong with people?" thread....

[yg17]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b46/hanagumori/heath.jpg



I can't say I'm surprised at all, sadly. BUT IT WAS JUST A MOVIE FOR ***** SAKE!

[iBlue]

yeah, just a movie but that might have been, like, promoting tolerance for such atrocities as <gasp> homosexuality. pesky sinners!

[imac/cheese]

Extremely sad. God doesn't hate anyone. He loves all His people. I hate it when Christians exhibit such hate.

[JML42691]

Some people are just really messed up, it was just a movie.

[iBlue]

Extremely sad. God doesn't hate anyone. He loves all His people. I hate it when Christians exhibit such hate.

man, if i were god i'd be PISSED at those WBC twunts.

[edesignuk]

Any chance someone can post the pic as an attachment? I know it's there, but websense is blocking it :mad: :o

[iBlue]

Any chance someone can post the pic as an attachment? I know it's there, but websense is blocking it :mad: :o
sure dear...

[edesignuk]

^ oh wow, that's nice.

http://up.edesignuk.com/files/1/Images/Gifs/FookYouMouthed.gif WBC.

[richard.mac]

C'MON these guys are idiots IT WAS JUST A MOVIE & a very very successful movie i might add... won 3 academy awards. Heath's life and career should be celebrated not targeted by religious figures. rest in peace Heath...

besides why are they targeting the film and mainly the actor, Heath, when it was adapted from a short storey by the same name by Annie Proulx.

some people seriously... i just dont understand it! these people actually believe this stuff and stand by these words:

"Heath Ledger thought it was great fun defying God Almighty and His plain word; to wit; God hates Fags! & Fag-Enablers!"

WTF? this brings great shame to my religion and especially my heritage. i am hurt and disgraced by this.

these people are basing a movie and actor on human behaviour from a more than 2000 year old collection of documents (The Bible). you cant expect every human being to behave like this. does everyone in this congregation believe this... i mean who in there right mind would sit there and think this is right? these people are not right in the 'ol noggin.

[edesignuk]

these people are not right in the 'ol noggin.This is quite a well established fact when it comes to the WBC. Have you not heard of them? They also like to picket soldiers funerals with signs saying that god hates them too, because they are also fag enablers by way of being in the military of a country that allows for gay people to exist, rather than be executed or something. God also hates all of America for the same reason, and everyone in general really.

hey ho. f-em, that's what I like to say.

[mactastic]

I sure hope old man Phelps isn't wearing mixed fabrics during his protest...

[richard.mac]

its like they are celebrating Heath's death with that headline. so they think God will be fine with them doing this?

nah ive never heard of WBC but they sound like a bunch of redneck idiots, no offence to southern Americans im sure you are nice people and will have some simpathy for Heath and his family... but these people are idiots.

[mactastic]

You know, one of these days I'd like to go to one of their protests with a big sign that says "God hates Westboro Baptists. And the rest us are none to fond of you either".

[edesignuk]

so they think God will be fine with them doing this?oh yes, in their minds he'll be pleased as punch.
nah ive never heard of WBC but they sound like a bunch of redneck idiots, no offence to southern Americans im sure you are nice people and will have some simpathy for Heath and his family... but these people are idiots.You've been missing out.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=379602&highlight=phelps
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=297707&highlight=phelps
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=292916&highlight=phelps
...

[njmac]

Haha.... well now I know what to wait for. The head of the church (or the author of this trash) will be outed by a call boy. You heard it hear first ;)

[iBlue]

You know, one of these days I'd like to go to one of their protests with a big sign that says "God hates Westboro Baptists. And the rest us are none to fond of you either".
I really like this! :D

[scotthayes]

You know, one of these days I'd like to go to one of their protests with a big sign that says "God hates Westboro Baptists. And the rest us are none to fond of you either".

I'd join you.

WBC, What a complete bunch of morons.

[abijnk]

These guys came to my campus when Judy Shepard spoke here. It was really funny actually because they just stand there with their little signs yelling and if anyone comes over to them to say anything they get this "please don't kill me" look and hide behind the cops...

Its a shame that they are allowed to do this, I think it goes way beyond free speech when a community has to dispatch its police force when these people come to town, but that's just a personal opinion. :)

RIP Heath Ledger

[kainjow]

I wonder if they've ever read the scriptures about judging others?

[yg17]

I can't wait until Fred kicks the bucket....I hope a bunch of people show up at his funeral to protest with some "God Hates Fred Phelps" signs :D

[Prof.]

This is exactly why I don't practice religion anymore. Religion, in my opinion, teaches people to judge one another and divides us.:mad:

"If you look back on history, all the good things and all the bad things that has ever happened, has been in the name of religion."

[imac/cheese]

This is exactly why I don't practice religion anymore. Religion, in my opinion, teaches people to judge one another and divides us.:mad:

"If you look back on history, all the good things and all the bad things that has ever happened, has been in the name of religion."

Please don't take the WBC as represtative of those who are religious. These people are crazy extremists who do not base their actions on the teachings of Jesus. It is sad when people use these nutters as an excuse for not going to church. If you do not like your local church or do not believe in the purpose of the church or do not believe in what your church teaches, that is fine, but when you base your decision not to be religious on crazy people, you are doing your self a disservice.

[Naimfan]

I think it goes way beyond free speech when a community has to dispatch its police force when these people come to town, but that's just a personal opinion. :)

Actually, and ironically, you just gave a wonderful description of where free speech begins.

[furcalchick]

fundies like wbc are the very reason why i oppose them in elections. the fundies' doctrine is based on hatred for all that oppose them and they have this obsession with sex. too much us vs. them mentality in the fundie churches. and just spewing hatred for this guy and celebrating in other's misery when the family has suffered a loss seems very un-christ like. the wbc has more than a screw loose.

[2jaded2care]

So some people can't wait for Fred Phelps to kick the bucket, because he's hateful. And I'm sure there will be celebrations from some whenever Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity buys the farm, too (not to make direct comparisons to Fred Phelps). But, the "progressives" are "against hate", right?

I'm not trying to defend this guy or his antics, but sometimes it seems like the pot calling the kettle black. We decry the tribal violence in Africa, wonder how it can possibly still happen in today's world, and yet we have our own tribes we've created. Progressive vs. Conservative. (Some) Heteros vs. Homos. White vs. Non-white. Male vs. Female. Middle class vs. Upper vs. Lower. Religious vs. Non-religious. Even Mac users vs. PC.

I'm tired of the zero-sum rhetoric, most of it is hateful nowadays. It seems like if I don't see things the same way as others (and share their interests/beliefs/priorities/desires), then I'm "other" -- either idiot or purposely evil -- and deserve whatever they're flinging at me.

I don't think we are that far away from the African tribes and their hatred of each other. And sadly, I don't see this getting better anytime soon.

[mactastic]

So some people can't wait for Fred Phelps to kick the bucket, because he's hateful. And I'm sure there will be celebrations from some whenever Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity buys the farm, too (not to make direct comparisons to Fred Phelps). But, the "progressives" are "against hate", right?

I'm not trying to defend this guy or his antics, but sometimes it seems like the pot calling the kettle black. We decry the tribal violence in Africa, wonder how it can possibly still happen in today's world, and yet we have our own tribes we've created. Progressive vs. Conservative. (Some) Heteros vs. Homos. White vs. Non-white. Male vs. Female. Middle class vs. Upper vs. Lower. Religious vs. Non-religious. Even Mac users vs. PC.

I'm tired of the zero-sum rhetoric, most of it is hateful nowadays. It seems like if I don't see things the same way as others (and share their interests/beliefs/priorities/desires), then I'm "other" -- either idiot or purposely evil -- and deserve whatever they're flinging at me.

I don't think we are that far away from the African tribes and their hatred of each other. And sadly, I don't see this getting better anytime soon.
Yet here you are making the leap from "some people" to "the progressives".

Oh, the irony. :rolleyes:

Also, whoever informed you that Progressives are against hate was misinforming you. I hate what Bush has done to this nation. I hate racism. I hate homophobia. I hate mysogeny. I hate poverty and suffering. Etc.

[dopey220]

Not surprising. What a bunch of dicks.

[SuperCompu2]

It's really a disgrace to see some people do this. It really gives free speech a bad reputation.

If they want to believe in these things they should keep them within the congregation and within church walls. What good are they doing by expressing their incredibly negative views?

Society in America is going down the drain. It's sad to watch.

[leekohler]

So some people can't wait for Fred Phelps to kick the bucket, because he's hateful. And I'm sure there will be celebrations from some whenever Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity buys the farm, too (not to make direct comparisons to Fred Phelps). But, the "progressives" are "against hate", right?

I'm not trying to defend this guy or his antics, but sometimes it seems like the pot calling the kettle black. We decry the tribal violence in Africa, wonder how it can possibly still happen in today's world, and yet we have our own tribes we've created. Progressive vs. Conservative. (Some) Heteros vs. Homos. White vs. Non-white. Male vs. Female. Middle class vs. Upper vs. Lower. Religious vs. Non-religious. Even Mac users vs. PC.

I'm tired of the zero-sum rhetoric, most of it is hateful nowadays. It seems like if I don't see things the same way as others (and share their interests/beliefs/priorities/desires), then I'm "other" -- either idiot or purposely evil -- and deserve whatever they're flinging at me.

I don't think we are that far away from the African tribes and their hatred of each other. And sadly, I don't see this getting better anytime soon.

You can thank right-wing idealogues for dumbing down and polarizing the conversation. Limbaugh started that over a decade ago, then gave birth to Hannity and O'Reilly. Then, inadvertently- Franken.

[d_and_n5000]

*Sigh* Where's a spare atomic bomb when you need it?

I know that as a Christian I really should try to be loving towards all people, no matter what they do to me or to others, but these people manage to push it really really close for me. I hope God can forgive me for hating these people, but all I can say is they make it really, really hard to not do so.

Let me know if y'all happen to find that bomb.

[Prof.]

Please don't take the WBC as represtative of those who are religious. These people are crazy extremists who do not base their actions on the teachings of Jesus. It is sad when people use these nutters as an excuse for not going to church. If you do not like your local church or do not believe in the purpose of the church or do not believe in what your church teaches, that is fine, but when you base your decision not to be religious on crazy people, you are doing your self a disservice.

You're right; I apologize.

I live in a highly christian town and christianity is shoved down our throats on a daily basis and when that happens... well, you get sick of religion.

Look at the little graph I made below. If the left is the average christian and the right is Christian extremists - Wheaton (my home town) is more towards the right.

Average-------|--------|--------|--------Wheaton, IL--------Religious Extremest

[abijnk]

Actually, and ironically, you just gave a wonderful description of where free speech begins.

Yeah, but that's why I said it was a personal opinion. :D

You're right; I apologize.

I live in a highly christian town and christianity is shoved down our throats on a daily basis and when that happens... well, you get sick of religion.

Look at the little graph I made below. If the left is the average christian and the right is Christian extremists - Wheaton (my home town) is more towards the right.

Average-------|--------|--------|--------Wheaton, IL--------Religious Extremest

LOL, You live in the burbs, you've got it EASY! Come down here to the bible belt and see how easily organized religion slides down your throat. Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian myself, but the church, especially in places along the bible belt, is very hard to stomach.

[ucfgrad93]

Please don't take the WBC as represtative of those who are religious. These people are crazy extremists who do not base their actions on the teachings of Jesus. It is sad when people use these nutters as an excuse for not going to church. If you do not like your local church or do not believe in the purpose of the church or do not believe in what your church teaches, that is fine, but when you base your decision not to be religious on crazy people, you are doing your self a disservice.

So some people can't wait for Fred Phelps to kick the bucket, because he's hateful. And I'm sure there will be celebrations from some whenever Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity buys the farm, too (not to make direct comparisons to Fred Phelps). But, the "progressives" are "against hate", right?

I'm not trying to defend this guy or his antics, but sometimes it seems like the pot calling the kettle black. We decry the tribal violence in Africa, wonder how it can possibly still happen in today's world, and yet we have our own tribes we've created. Progressive vs. Conservative. (Some) Heteros vs. Homos. White vs. Non-white. Male vs. Female. Middle class vs. Upper vs. Lower. Religious vs. Non-religious. Even Mac users vs. PC.

I'm tired of the zero-sum rhetoric, most of it is hateful nowadays. It seems like if I don't see things the same way as others (and share their interests/beliefs/priorities/desires), then I'm "other" -- either idiot or purposely evil -- and deserve whatever they're flinging at me.

I don't think we are that far away from the African tribes and their hatred of each other. And sadly, I don't see this getting better anytime soon.

Very well said.

[JML42691]

I too am a strong Christian, but these people have taken the extreme of "shoving one's beliefs down another one's throat" {+10 points to the first person who guesses what video game that quote comes from} to a much farther extreme (I don't think I could have worded that any more confusingly). And on my beliefs, I don't see how anybody could be seen as sinning just by playing a gay character in a movie. They should be able to be seen as calling most characters in The Departed as evil and anti-god just for the fact that they portrayed mob-murderers. That is just my $.02

And anybody taking what these WBC people have to say as being serious, should just look at their website URL, nuf said.

[Prof.]

...And anybody taking what these WBC people have to say as being serious, should just look at their website URL, nuf said.
Yeah, I saw that; I am really disgusted by it. How can people be so hateful?

[2jaded2care]

Point taken, mactastic. In attempting to explain my poorly worded post, let me say that I wasn't trying to equate "some people" with "the progressives" (as in "all" progressives). However, in my admittedly limited observation, those people harboring real hatred toward specific "intolerant" people have belonged to a larger group which I would classify as "progressives".

And apparently I had a misimpression that progressives, in general, shun hatred. Thanks for clarifying that for me. (I know it's incredible, but I'm being sincere here, not trying for sarcasm. Honest!)

However, I do think that there is an extremely fine line between hating a behavior, and hating a person exhibiting that behavior. This seems to me treacherous ground, but I'm sure you've reached a comfortable equilibrium.

Anyway, my original point was, I think one cedes the moral high ground by saying, in essence, I hate your abusing a painful occasion - such as a funeral - for your political posturing; therefore I can't wait for you to die so that hopefully others will do the same to you.

Jeez, I must be tired. I don't think I'm trying to sound snarky here, but I think I'm failing miserably. In fact, I'm not even sure I'm making any sense. I'm going to sleep. G'night, everyone.

[themadchemist]

If these monsters can extend their message of hate to the funerals of our fallen troops, I'm not surprised that they would make such disgusting claims about Heath Ledger. They feed on attacking unfairly, indiscriminately, savagely. Theirs is the worst kind of malice.

[SMM]

I was raised catholic, went to catholic school (until I was kicked out), was an alter boy, knew the Mass in latin and was a 'holy terror'. My goal was to be Pope. Everything was very traditional. There was a passage that read, "Go forth and teach all nations" (or something very close). Back then, I went forth and terrorized my neighborhood (kids). My mother used to get calls from parents of crying kids, who thought they were going to hell for not being catholic. Mom had a difficult problem because I was armed with all the dogma instructing me to do this. She basically tried to temper my zeal and prayed for puberty to lick in.

It did and the 'holy terror' hung up his rosary. The point is that Christianity is committed to the spreading of 'the Word', regardless of the fact that the 'word' has been spread about as far as it can be. And, it has been that way for a long time. So, why do we need an Army of evangelicals? I think it is to promote some person's, or group's personal agenda. That is where the nut cases come in (Jim Jones, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, etc.). They are interested in spreading 'their word'.

I think all of these guys (some gals) are unhinged at some point. Some are clearly psychotic and one wonders why they are running loose on the street. The WBC is one of our most visible examples of extremists right now. But, there is a large number of groups, with even larger memberships, poised to 'spread the word'.

Christiane Amanpour produced a fine 3-part documentary, God's Warriors. There were three two-hour episodes, covering each of the three main western religions; Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Each religion had its own share of fringe, fundamentalist, extremist groups. Those watching with an open mind, could easily discern that Christianity was no more righteous than Islam, who we view contemptuously.

The WBC is just one in a long string of fanatical religious groups. Mainstream Christians often wonder why there is such a growing negative feeling towards Christians politically.

[imac/cheese]

...The point is that Christianity is committed to the spreading of 'the Word', regardless of the fact that the 'word' has been spread about as far as it can be. And, it has been that way for a long time. So, why do we need an Army of evangelicals? I think it is to promote some person's, or group's personal agenda. That is where the nut cases come in (Jim Jones, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, etc.). They are interested in spreading 'their word'...

You are right in the fact that God's Word has been spread to nearly every part of the world, but I am continually surprised by the number of people I meet that do not know anything about God's Word. I currently live in the Bible Belt (God's Country as the locals call it) and I would have expected the Word to be much more well known. Spreading the Word and teaching the gospel has by no means been accomplished. There are still millions of people who do not have knowledge of the Bible and the sacrifice of Christ and what it can mean to them.

The problem I see is the way lots of people go about spreading the Word. It can be difficult to stomach a lot of their methods even for a Bible-believing Christian. I am not talking about the WBC either. They are not even spreading the Word; they are simply spreading hate.

[edesignuk]

There are still millions of people who do not have knowledge of the Bible and the sacrifice of Christ and what it can mean to them. Maybe those millions simply don't give a s***?

[imac/cheese]

Maybe those millions simply don't give a s***?

I have no doubt that the majority do not care. But there are those few that when presented with the gospel, come to know Jesus and make incredible changes in their lives. That is the motivation of the majority of evangelicals--to help people. Most people will not want the help and some even get angry because someone thought they needed help. Others do need help and have reached a point in their lives where they can accept it.

[edesignuk]

I have no doubt that the majority do not care. But there are those few that when presented with the gospel, come to know Jesus and make incredible changes in their lives. That is the motivation of the majority of evangelicals--to help people. Most people will not want the help and some even get angry because someone thought they needed help. Others do need help and have reached a point in their lives where they can accept it.So evangelicals should go round spreading their good word to people they think need help, even when those people don't actually want it and aren't seeking it? It's the assumption that people need rescuing that really pisses me off, and that your god is the way of doing it.

[imac/cheese]

So evangelicals should go round spreading their good word to people they think need help, even when those people don't actually want it and aren't seeking it? It's the assumption that people need rescuing that really pisses me off, and that your god is the way of doing it.

I believe what Jesus taught as it is recorded in the Bible. Seeing as Jesus taught us that the only way to heaven is through Him and that we should spread this message to all the world, I really am required by my beliefs to spread the good word to all people who do not believe. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. I am sorry my beliefs anger you so much.

Christians who do not share their faith fall into one of two categories:
1. They do not believe that unsaved people are going to Hell.
2. They do not care that unsaved people are going to Hell.

Both categories are contrary to being a Christian.

[edesignuk]

I believe what Jesus taught as it is recorded in the Bible. Seeing as Jesus taught us that the only way to heaven is through Him and that we should spread this message to all the world, I really am required by my beliefs to spread the good word to all people who do not believe. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. I am sorry my beliefs anger you so much.

Christians who do not share their faith fall into one of two categories:
1. They do not believe that unsaved people are going to Hell.
2. They do not care that unsaved people are going to Hell.

Both categories are contrary to being a Christian.Glad I'm not your neighbour then.

That's absurd. If you want to believe, believe. I'd be thoroughly cheesed off if you pushed your views in my face because you think it's your duty.

IMO the worst type of religious person is the one that won't **** about it with people that aren't interested in being saved/going to heaven/blah blah. Just do your thing and I'll do mine, but don't presume that I need saving or that I want to hear you spreading your word.

[imac/cheese]

Glad I'm not your neighbour then.

That's absurd. If you want to believe, believe. I'd be thoroughly cheesed off if you pushed your views in my face because you think it's your duty.

IMO the worst type of religious person is the one that won't **** about it with people that aren't interested in being saved/going to heaven/blah blah. Just do your thing and I'll do mine, but don't presume that I need saving or that I want to hear you spreading your word.

Actually I have spoken more about my beliefs with you than I have with my neighbor.

There is a huge difference between spreading the word and pushing my views into your face. Spreading the word includes discussing ideas with people, preaching in church (TV and radio), teaching sunday school, being a good example, living a Christian life, not being ashamed of your beliefs, giving credit to God for what He has done in your life, visiting people who have requsted information or visited the church, volunteering, answering questions about Christ and the Bible when people ask, defending Christian beliefs when people present incorrect information, etc.

I understand that your desire is simply to be left alone, but IMO it is not absurd at all to actually believe my beliefs, which state that those who do not believe in Christ are in great danger. The Bible teaches the Christianity is not just a personal belief but something that applies to everyone.

[edesignuk]

The Bible teaches the Christianity is not just a personal belief but something that applies to everyone.The bible should keep it's head down and be read/listened to by those that choose to seek it out and believe it. Plainly "everyone" isn't interested in the bibles opinions.

That said, I'm glad that you seem to keep your preaching within the confines that I'd expect to hear that sort of thing. I wouldn't obviously go to church, sunday school, and everything else you mention, so you for one wouldn't be in my face. For that I'd be thankful! :)

[Blue Velvet]

IMO it is not absurd at all to actually believe my beliefs, which state that those who do not believe in Christ are in great danger.


Now that is completely absurdly hysterical... and just a little blind to the mote in your own eye.

Non-Christians are not in danger of anything just on the basis of their own beliefs, and insisting so makes you more than someone bearing witness, it makes you appear to be the very kind of person that most of us want to avoid, for very good reason.

[imac/cheese]

Now that is completely absurdly hysterical... and just a little blind to the mote in your own eye.

Non-Christians are not in danger of anything just on the basis of their own beliefs, and insisting so makes you more than someone bearing witness, it makes you appear to be the very kind of person that most of us want to avoid, for very good reason.

I understand that non-Christians believe that they are not in any danger just as I believe they are. I am a Christian and I believe that without having put my faith in Jesus I would go to Hell when I die. Most non-Christians are fine that I can believe that. The problem comes into play when I apply my beliefs to all people. If I believe that I need Jesus to be saved from Hell, why would I ever think that others don't. I don't want to see others in Hell so I try to let them know what I believe. They don't have to believe what I do, and I try not to push my beliefs on anyone or shove anything down anyone's throat. But that is not going to keep me from sharing what I believe with others just as non-Christians are often more than willing to share what they believe with others.

BV: What mote in my own eye are you referring to?

[Naimfan]

I believe what Jesus taught as it is recorded in the Bible.

So answer this:

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

[mactastic]

Point taken, mactastic. In attempting to explain my poorly worded post, let me say that I wasn't trying to equate "some people" with "the progressives" (as in "all" progressives). However, in my admittedly limited observation, those people harboring real hatred toward specific "intolerant" people have belonged to a larger group which I would classify as "progressives".
Oh come on now. I could just as easily tar all conservatives for harboring real hatred toward specific "intolerant" people (ie homosexuals, treehuggers, atheists, socialists, "Islamofacists", the French). The people that harbor real hatred for those demographics are invariably conservatives. Does that make it a fair assertion to say that conservatives at large are the biggest haters around?

And apparently I had a misimpression that progressives, in general, shun hatred. Thanks for clarifying that for me. (I know it's incredible, but I'm being sincere here, not trying for sarcasm. Honest!)
Fair enough. But think for a second how many times liberals have been accused of having a blind hatred for George W. Bush. Try to reconcile that with your view that liberals can't/don't hate.

However, I do think that there is an extremely fine line between hating a behavior, and hating a person exhibiting that behavior. This seems to me treacherous ground, but I'm sure you've reached a comfortable equilibrium.
You mean a liberal version of "hate the sin, but love the sinner"? Surely you can see that conservatives have reached that same comfortable equilibrium?

Anyway, my original point was, I think one cedes the moral high ground by saying, in essence, I hate your abusing a painful occasion - such as a funeral - for your political posturing; therefore I can't wait for you to die so that hopefully others will do the same to you.
Indeed one does. But do you not think there will be as many conservatives celebrating the inevitable demise of Jimmy Carter as there will be liberals celebrating when W kicks the bucket? Sure there are classless people on both sides who will celebrate such an event, but you can't extrapolate from those people to the rest of the group at large.

Jeez, I must be tired. I don't think I'm trying to sound snarky here, but I think I'm failing miserably. In fact, I'm not even sure I'm making any sense. I'm going to sleep. G'night, everyone.
It's ok. I get the impression that you're being sincere, if misguided.

those who do not believe in Christ are in great danger. The Bible teaches the Christianity is not just a personal belief but something that applies to everyone.
Doesn't the Bible also teach that you shouldn't judge people? Yet here you are, pronouncing judgement that I am in great danger.

[imac/cheese]

So answer this:

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

I don't want to get into a debate to try to prove the validity of my beliefs, but I will try to answer your question. I have not compared these three versus before but I do not see them as contradicting each other. I could say to you:

1. On Sunday, my wife and I went to church.
2. On Sunday, I went to church.
3. On Sunday, My friend, my wife, and I went to church.

All three would be correct.

I could even say this and exclude my wife from my comment and still be accurate:

4. On Sunday, my friend and I went to church.

or I could say:

5. On Sunday, Joe went to church.

Doesn't the Bible also teach that you shouldn't judge people? Yet here you are, pronouncing judgement that I am in great danger.

Judging others is not for Christians to do. That is God's job. That teaching is often twisted to mean that we should never confront others that are committing sin which is clearly against the Bible. Galatians 6:1 states:

"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted."

The Bible also clearly states that we should tell people about Jesus and that He is the only way to heaven.

I have not judged anyone in any of my comments. I have stated that I believe the unsaved will go to Hell when they die. That is what the Bible tells us. I have not stated that mactastic will go to Hell. I don't know that, only God does.

[Naimfan]

I don't want to get into a debate to try to prove the validity of my beliefs, but I will try to answer your question. I have not compared these three versus before but I do not see them as contradicting each other. I could say to you:

1. On Sunday, my wife and I went to church.
2. On Sunday, I went to church.
3. On Sunday, My friend, my wife, and I went to church.

All three would be correct.

I could even say this and exclude my wife from my comment and still be accurate:

4. On Sunday, my friend and I went to church.

or I could say:

5. On Sunday, Joe went to church.


Ah, but then we cannot take the Bible literally, which is what you have previously professed to believe. The changes you suggest mean the Bible cannot be taken literally.

[iBlue]

Ah, but then we cannot take the Bible literally, which is what you have previously professed to believe. The changes you suggest mean the Bible cannot be taken literally.
The quintessential problem with the bible, interpretation. I mean, can that book be any more vague? And what is with the ridiculous wording? Who talks like that?

[imac/cheese]

Ah, but then we cannot take the Bible literally, which is what you have previously professed to believe. The changes you suggest mean the Bible cannot be taken literally.

I didn't suggest any changes and I am confused about what you mean by that. None of the versus you provided stated anything that I could not take literally. None of them were at all contradictory. All three could easily be correct. Just because one verse didn't include everyone that was at the tomb doesn't mean that it can't be taken literally. All of the analagous statements that I made can be taken literally as well (except I made up the name Joe).

[imac/cheese]

The quintessential problem with the bible, interpretation. I mean, can that book be any more vague? And what is with the ridiculous wording? Who talks like that?

The ridiculous wording is always a problem. :) I used to think the bible was extremely vague as well. I had read bits and pieces of it and never really got much from it. Then I sat down and actually began to try to read and understand what it says and I found that it is quite direct in most parts. Jesus' words specifically and the gospels are extremely easy to understand but extremely difficult to put into practice. Paul, on the other hand, has a writing style that is not at all easy to follow. Sentences that last for an entire page can get confusing.

[Naimfan]

Just because one verse didn't include everyone that was at the tomb doesn't mean that it can't be taken literally.

Yes it does.

Either the Bible is taken literally (word for word) or it is not. To accept the reading you place on those three verses is to not take the Bible literally, which you have elsewhere claimed is how the Bible should be read. By suggesting other people may or may not have been there is to rewrite those sections.

By suggesting alternate meanings, you are no longer taking the Bible literally. That is precisely why other Protestant denominations do not suggest taking the Bible literally, but rather, that we must look to the meaning therein.

Here's another one for you:

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The quintessential problem with the bible, interpretation. I mean, can that book be any more vague? And what is with the ridiculous wording? Who talks like that?

Translators. ;)

[scotthayes]

why is it that every thread that mentions religion turns in to a shouting match. On this one can't we all just agree that the WBC are a bunch of sick morons.

[imac/cheese]

Yes it does.

Either the Bible is taken literally (word for word) or it is not. To accept the reading you place on those three verses is to not take the Bible literally, which you have elsewhere claimed is how the Bible should be read. By suggesting other people may or may not have been there is to rewrite those sections.

By suggesting alternate meanings, you are no longer taking the Bible literally. That is precisely why other Protestant denominations do not suggest taking the Bible literally, but rather, that we must look to the meaning therein.

Here's another one for you:

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

I did not rewrite the those sections and they are still true word for word. Find something written in the versuses that is contradictory. If the verse said, Mary Magdalene came alone to the tomb, it would contrdict the other two verses but none of the verses state that. All three can be true at the same time.

As for your second example, the greek term translated begat, from what I understand, is different from the term fathered. My grandfather "begat" me but did not father me.

[imac/cheese]

why is it that every thread that mentions religion turns in to a shouting match. On this one can't we all just agree that the WBC are a bunch of sick morons.

If any of my posts were interpreted as shouting, I apologize. I never intended any of them as a shout. :)

WBC are sick. I think we all agree on that and no one has tried in any way to defend their actions.

[Naimfan]

Actually, this appears to me to be a very civilized discussion. Who is shouting?

I did not rewrite the those sections and they are still true word for word. Find something written in the versuses that is contradictory. If the verse said, Mary Magdalene came alone to the tomb, it would contrdict the other two verses but none of the verses state that. All three can be true at the same time.

As for your second example, the greek term translated begat, from what I understand, is different from the term fathered. My grandfather "begat" me but did not father me.

They cannot all be true as written. The first verse specifies "Mary and the other Mary," the second "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome," and the third only "Mary Magdalene." Three different accounts, each of which must be taken word for word, which means not adding or subtracting anyone. If we're free to add, then why not claim Peter was there? Or, to veer to the absurd, that ET was there? That's the problem.

Thus, one must engage in interpretation to claim that they are the same, which is contradictory to what you've claimed elsewhere, which is that no interpretation is necessary.

And given the context of Matthew 1, all the "begatting" makes it clear that "begat" equals "fathered." ;)

And yes--I think we all agree the WBC is sick.

[scotthayes]

If any of my posts were interpreted as shouting, I apologize. I never intended any of them as a shout. :)

WBC are sick. I think we all agree on that and no one has tried in any way to defend their actions.

Maybe shouting match was the wrong words, but there are several posts in this thread about the rights and wrongs of religion or this part or that part of the bible is vague. The bottom line is, the WBC are sick, there really can be no discussion on that. So rather than one person saying this about the bible or that about religion maybe this one thread could be the one time where people just express their disgust at the WBC and join together in calling them a bunch of sick f***heads.

[mactastic]

I have not judged anyone in any of my comments. I have stated that I believe the unsaved will go to Hell when they die. That is what the Bible tells us. I have not stated that mactastic will go to Hell. I don't know that, only God does.
OK, so you believe the unsaved will go to hell. I am currently unsaved. Ipso facto, you believe I am going to hell.

Yet two sentences later, you state that you don't know whether I'm going to hell or not.

These are contradictory statements.

And if you don't know if I'm going to hell, just what exactly am I in great danger from? Something else?

[imac/cheese]

...They cannot all be true as written. The first verse specifies "Mary and the other Mary," the second "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome," and the third only "Mary Magdalene." Three different accounts, each of which must be taken word for word, which means not adding or subtracting anyone. If we're free to add, then why not claim Peter was there? Or, to veer to the absurd, that ET was there? That's the problem.

Thus, one must engage in interpretation to claim that they are the same, which is contradictory to what you've claimed elsewhere, which is that no interpretation is necessary.

And given the context of Matthew 1, all the "begatting" makes it clear that "begat" equals "fathered." ;)

And yes--I think we all agree the WBC is sick.

Just because the Bible doesn't describe someone or something being present doesn't mean it wasn't present. In my opinion, other people very well could have been there. The Bible doesn't say that those were the only people there. I am pretty sure that Peter wasn't there, because in Mar 16:7 they were told to go tell His disciples and Peter. What I do believe is that every person that the Bible states was present was actually there. I also feel that the people that God wanted us to know were there are mentioned in these three passages. If I have stated that such a strict interpretation of the Bible is the way it should be read, I would love to see the post. (It is possible because I can't remember everything thing I have written). I do believe in the unerring word of God, but much of the bible is figurative. For example, men and women do not actually become one flesh. That is a figurative statement that describes the relationship. My beliefs and the beliefs of the church I go to are also to look into the meanings of the verses. I can't see how you can read anything without looking into the meaning.

I think that your interpretation of literally and mine are a bit different.

OK, so you believe the unsaved will go to hell. I am currently unsaved. Ipso facto, you believe I am going to hell.

Yet two sentences later, you state that you don't know whether I'm going to hell or not.

These are contradictory statements.

And if you don't know if I'm going to hell, just what exactly am I in great danger from? Something else?

I am not contradicting myself. I did not presume that you were unsaved and I am not presuming that you will not one day become saved. The Bible states that the unsaved will go to Hell so I believe that if you are unsaved and die in that condition, you will go to Hell.

Everyone is in danger of going to Hell, but the Bible assures us that those who put their faith in Jesus will join Him when they die instead of going to Hell. Therefore, I try to share that message with people. I do not know who is saved or who will be saved in the future but I know that if people hear the Message they will have a better chance of putting their faith in Jesus. If they are already saved, sharing my faith with them will not hurt the situation.

[Naimfan]

Ah, so we DO have to interpret the Bible, then? OK, just checking! :)

[Prof.]

I see the google bots have taken a liking to this thread. I see religious ads at the bottom.

[imac/cheese]

Ah, so we DO have to interpret the Bible, then? OK, just checking! :)

Did I actually say somewhere that we didn't have to interpret the Bible?

[Naimfan]

Did I actually say somewhere that we didn't have to interpret the Bible?

Yes, you've referred (several times, actually) to believing in the Bible "literally," which means word for word, and that no "interpretation" is needed. I forget the thread, but it was where I asked you about the contradictions that riddle the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments.

[mactastic]

I am not contradicting myself. I did not presume that you were unsaved and I am not presuming that you will not one day become saved. The Bible states that the unsaved will go to Hell so I believe that if you are unsaved and die in that condition, you will go to Hell.

Everyone is in danger of going to Hell, but the Bible assures us that those who put their faith in Jesus will join Him when they die instead of going to Hell. Therefore, I try to share that message with people. I do not know who is saved or who will be saved in the future but I know that if people hear the Message they will have a better chance of putting their faith in Jesus. If they are already saved, sharing my faith with them will not hurt the situation.
So what am I in grave danger of then?

[mactastic]

And apparently I had a misimpression that progressives, in general, shun hatred. Thanks for clarifying that for me. (I know it's incredible, but I'm being sincere here, not trying for sarcasm. Honest!)

However, I do think that there is an extremely fine line between hating a behavior, and hating a person exhibiting that behavior. This seems to me treacherous ground, but I'm sure you've reached a comfortable equilibrium.

Anyway, my original point was, I think one cedes the moral high ground by saying, in essence, I hate your abusing a painful occasion - such as a funeral - for your political posturing; therefore I can't wait for you to die so that hopefully others will do the same to you.
Not to pound on you, but in light of your talking about the moral high ground, here's a winner (http://http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/23/gibson-mocks-ledger/):
Opening his radio show with funeral music yesterday, Fox News host John Gibson callously mocked the death of actor Heath Ledger, calling him a “weirdo” with a “serious drug problem.”

Playing an audio clip of the iconic quote, “I wish I knew how to quit you” from Ledger’s gay romance movie Brokeback Mountain, Gibson disdainfully quipped, “Well, he found out how to quit you.” Laughing, Gibson then played another clip from Brokeback Mountain in which Ledger said, “We’re dead,” followed by his own, mocking “We’re dead” before playing the clip again.

Throughout the course of the show, Gibson continued to bring up Ledger’s death while discussing current events, jokingly claiming that current events may have caused him to commit suicide.

On yesterday’s drop in the stock market:

GIBSON: Maybe he had a serious position in the market.

TOM SULLIVAN: And possibly today, he looked at the window and said…

GIBSON: “Oh my God.”

SULLIVAN: His name’s not Keith Bledger, right?

GIBSON: He was depressed about yesterday’s downturn in the world stock markets.

On the Democratic debate in South Carolina:

GIBSON: Apparently Heath Ledger was suicidal and his friends saw it coming. I think he watched the Clinton-Obama debate last night. I think he was an Edwards guy, cause he saw his Edwards guy was just completely irrelevant.
Since we're talking about how classless it is to enjoy somone's death...

Edit: and of course, there is the notable hypocrisy in Gibson calling Ledger someone "with a serious drug problem". I'm guessing Gibson didn't have a similar comment regarding Rush Limbaugh, who by any definition also had a "serious drug problem".

[d_and_n5000]

Not to pound on you, but in light of your talking about the moral high ground, here's a winner (http://http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/23/gibson-mocks-ledger/):

Since we're talking about how classless it is to enjoy somone's death...

Ooh...that bugs me. That's just trying to be "funny" and failing miserably.

[imac/cheese]

Yes, you've referred (several times, actually) to believing in the Bible "literally," which means word for word, and that no "interpretation" is needed. I forget the thread, but it was where I asked you about the contradictions that riddle the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments.

You are correct. We did have a conversation about the literal interpretation of the Bible back in October.

Originally Posted by Naimfan
So you don't take the Bible literally then?

I assume you are speaking about war and capital punishment in the Old Testament. I do take that literally. I also take the war we will fight at Jesus' side against His enemies after the second coming literally.

I believe that the current times call for forgiveness and turning the other cheek. War doesn't have a part in loving your neighbor.

I think our definitions of literal are a bit different. I personally believe that the Bible is the literal, unadulterated Word of God and that everything written within the Bible actually took place or will take place. Of course God used a lot of figurative language when He inspired the Bible, but when figurative language is used, it is rather obvious.

I also feel the Bible needs to be interpreted to determine the meaning. A literal statement can be intrepreted in many different ways, especially if the context surrounding that statement is not very clear.


So what am I in grave danger of then?

The same thing that all people are in danger of, going to Hell. In my belief, if you truly place your faith in Jesus Christ, you will be rescued from that danger.

[Naimfan]

You are correct. We did have a conversation about the literal interpretation of the Bible back in October.

Thank you for finding it--I knew we had, but didn't remember when and had to jump on a conference call.

I think our definitions of literal are a bit different. I personally believe that the Bible is the literal, unadulterated Word of God and that everything written within the Bible actually took place or will take place. Of course God used a lot of figurative language when He inspired the Bible, but when figurative language is used, it is rather obvious.

I also feel the Bible needs to be interpreted to determine the meaning. A literal statement can be intrepreted in many different ways, especially if the context surrounding that statement is not very clear.

Fair enough. I think the problem is that many fundamentalist Christians don't realize, as you do, that the instant something is open to interpretation it is possible for different people to have differing interpretations. So for anyone to claim that they possess the single "correct" interpretation is absurd. They may believe it, but that does not make it so.

Of course, it still doesn't answer the question of who really fathered Joseph . . . ;)

[furcalchick]

i read some of the wbc's past actions on wikipedia, picketing all funerals and celebrating bad things happening. they love to hate and relish in evil and everything, claiming this is punishment for not condemning gays. in fact, they are officially a hate group. if you just listened to them, it would just be 'god hates...' forever.:mad:

and if they hate america so much, why don't they leave?

[MikeTheC]

So, are Fag Enablers kind of like old-school System Enablers from System 7.x? I'd like this explained as I'm confused by this.

Or can we just strip the balls off 'em, turn them into Eunuchs, and have the most stable operating system design ever?

(Idly waiting for someone on here to get the mixed-metaphor geek reference above instead of just patently thinking I'm a racist homophobe gay-baiter.)