• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Apparantly god hates the "god hates fags" guys

Why the hell does the media call them "fundamentalist"? Doesn't "fundamentalist" by definition mean one who follows literally? Wouldn't a "fundamentalist" Christian sell all his shit and go around preaching and helping the poor like Jesus did and the New Testament teaches? Aren't these really liberal Christians who are bending the words in the Bible to make it their own meaning?
 
I'm glad they won, Phelps is a bigot and an embarrassment to Kansas. I'm all for free speech, but I agree that they take it too far. They aren't spreading a message, they're spreading hate.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Why the hell does the media call them "fundamentalist"? Doesn't "fundamentalist" by definition mean one who follows literally? Wouldn't a "fundamentalist" Christian sell all his shit and go around preaching and helping the poor like Jesus did and the New Testament teaches? Aren't these really liberal Christians who are bending the words in the Bible to make it their own meaning?
Click to expand...

Its not really twisting it.

One of the quotations was the verse Leviticus 20:13 from King James Version : "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

And

Paul later writes: "Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."


And for the record, my posting these verses doesnt mean I agree with them, just posting what it says,
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Why the hell does the media call them "fundamentalist"? Doesn't "fundamentalist" by definition mean one who follows literally? Wouldn't a "fundamentalist" Christian sell all his shit and go around preaching and helping the poor like Jesus did and the New Testament teaches? Aren't these really liberal Christians who are bending the words in the Bible to make it their own meaning?
Click to expand...
Well put.
 
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
Originally posted by: JS80
Why the hell does the media call them "fundamentalist"? Doesn't "fundamentalist" by definition mean one who follows literally? Wouldn't a "fundamentalist" Christian sell all his shit and go around preaching and helping the poor like Jesus did and the New Testament teaches? Aren't these really liberal Christians who are bending the words in the Bible to make it their own meaning?
Click to expand...

Its not really twisting it.

One of the quotations was the verse Leviticus 20:13 from King James Version : "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

And

Paul later writes: "Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."


And for the record, my posting these verses doesnt mean I agree with them, just posting what it says,
Click to expand...

New Testament trumps Old Testament. Old Testament is a history lesson. New Testament is how to live life. A fundamentalist Christian would try to live his life like Jesus. Would Jesus create a campaign to spread the word that God hates fags? No, he would embrace fags and tell them God loves them and even they can receive salvation.
 
where are all the people that argued with me in the 'Mexican Flag above the US Flag' thread, about how free speech includes every action? huh, huh? Where are they?
I am not going to get into the argument again regarding how much freedom one really has protected under the 1st Amendment, but surely some people here will remember that: this instance truly demonstrates why there must be a per-case determination, and not an outright raping of the freedoms of the 1st Amendment, regarding what one can truly get away with. Protesting and disrupting a funeral service, to the disgusting extent these church goers did, should NEVER be protected by the freedom of speech.

does anyone really want to argue with that? Should individuals really be put to the emotional abuse that these churchgoers dished out to the family of a downed soldier?

-discuss-

and btw:
I for one am glad the case turned out the way it did. The father has ever right in this case and deserved the outcome. Monetarily, who knows how much is really too much, as I don't really feel it's right ripping a church out of all the money its worth. HOWEVER, punitive damages should be sought for emotional distress, but mostly the protesters should all be punished in some shape or form. That would be justice in my eyes. If I was a father and this was my son's funeral, I wouldn't necessarily be after a lot of money, just justice. Now, I would gladly take any money the jury handed to me, but that's besides the point. 😉
 
as i said in the other thread i think the ruleing was wrong.

hopefully this gets overturned by the courts.
 
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamerAnd

Paul later writes: "Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."
Click to expand...

Could you link to what Chapter/verse?
 
Originally posted by: destrekor
where are all the people that argued with me in the 'Mexican Flag above the US Flag' thread, about how free speech includes every action? huh, huh? Where are they?
I am not going to get into the argument again regarding how much freedom one really has protected under the 1st Amendment, but surely some people here will remember that: this instance truly demonstrates why there must be a per-case determination, and not an outright raping of the freedoms of the 1st Amendment, regarding what one can truly get away with. Protesting and disrupting a funeral service, to the disgusting extent these church goers did, should NEVER be protected by the freedom of speech.

does anyone really want to argue with that? Should individuals really be put to the emotional abuse that these churchgoers dished out to the family of a downed soldier?

-discuss-

and btw:
I for one am glad the case turned out the way it did. The father has ever right in this case and deserved the outcome. Monetarily, who knows how much is really too much, as I don't really feel it's right ripping a church out of all the money its worth. HOWEVER, punitive damages should be sought for emotional distress, but mostly the protesters should all be punished in some shape or form. That would be justice in my eyes. If I was a father and this was my son's funeral, I wouldn't necessarily be after a lot of money, just justice. Now, I would gladly take any money the jury handed to me, but that's besides the point. 😉
Click to expand...

Well I feel that since they are knowingly and willfully inflicting undue stress and sadness on these people that it should not be protected under free speach. I feel that its a form of a hate crime personally.

This is a poor analogy but its the only one I can think of at the moment.

Say a kid is hit riding her bike. I hate bicycles so does that give me the right to form protests around her funeral and harass the attendees? I think not.

Ive always thought of it this way, your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. As long as someone isnt willfully trying to be an overt prick about things free speach is great. But when it starts interfering with the right of the family to bury their son, thats when its over the line.

In short, do and say what you want in private, say god hates puppies and kittens for all I care, but dont go shoving signs in my face trying to force your view which the average person would offended by onto me
 
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamerAnd

Paul later writes: "Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."
Click to expand...

Could you link to what Chapter/verse?
Click to expand...

7. On Paul's statement to the Corinthians. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Geneva Bible (1560): "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornication, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God."

King James Bible (1611): "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

New England Bible*: "Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."


Really depends on whose version you want to listen to. One of the reasons why I dont read the bible, too much was open to human interpretation
 
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
Originally posted by: TehMac
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamerAnd

Paul later writes: "Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."
Click to expand...

Could you link to what Chapter/verse?
Click to expand...

7. On Paul's statement to the Corinthians. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Geneva Bible (1560): "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornication, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor wantons, nor buggerers, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God."

King James Bible (1611): "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

New England Bible*: "Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers of drunkards of slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God."


Really depends on whose version you want to listen to. One of the reasons why I dont read the bible, too much was open to human interpretation
Click to expand...

We are all sinners. But Jesus made it clear that he loves us all and we can all enter the "kingdom" aka heaven. So saying "God hates fags" is a far stretch at best and a very LIBERAL interpretation of the New Testament (and arguably the Old) but FAR from being fundamentalist.
 
I'm actually taking a course on Pauline studies right now, and there is only one real passage mentioned (from my course notes):

1 Cor. 6.9-11: Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And 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 (NIV)

Please note that any verse or verse fragment can be taken horribly out of context, so an exegetical approach is necessary...
 
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
God doesn't hate gays.

Neither should Christians.
Click to expand...

No truer statement could be said. You don't necessarily have to agree with someone's way of life to still be their friend and to love them. Jesus hung out with the prostitutes, the gentiles, the murderers, the no-names. Jesus loved them and offered them salvation. He didn't say "I hate you, you're going to rot in hell." Even when evidence of this is brought up with people from this church, they say "No no no no, you're wrong, you're manipulating..." I watched these bigots on 60 minutes and I sighed the biggest sigh of my life. I can't believe there are people that live their lives for hate. I think I die a little bit inside each time I hear of these people doing stuff like this.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Why the hell does the media call them "fundamentalist"? Doesn't "fundamentalist" by definition mean one who follows literally? Wouldn't a "fundamentalist" Christian sell all his shit and go around preaching and helping the poor like Jesus did and the New Testament teaches? Aren't these really liberal Christians who are bending the words in the Bible to make it their own meaning?
Click to expand...

Well sure, if you want to follow THAT part of the Bible. But that's not the fun stuff. Irrational hatred is way more fun. Apparently.
 
Originally posted by: destrekor
where are all the people that argued with me in the 'Mexican Flag above the US Flag' thread, about how free speech includes every action? huh, huh? Where are they?
Click to expand...

We were all smart enough to post in the FIRST thread on this topic. For some reason this thread is still going even though the very first reply declared it a repost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top