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

[Samurai Waki]

I wonder if Fred Phelps is a secret member of NAMBLA

[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.

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]

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 ?
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...

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 ).

[_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...

[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...

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. 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 propriety

Exactly! 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

[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....

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's the wikipedia entry for Fred Phelps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Ph...ndnote_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....

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 , 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....

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

Now you've gone and spoiled it for me.



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.

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!
Looks like I need to go tear down my Kiera Knightley shrine, blessed by thy holy sexiness.

[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