Bikers protect dead soldiers familes from church who say IEDs R gods anger 4 US gays

[Divinus Arma]

Totally weird:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185617,00.html

The church thinks that IEDs in Iraq are god's punishment because USA harbors homosexuals. The bikers go around to funerals to protect the dead soldiers' families from the church.

WTF and a half?!?1

[Don Corleone]

Well, that would explain why Gawain's been spending less and less time around here.

Somebody needs to shove an IED up the right Rev. Fred Phelps derriere. :oops: .

Who in the name of hell does this jerkoff think he is? This is just so wrong on so many levels.

Edit: Oops, the senior correspondent from the Weekly Standard isn't really on my list for anything, except maybe poor choice in ties. I meant the Rev. Fred Phelps.

[Xiahou]

Somebody needs to shove an IED up the right Rev. Fred BarnesWhat did Fred Barnes do? ~:confused: I'm guessing you mean Fred Phelps. :idea2:

He's the kook quote of the article, imo:
"The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper said.:dizzy2:

Anyhow, good for these "Patriot Guard Riders". I hope they're there at every funeral that these Westboro idiots show up at to drown them out. :bow:

[Don Corleone]

I went to that pantload's website and talk about having regrets...

There are some wicked people in this world, and some of them hide behind the gospel. I don't want to say what I found on that website, but it was disgusting. If anything, the fact that God hasn't smited the Westboro Baptist Church and it's leader the Reverend Fred Phelps has me questioning his existence. In any case, I'm seriously thinking about burning some vacation time and flying to Topeka some weekend soon and getting up and heckling this jackass. Somebody needs to... And shame on all the people in Topeka Kansas. They should run this loser out of town... if you ask me, torch carrying mobs are an all-together too rare occurence in these modern times.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I've heard of these people before. You-know-what-holes.

Good job, bikers! :2thumbsup:

[Papewaio]

Back to their roots possibly... isn't there some linkage between the first bike gangs and post WWII veterans...

[Don Corleone]

Dunno, but a lot of current bikers are Vietnam vets (like Gawain) or from service in subsequent years.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This Fred Phelps church / family keeps popping up here every few months. Is there not some law that can stop them? This funeral picketing is intolerable.

Or send them to Iraq and force them to clear IED's. 'What'ya mean, Fred, your legs got blown off? Surely your God would never allow you, his righteous follower, to suffer this fate?'

[Paul Peru]

:help:
:no: :no: :no:

I tend to do the moral superiority thing a bit myself, but cheering at funerals is about as tasteless as it gets. What a good idea by those bikers, though. :2thumbsup: Way to to put some purpose into their biking!

I don't intend to cause a right kerfuffle here, but it's a bit like those who harass people at abortion clinics too. Even those who choose to have an abortion (for whatever reason) are usually uncomfortable about it, and they don't really need being covered in blood or waved crucified foetuses at afterwards.

[Fragony]

So these guys actually harras familymembers on funerals??? Whah? That is absolutely disgusting :furious3: I'd shred them to pieces if they did that to me.

[Kanamori]

I don't know why the funeral owners don't violently throw them out.

If I had a gun, I would enjoy threatening them to get off the property or get shot...:balloon2:

I would have thought these people would get terribly beaten up by angry mobs, and I'm a little disappointed they haven't been.:no:

[monkian]

I went to that pantload's website and talk about having regrets...

There are some wicked people in this world, and some of them hide behind the gospel. I don't want to say what I found on that website, but it was disgusting. If anything, the fact that God hasn't smited the Westboro Baptist Church and it's leader the Reverend Fred Phelps has me questioning his existence. In any case, I'm seriously thinking about burning some vacation time and flying to Topeka some weekend soon and getting up and heckling this jackass. Somebody needs to... And shame on all the people in Topeka Kansas. They should run this loser out of town... if you ask me, torch carrying mobs are an all-together too rare occurence in these modern times.

Maybe you'll end up brawling against Navaros :laugh4:

[Redleg]

:help:
:no: :no: :no:

I tend to do the moral superiority thing a bit myself, but cheering at funerals is about as tasteless as it gets. What a good idea by those bikers, though. :2thumbsup: Way to to put some purpose into their biking!

I don't intend to cause a right kerfuffle here, but it's a bit like those who harass people at abortion clinics too. Even those who choose to have an abortion (for whatever reason) are usually uncomfortable about it, and they don't really need being covered in blood or waved crucified foetuses at afterwards.

I tend to think that demonstrations at abortion clinics that heckle those who go into the center to be in the same light as the protestors mocking the dead at a funeral.

[Don Corleone]

Maybe you'll end up brawling against Navaros :laugh4:

I frequently do. I blaspheme the God he believes in and he blashpemes the one that I do.

[Spetulhu]

I would have thought these people would get terribly beaten up by angry mobs, and I'm a little disappointed they haven't been.:no:

IIRC Fred's followers are careful to stay just this side of the law. They're just waiting for someone to go ballistic so they can sue for damages. The church needs money so what better way to get it than by making gay supporters pay in court? It's both the American Way and True Christianity! :dizzy2:

[Fragony]

I tend to think that demonstrations at abortion clinics that heckle those who go into the center to be in the same light as the protestors mocking the dead at a funeral.

But those people I can understand, I am not very religious but abortion is wrong imho. This seems to be hurting just for the sake of it.

[Devastatin Dave]

I live outside of Missouri and near Jefferson Barracks where a lot of vets are burried. That POS Phelps has been here with one of his protests. Well, Governor Blunt is putting into law that you cannot protest a funeral 1 hour before or after a funeral. Its a shame that we have to legislate good taste these days. God doesn't hate "fags" as Phelps website says, but I'm sure he dislikes **** ******* like Phelps.

God bless those Bikers and hopefully they'll get a chance to open a can of 55 gallon drum of whoopass on these turds.

[master of the puppets]

AH biking, a true lineage of the newly civilian soldier as Papewaio said (after WW2 vets bough motorcycles which were cheapist thing around, its been a vet thing ever since) so i'm very glad that these people are doing this, its a great honorable enterprise. wish i could say they had this in Veitnam, a bunch of scary bikers to scare away the scumbags who were yelling baby-killers.

and honestly, shame on everyone who follows that thing who dares call himself a revrend, i really hope that the church ousts him. anyway i've been to his website and it REALLY pissed me off. so i say if i ever get called to jury duty for the guys who rapes/tortures/kills fred Phelps my vote will always be NOT GUILTY!!!

[A.Saturnus]

The church, Westboro Baptist Church, is not affiliated with a larger denomination and is made up mostly of Fred Phelps' extended family members.

How many people are those "extended family members" and what sort of family is that?

Bikers Roll to Soldiers' Funerals to Counter Anti-Gay Protests

This headline is certainly proof that we live in an extremely strange world.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Disgusting that humans can stoop as low as those Christians. First the soldiers die for a pointless war, and then have bible-bashing loonies holding an anti-gay protest at their funerals?

Those bikers should run them all down.

[Mount Suribachi]

I'm still trying to get my head round this story.

Its so bizarre I'm actually wondering if this Rev Phelps character and his website is actually some kind of spoof by someone with an axe to grind against christianity (wouldn't be the first time).

But this is just too wierd to have been made up.

So let me get this right. This Rev Phelps dude and his mates protest at the funerals of US soldiers killed in Iraq because their deaths are Gods punishment on America for harbouring homosexuals. And biker veterans go to these funerals to protect the funeral from the protestors. Right?

*confused*

But what I don't get is this. Why are they protesting at the funerals. Many of those killed in Iraq will have been christians. Indeed, christians who, like most christians, probably think homosexuality is a sin (but not one more deserving of Gods wrathful judgement than any other sin).

Weird.

[Don Corleone]

There's a certain crowd within Christianity (think Navaros) that finds homosexuality intolerable, wicked above all other sins (how it gains that status is anyone's business as Leviticus puts it right up there with sleeping with a woman during 'that time of the month'). Technically speaking, Leviticus calls for the death of men who lay with men as women, but it also calls for the death of those who:

Eat shellfish or pork
Cast a lustful eye at any married women (whether they act on it or not, by the way gents, Pamela Anderson has been married of most of her career)
Make and/or wear garments from multiple fibers (cotton & wool in the same sweater? Into the bonfire with you, bucko!)
A whole host of other prohibitions, some of which have survived antiquity, some of which have gone the way of slaughtering every last child of your enemies (which we are commanded to do, btw), we simply don't hold that passage as particularly valid anymore.

So, to these folks, who believe homosexuality is some special sin, they would say that allowing homosexuals to live is equally wicked. We have been commanded in the Torah to put these people to death, and allowing them to live is putting us at odds with God. Apparently, allowing German and Japanese babies to live at the end of WWII was okay though, even though He specifically commanded we not do that either...

So, to this crowd, America, which at least 'tolerates' homosexuality and protects the rights of homosexuals, is breaking God's law and should be destroyed. Interestingly enough, as far as I know, homosexuality, while frequently criminal in the Colonial legal codes & throughout state & federal statues in the USA, has never been a capital offense. If God finds Americans to be so aberrant for allowing homosexuals to live, which we have for the history of entire existence, why hasn't He struck us down at some point in the past ~400 years? What's more, despite what they say about 'the good old days', relying on the passages they're choosing to cite, there has never been a time when America has NOT been wicked and godless and deserving of destruction.

[Mount Suribachi]

Except OT law only applies to Jews, not to Christians, and especially only to Jews in OT times.

Quoting laws from the books of Moses is something that, ironically, both ultra-right wing christians and ultra-left wing anti-christians like to do in order to back up their beliefs and opinions. Hell, you can argue from a theology standpoint that even the 10 commandments don't apply to Christians (being part of the covenant between God and the Jews).

Both of them are under the misconception that Christians are under OT law, when they are not. As Gawain is fond of saying, "show me where it says in the New Testament..."

However, you do make a valid point, that biblically speaking, no sin is better or worse than any other. Sin is sin is sin. One of the great mistakes of Christian history is to elevate some sins above others - traditionally sexual sins above, well, everthing. But part of that could probly be put down to human nature and its love of salicious gossip.

BTW, Jesus said that if you look at another woman lustfully you have in effect committed adultery ~;)

[Don Corleone]

BTW, Jesus said that if you look at another woman lustfully you have in effect committed adultery ~;)

Yes, but He didn't say the rest of us should kill you for it. ~;)

You asked me where these people are getting their justification from. I don't agree with them, I have a hard time calling them Christians, as they don't jibe with the teachings of Christ.... I'm merely letting you know what they claim is their basis for their views & beliefs.

[Mount Suribachi]

Yes, but He didn't say the rest of us should kill you for it. ~;)



Good job, otherwise Soly would be up on charges of inciting genocide :laugh4:

[Major Robert Dump]

It's wrong, regardless of whether the funeral is for soldiers or dead homosexuals. You don't disrupt funerals like that, it's not right.

On a happy note, several states are proposing legislation to make "funeral protests" or "disrupting funerals" a crime. As far as I know, Oklahoma is the farthest along on the bill, the house already voted for it and is now awaiting a vote in the senate. It allows for fines and possible jail time, although if they showed up at a funeral I was at they would all be bloddy or dead by the time the cops got there....

Whats sad is that it took this long for our leaders to realize this was a problem. they were either wholly uninformed that its been going on for years, or they didn't care because before it wasn't about soldiers and pols don't want to be percieved as sticking up for gays. Truly sad, really

[Watchman]

You know, I don't quite see where you need God getting involved in the IEDs anyway. All those take is explosives, a bit of know-how, some creativity, and a nasty intent (or as one book on the history of military trap-making and minefields was titled, A Malice Aforethought). Humans have no shortage of any of those, so divine intervention would appear rather unnecessary.

Then again, this particular Reverend doesn't sound like the type to let such trivialities as "logic" or "common sense" slow him down... :dizzy2:

[AquaLurker]

Usually if the Fred Phelps church would do that in my country...

*Imagine mode*

Call a bunch of good friends down, set up some comfy pinic mat, order a mountain of burgers, a bucket of fries, great:2thumbsup: my buddies have brought some beach umbrelas Grin widely as we dial for the police~YOooossshhhh!!!~ and enjoy the show ~Ah CHAaaaaaa.... :shame: ~ I left the large cokes at Macdonalds:sweatdrop:

*Imagine mode off*

Ahhhhh Yumei...:embarassed:

[AntiochusIII]

Well, to play the devil's -- or even worse, Fred Phelp's -- advocate here. This is Freedom of Speech and enduring what we REALLY don't like to hear (not to mention completely twisted) is part of our public virtue. Beating the Phelps out of him might be gratifying in a sense but that would eventually conclude us as the same bunch as the mob that burned the "witches" at Salem, albeit on the other, more acceptable end of the spectrum.

Mocking the dead, hating the "fags," declaring some twisted falsehood as realities; of course, the guy really cries for somebody to punch him, but we should not. The bikers do a good job, by the way, in keeping with protecting those who suffer both emotionally and physically at the death of the soldiers.

[Ironside]

Then again, this particular Reverend doesn't sound like the type to let such trivialities as "logic" or "common sense" slow him down... :dizzy2:

He was the one claiming that the tsunami in south-east Asia was god's punishment on the Swedes for promoting homosexuality. :dizzy2:

Thus claiming that god's aim is so great that 0,2% of all people killed was of the intended target.

[Samurai Waki]

I wonder if Fred Phelps is a secret member of NAMBLA :book:

[Major Robert Dump]

Well, to play the devil's -- or even worse, Fred Phelp's -- advocate here. This is Freedom of Speech and enduring what we REALLY don't like to hear (not to mention completely twisted) is part of our public virtue. Beating the Phelps out of him might be gratifying in a sense but that would eventually conclude us as the same bunch as the mob that burned the "witches" at Salem, albeit on the other, more acceptable end of the spectrum.

Mocking the dead, hating the "fags," declaring some twisted falsehood as realities; of course, the guy really cries for somebody to punch him, but we should not. The bikers do a good job, by the way, in keeping with protecting those who suffer both emotionally and physically at the death of the soldiers.



This is not free speech necessarily even by todays standards.

No. Funerals are on public or private property in some form or another, and there are property laws to protect the actual cemetary which is private and you can make laws that prohibit certain activity on public lands illegal at certain times, or to make permits required for that type of public land that would never be granted because you included some criteria no one could meet. It's done all the time to keep people from protesting 4 feet from a governor, or during a parade, . You could also make certain acts considered aggravating to certain people grounds for disorderly conduct. You make no-mask laws to keep the KKK from marching, you can do something creative with funerals as well

You dont let kids talk in class, people shut up during a movie, so make the conduct illegal and let Fred blow it out his booty. This law should have been enacted 5 years ago but no one had the balls. You don't disrupt funerals.

[Mikeus Caesar]

He was the one claiming that the tsunami in south-east Asia was god's punishment on the Swedes for promoting homosexuality. :dizzy2:

Thus claiming that god's aim is so great that 0,2% of all people killed was of the intended target.

God is a bad shot when it comes to throwing pebbles. He was actually aiming for Sweden, but accidentally killed 200,000 people including 500+ Swede's. He regards the 200,000 as cannon fodder, who had probably done some sinning anyway.

It makes me want to pick up my faith in Christianity and humanity again!

[Navaros]

There's a certain crowd within Christianity (think Navaros) that finds homosexuality intolerable, wicked above all other sins (how it gains that status is anyone's business as Leviticus puts it right up there with sleeping with a woman during 'that time of the month'). Technically speaking, Leviticus calls for the death of men who lay with men as women

So, to these folks, who believe homosexuality is some special sin, they would say that allowing homosexuals to live is equally wicked. We have been commanded in the Torah to put these people to death, and allowing them to live is putting us at odds with God.

So, to this crowd, America, which at least 'tolerates' homosexuality and protects the rights of homosexuals, is breaking God's law and should be destroyed. Interestingly enough, as far as I know, homosexuality, while frequently criminal in the Colonial legal codes & throughout state & federal statues in the USA, has never been a capital offense. If God finds Americans to be so aberrant for allowing homosexuals to live, which we have for the history of entire existence, why hasn't He struck us down at some point in the past ~400 years? What's more, despite what they say about 'the good old days', relying on the passages they're choosing to cite, there has never been a time when America has NOT been wicked and godless and deserving of destruction.


It is only those who are ignorant of the Bible who claim that the only reference to the grieviousness of "homosexuality" in the Bible is in Leviticus. That is not the case. Rather, the Bible explicitly condemns that in various books all throughout both the Old and New Testaments. And the claim that Christians need not heed OT law is also incorrect: there are two types of law in the OT, ceremonial and moral. Jesus rendered the ceremonial law of OT obsolete, but not the moral law.

"Homosexuality" is indeed a "special sin" because those who partake in it do so pridefully (which in itself is a very grievous sin) and are under the delusion that gratification of their own perverse fleshly lusts is to be put above all else. Whereas with most other sins, people realize and acknowledge they are wrong, ask for forgiveness and repent from it. "Homosexuals" do not ever acknowledge the wrongness of what they do, nor ask for forgiveness, nor repent from their sins. For all these reasons "homosexuality" is in no way comparable to any other sin.

As for saying why doesn't God strike America down: there can be arguments made that God has indeed done some things as claimed in the Bible he would do against evil nations: for example, send pestilence. Of which AIDS (originally named GRID; gay related immune defiency) definitely is.

Note: this post is in no way an endorsement by me of Fred Phelps or any statement made on his site.

[Watchman]

:dizzy2:
It is only those who are ignorant of the Bible who claim that the only reference to the grieviousness of "homosexuality" in the Bible is in Leviticus. That is not the case. Rather, the Bible explicitly condemns that in various books all throughout both the Old and New Testaments. And the claim that Christians need not heed OT law is also incorrect: there are two types of law in the OT, ceremonial and moral. Jesus rendered the ceremonial law of OT obsolete, but not the moral law.

"Homosexuality" is indeed a "special sin" because those who partake in it do so pridefully (which in itself is a very grievous sin) and are under the delusion that gratification of their own perverse fleshly lusts is to be put above all else. Whereas with most other sins, people realize and acknowledge they are wrong, ask for forgiveness and repent from it. "Homosexuals" do not ever acknowledge the wrongness of what they do, nor ask for forgiveness, nor repent from their sins. For all these reasons "homosexuality" is in no way comparable to any other sin.And what is it anyway that makes homosexuality so abominably "perverse" in the first place anyway ? Betcha it's just the control-freak classificatory system of the old Judeo-Christian tradition talking; whatever breaches any of the nice orderly compartements the world's been divided into (say, bats, which fly but aren't birds - one can only imagine what the Prophets would have though of platypi or pangolins...) is promptly "vile in the eyes of the Lord" or however that phrase now goes in English.

Or at least that's about the only structurally logical explanation for the weird-ass bans and declarations of vileness in the OT the anthropologists have been able to come up with; many a learned rabbi over the millenia has tried to figure them out and came away with the conclusion they make no sense either...


As for saying why doesn't God strike America down: there can be arguments made that God has indeed done some things as claimed in the Bible he would do against evil nations: for example, send pestilence. Of which AIDS (originally named GRID; gay related immune defiency) definitely is.So what've the sub-Saharan Africans done then ? It's a way bigger problem down there isn't it ? :dizzy2:
Arguments can always be made, but that doesn't yet mean they hold water.

[doc_bean]

As for saying why doesn't God strike America down: there can be arguments made that God has indeed done some things as claimed in the Bible he would do against evil nations: for example, send pestilence. Of which AIDS (originally named GRID; gay related immune defiency) definitely is.

Well, seems like he missed again and hit Africa by accident...:wall:

AFAIK there's only one reference to homosexuality in the NT, and it was in one of the boring portions that have nothing to do with Jesus and everything with the visions of the early leaders of the church , letters to Romans or something...

[Navaros]

AFAIK there's only one reference to homosexuality in the NT, and it was in one of the boring portions that have nothing to do with Jesus and everything with the visions of the early leaders of the church , letters to Romans or something...

Vastly incorrect. And a classic example of why anyone who is not a Bible-believer should never attempt to state what is in the Bible (yet they so often do anyways :idea2:).

[_Martyr_]

Right, where does Jesus say that we should stone all homosexuals?

[Fragony]

Right, where does Jesus say that we should stone all homosexuals?

Hmmm this does shed some light on the 'He who is without sin cast the first stone'. Kinky bugger.

[Navaros]

One example that Jesus fully endorses God's Old Testament policy, this quote is made directly by Jesus:


Luke 17:28-37
28: Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29: But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30: Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
31: In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32: Remember Lot's wife.
33: Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
34: I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35: Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
37: And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

[Watchman]

Hey, don't go quoting stuff like that to me. I rather like the overall "hippe love" idea the carpenter from Nazareth preached, and would actually rather prefer not know how much of the old nasty bigotry he actually adhered to on the side.

[_Martyr_]

hmmm... distinct lack of even a mention of homosexuality as far as I read it (maybe the bit about men in a bed is, but then it aslo mentions men in fields...)

Sure references to Lot and Sodom, are all well and good. But dont you think that if homosexuality really irked Jesus all that much, and it was as much of an issue to him (if at all) as it is to some modern day so-called Christains, he would maybe have said it loud and clear along with all the other central parts of his teaching... love thy neighbour etc...:inquisitive:

[Watchman]

'Sides, if God has issues with it He can no doubt clear the matter Himself with the offenders once the time comes. It often puzzles me how the followers of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent divinities that supposedly sooner or later pass judgement on everyone in the end anyway tend to so often fervently believe these super-beings for some strange reason need them to act as their spokesmen and enforcers during that brief spell of mortal existence before the eternity of the Great Beyond...

I'd have a bit easier time understanding it if they made even semi-credible pretensions of actually being worried about the ultimate fate of others' souls or something, and not just their own peace of mind and sense of propriety.

[Navaros]

hmmm... distinct lack of even a mention of homosexuality as far as I read it (maybe the bit about men in a bed is, but then it aslo mentions men in fields...)

Sure references to Lot and Sodom, are all well and good. But dont you think that if homosexuality really irked Jesus all that much, and it was as much of an issue to him (if at all) as it is to some modern day so-called Christains, he would maybe have said it loud and clear along with all the other central parts of his teaching... love thy neighbour etc...:inquisitive:

Jesus didn't need to explain the whole story of how Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "homosexuality" because everyone was already fully aware of that. Jesus needed only remind them that God's view then is still the same and just as valid today and for all time and that Jesus supports it, which is exactly what he did in that quote there.

Although that is a typical response you give. First claiming what the Bible says does not exist, then when shown proof of it, claiming it means something else. I guess next on "the list" would be to say the writers wrote it down wrong or were impostors or something. :juggle2: The point is, no matter what, those with an agenda to refuse to acknowlege the truth of reality because it is incompatible with what they wish were true, will always oppose the truth no matter what.

[_Martyr_]

'Sides, if God has issues with it He can no doubt clear the matter Himself with the offenders once the time comes. It often puzzles me how the followers of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent divinities that supposedly sooner or later pass judgement on everyone in the end anyway tend to so often fervently believe these super-beings for some strange reason need them to act as their spokesmen and enforcers during that brief spell of mortal existence before the eternity of the Great Beyond...

I'd have a bit easier time understanding it if they made even semi-credible pretensions of actually being worried about the ultimate fate of others' souls or something, and not just their own peace of mind and sense of proprietyExactly! Very well put! The whole thing about throwing the first stone comes into light again. From this sort of statement I read that each persons sin/prayer/faith is a private thing between them and Jesus/God. Also take into account that Jesus took prostetutes, lepers and tax collectors under his wing, people who were somewhat outcast from society...

[doc_bean]

One example that Jesus fully endorses God's Old Testament policy, this quote is made directly by Jesus:

It really doesn't make much sense to me :dizzy2:

[BigTex]

If being homosexual and not repenting it is a sin worthy of going to hell then it looks like a good lot of early popes and bishops are down there roasting side by side with Hitler.


claimed in the Bible he would do against evil nations: for example, send pestilence. Of which AIDS (originally named GRID; gay related immune defiency) definitely is.

If thats a pestilence sent to do evil to wrongdoers then what of the poor chimps who had it first? Did god have a disagreement about whether or not eating termites was against the ten commandments "Thow shalt not kill, unless smiting a balsphemus jew or muslim in my name."?

Were all going to hell in the end anyways so bring out the drinks and hookers.

[Redleg]

Jesus didn't need to explain the whole story of how Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "homosexuality" because everyone was already fully aware of that. Jesus needed only remind them that God's view then is still the same and just as valid today and for all time and that Jesus supports it, which is exactly what he did in that quote there.

Someone needs to read the Old Testiment some more - Sodom was destroyed for much more then just "homosexuality." That is a recent addition by people who think they know what the ancient text and words mean because that is what they want them to mean.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

http://www.whosoever.org/v2i3/sodom.html

The cities were destoryed by God because of sin and his wrath, the Old Testiment does not state that the cities were destroyed because the inhabitants were homosexuals.


The point is, no matter what, those with an agenda to refuse to acknowlege the truth of reality because it is incompatible with what they wish were true, will always oppose the truth no matter what.

Wise words - to bad your not listening to your own advice on this one.

[Tribesman]

The point is, no matter what, those with an agenda to refuse to acknowlege the truth of reality because it is incompatible with what they wish were true, will always oppose the truth no matter what.
Navaros , you really shouldn't put yourself down like that , we understand that you are stuck with your agenda .

[Xiahou]

One example that Jesus fully endorses God's Old Testament policy, this quote is made directly by Jesus:
And what "version" of the Bible is that praytell? Sure, I'm biased, but I'd trust the Catholic one to be the closer to the original than any of the versions that branched off from it.

Let's compare what the New American Bible says in Luke 17:

28
Similarly, as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building;
29
on the day when Lot left Sodom, fire and brimstone rained from the sky to destroy them all.
30
So it will be on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
31
On that day, a person who is on the housetop and whose belongings are in the house must not go down to get them, and likewise a person in the field must not return to what was left behind.
32
Remember the wife of Lot.
33
Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses it will save it.
34
I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left.
35
And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left."Reads a bit different than what he's shown I'd say.... :wink:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's the wikipedia entry for Fred Phelps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps#endnote_addict5

I can't vouch for its credibility, but if half the things in there are true, his personal life is (or at least was) as bad as his funeral protesting. A child-abusing, racist, conman, and all around scumbag. Funny thing, he was on track to go to West Point before a normal sermon ("Christ inviting all men to come into God's service, likening the afterlife and God to a rich man who has made a great banquet and invites many to come dine with him." -wiki) changed him.

Crazed Rabbit

[Banquo's Ghost]

And what "version" of the Bible is that praytell? Sure, I'm biased, but I'd trust the Catholic one to be the closer to the original than any of the versions that branched off from it.

Let's compare what the New American Bible says in Luke 17:
Reads a bit different than what he's shown I'd say.... :wink:

He looks to be using the King James Authorized version, printed in 1611 and Revised in 1885. It is a favourite for amateur theologians, not least for the beauty of its language but because the antiquated construction of that language leaves much open for modern interpretation. It also reads and sounds impressively, as The True Word of God ® should.

Your quote from the New American Bible concords with most modern language translations. (Remember, unlike the Qur'an which is still in its original langage, the Bible's books are made up of many languages and so can only be seen as the 'translated' Word of God).

Even if we take the KJA translation, two men in a bed is certainly not what Navaros wants us to imply. Throughout most of history, most men slept together as soldiers, peasants, artisans, whatever. People were just not rich enough to have the nice little separate bedrooms we have now. Almost all peasants slept with their children and animals too. Jesus Himself slept with His (male) disciples all the time when visiting or travelling. Just as 'two women grinding' clearly means grinding corn or meal, except to the most febrile of minds. If He meant 'sodomites' He would have said it.

Navaros, you accuse others of selectively reading the Bible, but you yourself are knowingly guilty of taking your quote out of context. Every scholar of the Bible knows that Jesus was illustrating the coming of the Kingdom as being a surprise - like the penalties that afflicted Sodom and Gomorrah. You are quite right to say that He was using a familiar story - as He often did. It was story of sudden happenings, which one could not prepare for. Our Lord liked to be clear, and did not resort to oblique sub-texts that only scholars would be able to spot. He wanted to cut out the layers of 'wise men' who interpreted God's Will, and bring the Word directly and clearly to everyone.

And the very next chapter of Luke provides several fine demonstrations, through parable, of His clarity: not least the explicit warning to the rich which so many modern Christians choose to ignore in favour of obscure texts for gay-bashing. But in this argument, I would share with you a most important part of Our Lord's teaching, eloquent and powerful (and quoted from your own KJA):

Luke 18: 9-14

And he spake also this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought:

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.

But the publican, standing afar off, would not so lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be merciful unto me a sinner.

I say unto you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for everyone that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

For you to believe, for yourself, that your interpretation of the Bible bars you from homosexual acts, is your concern and affects no-one. For you to allege that the God of Love actively targets people, whose only 'crime' is loving each other, with a plague (that anyway is very largely a heterosexual disease of poor people so it's not really the best chosen deterrent) is taking the divine role of Judge upon yourself and that is most clearly a sin.

May God bless you.

[Don Corleone]

Thank you Haruchai. Saved me the trouble of typing out my whole response this early in the morning.

The only thing I have to add to all of this is a simple question for Navaros. If Christ was condemning the acts He named, laying in the bed together, grinding (grain) together (come on Nav, that one was lame... 'grinding' wasn't slang until about 30 years ago, it certainly wasn't in the veracular 2000 years ago), why did He take one and cast aside the other?

Navaros, for your own sake, not mine and not the sake of any gay people, you're going to have to work through this. The Lord's prayer, if you are an unforgiving sort, is a terrible curse. You are asking God to visit you with the same anger and vitriol you visit upon homosexuals. Do you really want that?

Or, from Matthew 7 (1-6):
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Or, from Matthew 7 (1-6):
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."

yep :bow:, it seems that navaros likes to ignore this particular passage

[t1master]

Back to their roots possibly... isn't there some linkage between the first bike gangs and post WWII veterans...

the hells angel's where made up of alot of patriots and old war vets..

hated the hippies.

[Goofball]

Let's compare what the New American Bible says in Luke 17:
...35
And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left."Reads a bit different than what he's shown I'd say.... :wink:

Dang. I had a delightful mental picture of two women grinding together.

Now you've gone and spoiled it for me.

:furious3:

In my mental picture, they were redheads and had a good sheen of perspiration on them, BTW.










Just in case anybody was wondering.















Okay.
I'll stop now.



Sorry.

[Mount Suribachi]

I'm kinda on both sides of the argument here. Homosexuality clearly is a sin, Biblically (both OT & NT). But, that is where me and Nav diverge, as I do not regard it as any better or worse than any other sin. Nav, you claim that it is worse because it is an "unrepentant" sin, but for non-believers ALL sins are unrepentant. Even believers, me included, are guilty of unrepentant sin.

Biblically, homosexuality is wrong, just as adultery is wrong, just as sex before marriage is wrong.

Just as anger is wrong, just as pride is wrong, just as idolatory is wrong, just as jealousy is wrong, just as gossip is wrong.

Nav, like the others have said, you need to learn about Grace, and about loving your enemies. It ain't easy, but hey, we're on the narrow path right?

[Reenk Roink]

If Pride and Arrogance are sins, then you're going to hell for this post.

:2thumbsup:

Navaros may be preachy as hell (sorry for the irony), but I didn't see much pride and arrogance in that post, just ultra-orthodox Christian views...

[BigTex]

just as idolatory is wrong
WHAT?!?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:
Looks like I need to go tear down my Kiera Knightley shrine, blessed by thy holy sexiness.:oops: :help:

[Watchman]

"This bowl of lukewarm tapioca represents my brain. I offer it in humble sacrifice. May thine flickering light glow forever."
- Calvin worships the TV, Calvin & Hobbes

[Spetulhu]

Biblically, homosexuality is wrong, just as adultery is wrong, just as sex before marriage is wrong.

I though adultery and sex before marriage was OK for men as long as you kept to slave girls, servants and foreign captives. When it comes to the wife and daughters of your fellow believers it's a crime.

[Reenk Roink]

I though adultery and sex before marriage was OK for men as long as you kept to slave girls, servants and foreign captives. When it comes to the wife and daughters of your fellow believers it's a crime.

Really! :wideeyed:

Runs out to get some slave girl lovin'...:2thumbsup:

afterwards...:drunk:...:mellow:

[Tribesman]

Really!

Runs out to get some slave girl lovin'...

afterwards......
Yes really , but of course once you have had sex with them then you cannot sell them ...so sexual gratification exchanged for diminished assets .

Hey that Bible has got everything in it . And depending on which part you quote you can justify and condemn just about everything at the same time .

[Kanamori]

I do miss the stories in Sunday School. Even though I only remember frameworks of them, I think those tales of chivalry in God's light will always have a place in my heart.

What a fruitcake the .org has turned me into.:no:

[Mount Suribachi]

I though adultery and sex before marriage was OK for men as long as you kept to slave girls, servants and foreign captives. When it comes to the wife and daughters of your fellow believers it's a crime.

what? :dizzy2:

One thing Navaros has definately got correct, debating what the bible does and doesn't say with non-believers is wearysome. He got the 3 stages of debate spot on.

Right, someone should make this a sticky, the amount of times someone has had to post NT references to homosexuality

Romans chapter 1

"For 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"


1 Corinthians 6

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. "


Regarding sex, and marriage, 1 Corinthians 7 has the most to say on the subject, though there are other snippets in the NT

"1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? "

"25Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. 26Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are. 27Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife. 28But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; 30those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.[b]

39A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God."

[Tribesman]

what?
Surabachi , are you going to try and deny that what Spethulu wrote is taken from scripture ?
Would you like me to reference the relevant passages so you can sticky them ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[doc_bean]

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Like someone already pointed out, we're all going to hell anyway, let's make the best of our time here then ~:cheers:

[BDC]

Why look to stories from 2000 years ago for moral advice? They stoned people then and you could easily die of a splinter...

[master of the puppets]

i wonder what he would say if someone told him the truth about the bible, it was put together by a pagan emperor of the very peoples who killed jesus and that hundreds of other copies and scriptures existed before constantine had them burned, bet more than a few said homos were OK:2thumbsup:

[Mount Suribachi]

i wonder what he would say if someone told him the truth about the bible, it was put together by a pagan emperor of the very peoples who killed jesus and that hundreds of other copies and scriptures existed before constantine had them burned, bet more than a few said homos were OK:2thumbsup:

Well, since they were all burned I guess we'll never know eh? :dizzy2:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Tribesman continues to ignore the difference between the Old and New Testament.

Gelatinous Cube gets in a cliched dig at Biblical Christianity.

master of the puppets continues to not capitalize the first letter in each sentance while propogating a flawed and perhaps uninformed view on the New Testament.

Mount Suribachi with teh win. :coffeenews:

[Slyspy]

Tribesman continues to ignore the difference between the Old and New Testament.

Gelatinous Cube gets in a cliched dig at Biblical Christianity.

master of the puppets continues to not capitalize the first letter in each sentance while propogating a flawed and perhaps uninformed view on the New Testament.

Mount Suribachi with teh win. :coffeenews:

Slyspy says he doesn't care because he has no use for your Bible. He doesn't care whether it says homosexuals and adulterers should be burnt alive (in a forgiving way of course) or feted above all else. He also says that you muppets should stop trying to convince each other by quoting scripture. It makes you all look foolish. Further more his Christian Bible seems to contain both OT and NT. To be fair the OT does seem to consist of a list of names with the occassional war while the NT seems to highlight the ability of medieval scholars to edit texts into nonsense, but nevertheless.

Edited so that I may look foolish too!

[Tribesman]

Tribesman continues to ignore the difference between the Old and New Testament.

Bollox Alex , I said Scripture ,
Suribachi questioned the content of Spethulus post , the content of that post was taken from the bible .
Though if you want to concentrate on the NT as surabachi is , you will notice that none of those passages are from the gospels .