home
RSS
September 19th, 2011
12:34 PM ET

Foo Fighters protest Westboro Baptist Church

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN)– Rock stars the Foo Fighters played an impromptu show for a group of protesters from Westboro Baptist Church who had come to protest outside the band's show Friday night in Kansas City, Missouri.

Band members jumped onto a flatbed truck, sporting costumes they wore in a recent video parody, parked across the street from the protest, and sang "Hot Buns," CNN affiliate KSHB reported.

The lyrics to the song: "Driving all night, got a hankering for something/Think I'm in the mood for some hot-man muffins/Mmmm, sounds so fine, yes indeed" made pointed response to the church's protest.

As they often do, the protesters held up brightly colored signs that read, "God Hates Fags," and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."

Dave Grohl, the frontman for the Foo Fighters, ended the song with a patriotic message: "Ladies and gentlemen, God bless America! Land of the free, home of the brave," KSHB reported.

In a news release, dated August 30, 2011, the church said it would protest the Foo Fighters concert because "The entertainment industry is a microcosm of the people of this doomed nation: hard-hearted, Hell-bound, and hedonistic to the max. Every person with a platform should be using it to encourage obedience to God; instead, you teach all things contrary to Him: fornication, adultery, idols, fags."

Westboro Baptist Church has been greeted in a variety of ways at protests in the recent past.

This summer, Mars Hill, a multisite church in the Seattle area, welcomed protesters with coffee and doughnuts.

"They need Jesus, too, maybe as bad as anyone on the Earth. As a church, we're called to love people. They're people, so they make the list," Mars Hill Pastor Mark Driscoll told CNN in June.

The Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro was started by Fred Phelps in 1955 and is best known for protesting soldiers' funerals, with protesters carrying their controversial signs.

The church says on its website that it is an "Old School (or, Primitive) Baptist Church," though it has no known ties to any broader national Baptist denomination.

Phelps told CNN in 2006, "You can't preach the Bible without preaching the hatred of God."

The church's membership is small and mainly made of Phelps family members.

The church is regularly sued for defamation but often wins those cases. Last year, one such case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices upheld members' right to free speech. One of Phelps' daughters, a Harvard Law-trained attorney, represented the family before the court.

The protest and response generated substantial publicity and attention for the band and the church.

The Foo Fighters performance went viral over the weekend.  The band posted a behind-the-scenes video on YouTube of preparations play on the street in front of the church that has racked up nearly a half a million hits.

A representative for the Foo Fighters told CNN, "The band is leaving that video/performance as their only comment on the matter."

The band is on tour promoting a new record.  The church is perpetually on tour promoting its brand of hellfire and brimstone, protesting military funerals, churches and, as announced this weekend, the funerals of the nine people killed in an air show accident in Reno, Nevada.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Church • United States • Westboro Bapitst Church

soundoff (1,058 Responses)
  1. muti

    This "church" is a complete and utter embarrassment to all residents of Kansas. I would like to apologize to anyone who was offended by these fools in our city. If there is any eternal justice, all of these protesters will be smited.

    September 20, 2011 at 11:21 am |
    • William Demuth

      I hear ya!

      What these guys do to the families of the soldiers makes ALL Christians seem evil.

      I am no fan of religion, but in no way do the thiests I know and love consider him a Christian in good standing.

      He has offended EVERYONE!

      September 20, 2011 at 11:26 am |
  2. You're a Cook

    @William Demuth

    Atheism is a belief also. Neither believer or atheist can without a doubt provide tangible evidence that proves 100% one way or the other. The difference is that I have faith (not blind) and have had experiences where He has shown himself, and you refuse to believe no matter what.

    September 20, 2011 at 10:50 am |
    • Mathilda

      Agreed. Atheists have moral defects.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:52 am |
    • Jimtanker

      No, you have delusions and have convinced yourself that you have heard/seen your god. You have NO evidence of its existence and never will.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:53 am |
    • William Demuth

      You're a Cook

      A belief or a religion? Anything can be called a belief system. Mine is Rock and Roll, but Athiesim is no more a religion than baldness is a hair color.

      You see a belief for rational people is subject to assesment, and reassesment.

      Religion on the other hand, FORBIDS it.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:58 am |
    • hippypoet

      i do love when people try to argue the existence of something by saying there is no evidence to proove one way or the other... that kinda dissprooves the existence right there, he did all this stuff yet no proof.. that is a BIG piece of evidence right there, just so ya know! heres a good one – the bible is the infallible word of god right? well how then does enoch live to 900 years old... or how about adam and eve, they each live to a ripe old age of well over 300 years a piece... yet modern man can't seem to get past 115, and we aint running down deer at 80 years of age, but you completely believe that people once lived to that age... is this where you say something that makes these numbers seem less.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:01 am |
    • Jimtanker

      Dont you know HP? That is because of the fall. After Adam took a bite of some fruit then they coulndt live that long. Oh wait, they did until Noah. Well then it must have been something else.

      Xtians can explain away any amount of logic that you try to use. Sometimes it is just useless to talk to them at all.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:06 am |
    • Chuckles

      @Hippy

      I've always wondered the same thing. Isn't the "there's no proof for or against god" actually an argument that atheists and agnostics should be making? I mean, that statement right there basically says, "there's no proof of god" which in just about every other scientific experiment implies the conclusion there is no god, and yet religious apologists use it as a reason to disbelieve in science. I mean, I guess it's not surprising when you get into the mind of a believer, they do a heck of a lot of of mental gymnastics to reconcile their belief with the real world and yet it is sometimes so incredibly frustating to see a post where someone in the same post will say "There's no proof for or against god" and then immediatly follow it up with "and that's why I know god is real and you are wrong" I mean honestly, and this is a question for everyone, how does that work?! How does that make sense?

      September 20, 2011 at 11:10 am |
    • William Demuth

      Jimtanker

      Some research shows that religiosity itself may actually be a symptom of a viral infection of some sort. There are also some genetic traits at the root of it as well.

      Within 50 years I suspect a cure may actually be found.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:12 am |
    • You're a Cook

      @chuckles – I never reference science anywhere in my post. Science is actually quite compatible with Christianity (and no, I'm not talking 6k yr old earth, etc). In addition, please explain how science proves that there's no soul? Science can neither prove, nor disprove, and it's not something within the realm of science. You people are so short sighted that you can't picture anything beyond your little "scientific" scope and think you have all the answers, quite comical.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:32 am |
    • You're a Cook

      atheism is a religion. Whether it fits technically with the semantics or not is not a concern of mine; the practical definition of religion is what matters to me, not the letter of the law. And the practical definition, distasteful though it may be to those who disdain religion in all its forms, is that the very thing most atheists hate is what they have become: a religion, with clearly defined rules, eschatology and a philosophy by which to live. Religion is a means of understanding our existence. Atheism fits that bill. Religion is a philosophy of life. So is atheism. Religions has its leaders, the preachers of its tenets. So does atheism (Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx). Religion has its faithful believers, who guard the orthodoxy of the faith. So does atheism. And religion is a matter of faith, not certainty. Your own faithful say that, as that is what I was referring to in my posting. Welcome to the religious world!

      September 20, 2011 at 11:37 am |
    • William Demuth

      You're a Cook

      Science does not prove anything, it DISPROVES THINGS by using practical, rational and repeatable tests

      Anyone can play, but it is my experience that regardless of the weight of the evidence religious people will NOT accept anything that challenges their position.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • Jimtanker

      And NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • hippypoet

      @ your a crook

      your funny cause your dumb, and thats funny cause its true!

      September 20, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • Chuckles

      @You're a Cook

      Believe me, the comedic effect isn't lost on me (see my handle) however I was answering Hippy's question more than what you originally posted. However, to take a closer look at what you said, basically since there is not 100% proof to prove that god neither exists nor doesn't exist means that since you have faith and that for some reason you're special and have met god before that he exists, which basically invalidates your previous statement. If you know god personally, you've met him does that give you 100% verifiable proof? If he's "shown himself" then where and when was that and how did I, along with the rest of the world, miss that?

      This is the main point of my original post though, regardless of science or faith, when a person who believes confidently states that atheists can't disprove god and believers can't prove there is a god, but because they believe there is a god for whatever reason that trumps my disbelief in a god and thus makes me and my opinion wrong.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:55 am |
    • Chuckles

      Also to add on to your idiotic post about atheism being a religion

      1. You basically ask to be ignored when you say it's no concern if it "technically" fits the de.finition, that's no conern to you, which means any su.bsequent content you post is just your own opinion and so immediatly inv.alid.

      2. There is no phi.losophy, tenants, house of worship, "religious leaders' (especially marx and lenin who are comm.unists that use atheism as a tool). Atheism is literally just a disbelief in religion and like others have pointed out, by your definition not collecting stamps is a hobby, being bald is a haircolor and everyone out there, instead of being a christian is actually defined as an Ajew, Amuslim, Ahindu, etc...

      3. Faith is a st.icky word. You've highjacked here to equate faith and religious faith as one in the same. In that sense you are incred.ibly incorrect. If I was presented with peer reviewed, cer.tifiable, hard evidence that say, the big bang is actually false and there WAS an intelligent desi.gner, or that everything actually sp.ewed forth from a white hole or a number of different things, I can accept that new world view as eas.ily as putting on a different hat. Your faith however requires you to be rigid and not accept any opposing world view regardless of the ev.idence. Pointing out that I have faith in science is the same as your faith in god is a gross misuse of the word.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Atheism is a belief system, not a religion. The definition of religion in Merriam-Webster dictionary is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" Since atheism does not worship any God or diety, it is impossible for it to be a religion, by definition.

      Now that we have that settled, I think where the problem comes is the jump in logic that athiests oftentimes try to use. "There's no scientific proof" jumps to "There's no God." That's a HUGE leap. Just because we don't currently have proof, doesn't mean something doesn't exist at all.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Damian

      I can agree it is a leap to only have lack of evidence be enough evidence to boldly state "there is no god", I don't think even Richard Dawkins will make that claim. However, my truely sincere question is, what exactly is proof that god doesn't exist? What do I need to show/find or stumble upon that is 100% proof? Is there such a thing and if not, is it really fair for a believer to turn around and try and use science or proof at all to prove gods existance?

      My second question is, why is there a 50/50 chance of god existing because of the proof/lack of proof debate? People throw it out there saying "since you can't prove god doesn't exist and I can't prove that he does, there's a 50/50 chance" when that number is most other instances would probably equal more like "because of the given evidence or lack thereof, there's a 70/30 chance of gods inexistance/existance, (the 70/30 being a completely arbitrary number)

      September 20, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
    • J.W

      They say that before our universe existed that the laws of science did not apply. I think that God is outside of our universe. We cannot use science to prove or disprove. As far as the odds of God existing I am a Christian so obviously to me it is %100. If I was an agnostic I would say the odds could be anywhere in between.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
    • Chuckles

      So JW

      I think I from your answer that it's impossible to come up with proof that god does not exist? You are more equitable than most so I think this also means we'll never get proof of existance either right? I guess my main question is, it's incredibly easy to prove the existance of god or a god in terms of seeing a form or something show himself and say "I'm god" and then create something from nothing. Since the bible is clear that we are made in gods image, presuambly he will look human-esque, which is why I discount any answer that says how do we know what god looks like. Sure, god could even be among us (what if god was one of us?) in which case it would very easy to film himself with a handheld camera creating something and posting it on youtube.

      Disproof is slightly harder. In order to disprove it, I believe, to the point that a believer might actually listen is if we search literally every nook and cranny of the entire universe and find nothing attributed to god, then again if you like most believe that god exists out of time and space (where in the bible does it say that by the way? I can't find it anywhere) then we can search everything over and over again and never find anything which will just "prove" he exists somewhere else.

      I guess I also get the most confused with christian scientists who truely believe they can reconcile christianity and science and show they're two sides of the same coin, even though whenever they touch they become mutually exclusive.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      Richard Dawkins stated in the No Intell.igence Allowed docu.mentary by Ben Stein, that he couldn't put a number on the liklihood that God didn't exist. He said he wasn't comfortable putting a number on it. And then he later stated that he believed that Intelligent Design could have happened by some other species that delivered the first cell and from there, life began. What he said without actually saying it was, "I can't be sure God doesn't exist but I don't like the idea of God, so there could be any number of answers, but I don't think it's God." Fine. But that's an opinion, not science.

      As JW stated, I don't think we will ever come to the conclusion that God does or does not exist using earthly principles and our own science. God exists in a spiritual realm, and you can't find Him using earthly science. To me, it's like, exploring the ocean floor in search of the sun and then, when you don't find a sun, claiming the sun doesn't exist. What needs to happen is we (and I mean the entirety of humanity, including myself) need to get over this arrogant belief system that we can explain everything.

      As for the 50/50 argument, I have no idea. 50/50 chance is a bit of a misnomer. God either exists which means there's a 100% chance of His existance or God doesn't exist which means there's a 0% He exists.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Damian

      You are right, that when Dawkins gives his opinions, they are nothing more than that. I think he expressed what most atheists also can generally agree with. Their disbelief is rooted in the fact that there very well could be god, however the god portrayed in the bible among others is quite a sinister character and for that to be the head honcho who is the all powerful creator is more of a cruel joke than anything else.

      Why is is called arrogance to as.sume we are able to explain everything? Why must we give up on searching for answers and acquiese to the idea that some things can't be explained? I think that it is fool hardy in the extreme to really believe that since we can't find it, there isn't a way.

      Lastly, only a sith deals in absolutes (sorry couldn't resist). I absolutely disagree with your last statement. Anyone who believes god 100% exists or 100% does not exist hasn't done enough soul searching, research and downright living to make that decision.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Chuckles,

      Ok, I'm going to go into a bit of "Christian-speak", since these are my own beliefs. I don't believe God is a sinister character. I believe He is a character who has expectations. And since He created the universe, He expects those expectations to be lived up to. Every disaster and calamity that man experienced at the hand of God, was man's fault. They were always warned of it and when they didn't listen, they had to deal with the consequences. Similar to when has a child and tell them repeatedly not to touch the stove. Then the child touches the stove and gets burned. Is that the parent's fault for having an expectation that the child leave the stove alone? Or is it the parent's fault for having a stove at all? No! Sometimes we have to learn through disaster! Our current economic conditions should prove that much.

      However, after the coming of Jesus, it is a time of Grace. Where He allows things to go on further than He did in the OT because of Christ's blood. But that time will end and a time of Judgment will come.

      Oh I don't believe we shouldn't look for answers. That would be silly. I just think it's arrogance if we believe that with our own perceptions and our own studies we can absolutely come to an answer. Heck, we can't even absolutely explain, without any sembelence of doubt, what the origin of our species is. I think some things are just going to go beyond our own comprehension. Does that mean we shouldn't look? Not at all.

      BTW, I love Star Wars, so no worries about quoting it. 🙂 But I labor under no illusions that God does not exist. I didn't become a Christian until my early twenties based on what I've seen and experienced and the testamonies of trustworthy individuals in my own life, I have come to the conclusion that God absolutely exists. And that is after over ten years of thought and reflection. If I have come to that conclusion after my own soul-searching and thought, why is that not enough?

      September 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • J.W

      I do not think that the Bible was a science book. People just try to read science into it.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Damian,

      Well other than the obvious pitfall of dealing in absolutes (I think we learned from Anikan that it's easy to be seduced by the dark side) the reason why I don't think you can be absolutely sure one way or the other is that you might be absolutely sure of your self, but since you can not provide evidence to prove to an unbeliever (atheist, jew, muslim, etc...) that god, and specifically god from the bible exists, shouldn't that create a seed of doubt? I'm not saying it should bring to really question it, but saying I'm 99% sure god exists instead of 100% sure (and vice versa for an atheist) allows you to operate in a world that has proven to always be more grey than black and white. I mean, when have you ever seen or read something where someone is 100% evil and someone else is 100% good (Luke notwithstanding....), I mean, as hard as it is for me to say it, clearly Hitler wasn't 100% evil, he didn't think to himself "boy, I LOVE being evil", he really thought he was doing what was just and righteous, but he lost and is now painted as one of the most evil villans ever to rear his head (other than Voldemort)

      September 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Damian,

      To touch on your other points, your first paragraph that humans have brought all calamities upon themselves. The current economic conditions notwithstanding, I hardly agree that the mass genocide that occurs in the bible because a group of people didn't believe in god in the OT was warrented. I mean, it would be one thing if god revealed himself in the bible to everyone and said "you can't worship anything else though" and then whole cultures did anyways, ok I can see the reasoning, but by your metaphor with the kid and stove, the god in the OT more or less buys the stove and then tells one kid that its hot and then tells this kid to teach all his others just how hot the stove can be.

      Also, I shudder to think if this is the "time of grace" you said we live in right now. I've seen enough in my short time here to not have rosey colored glasses on and see some pretty terrible stuff that occurs pretty regularly on earth today.

      I guess we're having a miscommunication on the word 'arrogance" I think you're using it in a bad way, as if we should be ashamed of ourselves for believing we can find an absolute answer to everything. I think that trusting that there is an answer to everything and we are able to find it makes the search that much more enjoyable and rewarding. To accept that there are some things that are out of our reach can, to borrow from a slippery slope argument, lead down a path that I don't think we should take. If there is a problem and you give up and decree that "this specific answer is unobtainable" will stop the research that could have led to some more interesting finds.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Chuckles,

      You raise a few various points, so I'm going to quote you and then answer each seperately.

      "Well other than the obvious pitfall of dealing in absolutes (I think we learned from Anikan that it's easy to be seduced by the dark side) the reason why I don't think you can be absolutely sure one way or the other is that you might be absolutely sure of your self, but since you can not provide evidence to prove to an unbeliever (atheist, jew, muslim, etc...) that god, and specifically god from the bible exists, shouldn't that create a seed of doubt?"

      Not at all. That's the essence of faith. Look at one of the definitions of "Faith" in Merriam-Webster: "b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof: complete trust " We also come to the definition of "proof." What is proof? What criteria are we using for proof? If you're asking to show God in a petri dish, unfortunately, I can't see that happening. There's a reason, people say that the Holy Spirit dwells in people's hearts, not in their head. 🙂

      And as a side note, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" is an absolute, but let's not get into the literary practices of George Lucas. 🙂

      "I'm not saying it should bring to really question it, but saying I'm 99% sure god exists instead of 100% sure (and vice versa for an atheist) allows you to operate in a world that has proven to always be more grey than black and white. "

      99% isn't faith. By the definition above, faith is "complete trust." If you have even .00000000001% doubt, you can't have complete trust.

      "I mean, when have you ever seen or read something where someone is 100% evil and someone else is 100% good (Luke notwithstanding....), I mean, as hard as it is for me to say it, clearly Hitler wasn't 100% evil, he didn't think to himself "boy, I LOVE being evil", he really thought he was doing what was just and righteous, but he lost and is now painted as one of the most evil villans ever to rear his head (other than Voldemort)"

      True. I see exactly what you're saying. I suppose we have to get to, what is the definition of "evil"? I believe "evil" and "sin" are more or less the same thing. All sin is, is being outside of God's will.

      Now to your exact point regarding Hitler. I don't think Hitler was 100% evil. Oh I think he did some absolutely atrocious things! But I don't think any person is 100% evil, because they were made in God's image. Therefore, if any Christian hates another person, they are guilty of sin (Matthew 5:22). That is the essence of the old Christian adage of "hate the sin, not the sinner."

      September 20, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Chuckles

      "To touch on your other points, your first paragraph that humans have brought all calamities upon themselves. The current economic conditions notwithstanding, I hardly agree that the mass genocide that occurs in the bible because a group of people didn't believe in god in the OT was warrented. I mean, it would be one thing if god revealed himself in the bible to everyone and said "you can't worship anything else though" and then whole cultures did anyways, ok I can see the reasoning, but by your metaphor with the kid and stove, the god in the OT more or less buys the stove and then tells one kid that its hot and then tells this kid to teach all his others just how hot the stove can be."

      To an extent, I agree. That's why Christ came for the entire world (John 3:16) and Jews and Gentiles were brought together. Let's also state this, the Bible was not intended to be a history book. It was chronicaling believers faith, and therefore, we have to accept there was some bias. But if you notice, out of ALL of the people in the OT who got it bad, the Jews got it the worse. Why? Because they were the ones "in the know." They were supposed to behave better and they didn't.

      "Also, I shudder to think if this is the "time of grace" you said we live in right now. I've seen enough in my short time here to not have rosey colored glasses on and see some pretty terrible stuff that occurs pretty regularly on earth today."

      I agree. It's pretty frightening. Now imagine if we weren't in a time of Grace? What other things could be happening that we are spared?

      "I guess we're having a miscommunication on the word 'arrogance" I think you're using it in a bad way, as if we should be ashamed of ourselves for believing we can find an absolute answer to everything. I think that trusting that there is an answer to everything and we are able to find it makes the search that much more enjoyable and rewarding. To accept that there are some things that are out of our reach can, to borrow from a slippery slope argument, lead down a path that I don't think we should take. If there is a problem and you give up and decree that "this specific answer is unobtainable" will stop the research that could have led to some more interesting finds."

      Oh, and I totally agree with you. Like I said, let's question, let's look, but let's also be cognizant of the fact that the spiritual world is really beyond our own understanding. That's part of the faith. Being able to say, "I don't know, but God has a plan."

      September 20, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Ok! Now we're getting into the thick of things!

      I concede your definition sort of inhibits you from expressing even a slight amount of doubt, but I guess I'm still more surprised that you wouldn't even have a .0000001% amount of doubt. I mean, what happened to create such unshakable faith in god and the bible. Now if you tell me that you have 100% faith that god exists, however your are 99% sure that the bible is the word of god, that would be closer to the mark. For me personally, I don't think anyone ever has the right to be 100% sure of themselves, that's when mistakes happen.

      (also the whole george lucas thing, the more and more think of how the Jedi ran sh.it before the sith overthrew them and all but annhilated them made me think that maybe it was unfair that people who could use the force somehow had the right to rule. neither should have)

      To finish up this point, isn't it prudent to at least question something that demands 100% faith and trust without giving even a speck of proof on which to base that off of (I know you went into the whole thing about "what is proof", for the sake of this conversation, proof of god really falls under either god revealing himself or when something incredibly miraculous like the regrowth of a limb, happens without scientific explanation).

      Moving onto the "define evil", my definition is more like, evil is an act in which has no positive consequence and is done in full malice. I can honestly say, I don't think someone has ever done or been fully evil ever, I don't think 100% good or evil actually exists and is obtainable. The most evil thing has a silver lining, the most righteous and good act has a purely selfish aspect to it.

      As for hitler, I do hate him, I hate him more than his actions, he caused him and he deserves to be hated for all time. I don't think its fair or right to let him off because he was living in sin and did not know the evil he was causing.

      To your next point. I guess its a matter of perspective. Did the israelites really get the shorter end of the stick? Ask the cannenites or any one of the many societies completely annhilated by israelite armies and god all because they might have just been living in ignorance and were destroyed for it. The israelites were afforded the knowledge of god, and although cruelly punished, were always forgiven and allowed back into gods good graces rather than being expelled and annhilated by a new chosen people. If we're going to play the "who had it worse" game between israelites and everyone else in the bible. Well, the bible is written with the bias of the israelites being the chosen people and it might not have all been champagne and caviar, it was still waay better than just about what every other society got.

      Lastly (phew!) "Being able to say, "I don't know, but God has a plan."" is still unacceptable in my opinion. Admitting something is unknowable again immediately stops any and all future search on the matter. What's the point of searching for something if you agree before hand thats its unknowable? I can't accept it. I will go as far as to say you bring up spiritual realm that god operates within and so to that degree, sure a place that a lot of people agree upon exists might also be unknowable and only god knows, however if I were to say, "see" this spiritual realm, be convinced of existance, I might be more amenable to believing in god.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:37 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      "I concede your definition sort of inhibits you from expressing even a slight amount of doubt, but I guess I'm still more surprised that you wouldn't even have a .0000001% amount of doubt. I mean, what happened to create such unshakable faith in god and the bible. Now if you tell me that you have 100% faith that god exists, however your are 99% sure that the bible is the word of god, that would be closer to the mark. For me personally, I don't think anyone ever has the right to be 100% sure of themselves, that's when mistakes happen."

      I 100% believe God exists. And let's be honest. It's not my definition. It's Merriam-Webster's dictionary's definition. I just happen to agree with it. 🙂 As to the Bible, I agree with the idea it needs interpretation. I believe that the Bible is the ultimate source that we have. I also take it into consideration that it was a bunch of people writing about their own faiths. It was never meant to be "God for Dummies." It's why I look to God for the answers He wants to give me. I don't worship the Bible. I worship God and use the Bible as a tool to help understand God. But I'm glad the Bible is the way it is! Because people would turn to the Bible instead of turning to God. If the Bible held all of the answers, people would use it and make it an idol, which is in direct contradiction to the scriptures.

      To finish up this point, isn't it prudent to at least question something that demands 100% faith and trust without giving even a speck of proof on which to base that off of (I know you went into the whole thing about "what is proof", for the sake of this conversation, proof of god really falls under either god revealing himself or when something incredibly miraculous like the regrowth of a limb, happens without scientific explanation).

      How can you be certain God has not revealed Himself? I don't claim that He physically manifested in front of me, but His actions have been revealed. I have seen far too many things to question whether He exists. Perhaps not seen a regrowth of a limb, but things equally as wonderous. Jesus said, "“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

      Moving onto the "define evil", my definition is more like, evil is an act in which has no positive consequence and is done in full malice. I can honestly say, I don't think someone has ever done or been fully evil ever, I don't think 100% good or evil actually exists and is obtainable. The most evil thing has a silver lining, the most righteous and good act has a purely selfish aspect to it.

      I agree with your statements here. Your definition and mine coincide and 100% good or evil is not obtainable by my viewpoint either.

      "As for hitler, I do hate him, I hate him more than his actions, he caused him and he deserves to be hated for all time. I don't think its fair or right to let him off because he was living in sin and did not know the evil he was causing."

      Oh I do believe he will be judged for his actions, but I can't hate him. It's just against my beliefs to hate anyone.

      "To your next point. I guess its a matter of perspective. Did the israelites really get the shorter end of the stick? Ask the cannenites or any one of the many societies completely annhilated by israelite armies and god all because they might have just been living in ignorance and were destroyed for it. The israelites were afforded the knowledge of god, and although cruelly punished, were always forgiven and allowed back into gods good graces rather than being expelled and annhilated by a new chosen people. If we're going to play the "who had it worse" game between israelites and everyone else in the bible. Well, the bible is written with the bias of the israelites being the chosen people and it might not have all been champagne and caviar, it was still waay better than just about what every other society got."

      Oh I think the Jews have had it pretty rough throughout history, not just in the OT. Take a look at history. From the Pharoahs of Egypt, to WWII, to even Mel Gibson's anti-semitic tirade, they've been persecuted. But let's not play the "who got it worse", because, as you so succinctly said, "It's a matter of perspective."

      Lastly (phew!) "Being able to say, "I don't know, but God has a plan."" is still unacceptable in my opinion. Admitting something is unknowable again immediately stops any and all future search on the matter. What's the point of searching for something if you agree before hand thats its unknowable? I can't accept it.

      Like I've said before, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking, looking, and trying to gain information. Even Jesus said, "Seek and you will find..." I just think that at some point, we have to understand we can't or won't ever know the answer. Just a personal belief.

      "I will go as far as to say you bring up spiritual realm that god operates within and so to that degree, sure a place that a lot of people agree upon exists might also be unknowable and only god knows, however if I were to say, "see" this spiritual realm, be convinced of existance, I might be more amenable to believing in god."

      I absolutely understand this perspective. It takes a lot of trust to believe without evidence. But if you saw it, then you wouldn't need faith, now would you? Do you need faith to believe in gravity? Of course not. You can perceive it by dropping an object. God wants faith, not your ability to state you know something because you perceived it. 🙂

      September 20, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Damian

      I guess I mistyped. Yes that's the definition of faith in the dictionary, I guess what I meant to infer is that sometimes you can be faithful and still doubt, I know the dictionary agrees, but I think it comes down measurement of faith and how to do so. I would be willing to make a bet that many "faithful" out there don't really fit the classic definition, but still maintain that have faith god exists, just not 100%. This gets into semantics though, so lets just say I generally concede that you need to have 100% Faith that god exists, however I maintain that the opposite does not hold true that you need to have 100% faith in the disbelief in god to be an atheist.

      Your point on the bible is very interesting. So you think that the bible isn't layed out in a perfect way in order to not be worshipped? I've never really thought of it that way, but the obvious pitfall here is that since the bible is not perfect and it's the best tool to interpret gods will, doesn't an imperfect book lead to an imperfect interpretation which is something I'm sure god and everyone would really want to avoid.

      As for how can I be certain god hasn't revealed himself, well I'm still an atheist, there are many others out there, and there are many other religions. If god truely had revealed himself, legitimately so, there wouldn't be any question, it would be a fact.

      You're also right about the jews having it rough, I won't deny that. They're consumate vicitms for a reason. However, looking specifically in a theological standpoint and just at the OT itself, the jews might get some raw deals and sh.it goes wrong, but generally each story is how they bounced back and how they vanquished the none believers, sounds like #winning to me.

      Coming to terms with not knowing the answer is easy and I agree, at one point you have to cross your arms and say, boy we may never know the answer, but that does NOT mean the answer is unknowable, it just may be found later, or never by humans, or any number of things, but there is an answer out there to everything and we have the potential to answer it given the right tools.

      As to your last point, what does faith give god that devotion, prayer and a number of other things don't. Why is this type of faith a virtue and why is it that god would rather you follow a promise that he exists instead of him specifically.

      I know, I know, the mind of god is unknowable, and you don't understand why god needs faith but you believe in the fact that he does right? This is where we mainly differ and actually brings in the first part to this, where you are perfectly fine living with an answer that not only is unknowable, but unobtainable, I however disagree and will not accept faith as my only reason to believe in something without something more backing it up.

      September 20, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Chuckles,

      You'll have to forgive me for my ignorance, but I was given to understand that an athiest absolutely refutes any belief in any deity, whereas an agnostic believes that there may be a supernatural deity, but we don't know who or what that is. Are my definitions incorrect? Please enlighten me if I am, because I am genuinely interested!

      As I wasn't there through any part of the Bible being written, I cannot provide a first hand account as to the events in the Bible. The Bible being left up to interpretation does lean to many, many differing viewpoints as to its contents, the least of which is the context it was being written in (i.e. people writing over 2,000 years ago and the accuracy to the translations.) That clearly explains the different denominations!

      It's why I look at the Bible as more of a guidebook. It points you in the general direction and God fills in the rest. That's why it's so difficult for non-believers to read, understand and interpret what is meant by the Bible, because they're missing the key ingredient...like trying to make a cake without flour. The writings were never intended for the use they have now of being a literal direction for everyone. It was people cataloguing their experiences of faith.

      "As for how can I be certain god hasn't revealed himself, well I'm still an atheist, there are many others out there, and there are many other religions. If god truely had revealed himself, legitimately so, there wouldn't be any question, it would be a fact."

      Agreed. But Jesus addresses this as "Blessed are those who have not seen and believed." God doesn't want you to believe simply because you saw Him, as I explained above.

      You're also right about the jews having it rough, I won't deny that. They're consumate vicitms for a reason. However, looking specifically in a theological standpoint and just at the OT itself, the jews might get some raw deals and sh.it goes wrong, but generally each story is how they bounced back and how they vanquished the none believers, sounds like #winning to me.

      As far as the Jews = epic win, hahahahaha. Yup. You could say that. But let's look at who wrote it, right? Does anyone want to have a history saying, "Well we followed God's word...and well, we still lost." Of course not! The Bible is really one long story of man's fall from Grace and the Redemption of man through God's love. It's why you will see most Christians focusing on the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament. The OT is basically the history leading up to Jesus and the redemption of mankind.

      "Coming to terms with not knowing the answer is easy and I agree, at one point you have to cross your arms and say, boy we may never know the answer, but that does NOT mean the answer is unknowable, it just may be found later, or never by humans, or any number of things, but there is an answer out there to everything and we have the potential to answer it given the right tools."

      Believe it or not, this sounds like faith, my friend. 🙂 How do you know we have the potential? That's a rhetorical question, merely pointing out that faith and hope are not sole propriety of the religious.

      "I know, I know, the mind of god is unknowable, and you don't understand why god needs faith but you believe in the fact that he does right?"

      Need? No. Desire? Without question.

      "This is where we mainly differ and actually brings in the first part to this, where you are perfectly fine living with an answer that not only is unknowable, but unobtainable, I however disagree and will not accept faith as my only reason to believe in something without something more backing it up."

      I can accept that. But why is that? I'm going to hazard a guess and say, "Because you might be wrong." That's not, in any way, intended to be a slight against you, so please don't take it as such. Humans are creatures who want to KNOW, they want certainty. Because certainty brings what we innately desire most: security. And believing in something that may be wrong leaves us with a feeling of insecurity. From personal experience though, relinquishing my personal security, for the security of knowing God is for me and God will see me through has been more liberating than anything I came up with on my own.

      What do we have security in?

      Our families? No, our families die or may turn away from us.
      Our intelligence? No, that can be taken away by diseases such as Alzheimers.
      Our freedom? The Patriot Act proves that can be taken away.
      Science? No, science argues with itself all of the time (ask two different doctors "Is milk good for me?" and you'll get two different answers)

      This earth provides no security at all. For me, only God provides the security of always being there for me. He promised it. And since I have faith in Him, I believe He will stay true to His promises.

      September 20, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • Laughing

      @Damian

      To answer your first question. An atheist is about rejecting religion coupled with a disbelief in god but absolutely rejects religion and the gods that inhabit that. An agnostic sort of goes against your whole "faith has to be 100%" thing and says there may be a god, their might not be and then will usually fall onto one side of the fence if pushed. Atheism however deals with religion, though some atheists might disagree and have their own version. You might even call a deist an atheist because they reject all conventional religion but still believe there is a higher power.

      Why I mainly brought up the bible is that, do you doubt its veracity? I mean, you must have many doubts about what's in there now if you believe that it's gods word interpreted by man, you are showing that since that is the case, the bible can and should only be used as a guidebook because to follow it word for word would be considered lunacy (if you're interested, check out the book the Year of Living Biblically, pretty funny and follows the old testament rules as closely as possible in today's time).

      Next, so your telling me you need to believe because in the book tells you so, which I have to point out is pretty convenient. I mean, doesn't it make you wonder a little bit that when the book says, "you have to believe this is all real, and the people who take it without question, the people who didn't see and still believe, well their the best ones of all"( clearly my own paraphrasing here) its basically telling you to not expect proof of a miracle and to be happy about it anyways.

      As to your next paragraph, color me confused. You first said the bible isn't a history book or "god for dummies" it's just a guide book. And then you say that a whole half the bible IS actually just a history book up till the NT .....where it becomes a guidebook? I'm honestly confused, can you clarify?

      As for having faith there is a right answer out there and it is knowable, I will be the first to admit that everyone in this world has faith in something, but as you yourself pointed out, faith isn't simply for the religious no matter how much they use the term to try and prove atheism is a religion in of itself. However, faith in an answer and faith that there is an answer that I don't know yet makes all the difference, I think, having faith in an answer and then using that to make other decisions might lead me down the wrong path without me knowing. Having faith that there is answer will only make me work harder to find that answer and get it right before moving forward. Does that make sense? I know I was rambling a little bit.

      To your next part, god desiring faith. Ok, I can accept that, he's proven that time and time again in both the old and the new testament, however (and this will probably fall again into your god-speak arena) but why would god want the unquestioned faith when it could have loyalty, love, obedience and worship from more people, if not all, by simply stepping out from behind the curtain. So he desires faith, and I'm as.suming, once he has the faith, everything else that goes along with it. Revealing himself to the world would achieve all that and gain an almost unanimous following instead of just a chunk of the entire population.

      Last of all, no slight taken, that is the answer I would have said except with a tweak, I would probably be wrong. I've been around long enough (it hasn't even been THAT long either) to know that I can be wrong and often. In fact, a lot of the times when I'm wrong, it's about something I really truly believed I was so right there was no way I could be wrong, and yet after some persuasive arguments I realized my own holes and saw my brick house of rightness crumble, but what did I do when I first realized I was wrong? Did I admit it right away? HEL.L NO, I stuck to my guns even more, I defended my argument with even more fallacious lies, trying to end the debate abruptly so I could slink off and privately revise my way of thinking, and that was just about who was the house elf in the 4th Harry Potter book. I can't imagine if I made a decision purely made on instrinct and gut feeling and then lived my life on that decision for a really long time only to realize that I was wrong. You're smart enough to know what I'm getting at, but it's more than just security in an answer and having that security, it's about having all the correct information and making good choices.

      your last 2 paragraphs are actually fascinating to me. I would say it's the reason why most people want to believe in god and do so. It's also the reason why I held on incredibly tightly to my security blanket when I was little, I'm not trying to equate believers to children or that your scared all the time and need an imaginary friend, however you stated many facts of life and then said that its why you believe in god because the greatest being, with unlimited love and kindness, who is always looking out for your best interests and wants you to succeed, and when stuff goes wrong, he'll always be there, and when you die he'll be there too, and he'll bring all your loved ones so you'll be happy forever. It sounds really nice and I truly wish I could believe that because that would give me the same sense of security that you seem to have and more power to you. However, I can't, no matter how I slice it, it sounds like a made up story to give us precisely that type of security while not looking completely crazy to the community at large. I've been able to find beauty in the chaos that is our universe, galaxy, solar system, ecosystem, etc... and security in the fact that my impact on my surroundings are what I want it to be, without having to double check myself to see if it matches up with what society necessarily dictates. My life is my own and my thoughts are my own, that's security that I prize above all else.

      September 20, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Laughing,

      You spoiled my belief that Chuckles and you might not be the same person. I thought it might be (you have an articu.late way of providing your point so often not found around here), but I was hoping I found another person I can have an intellectual discu.ssion with! Regardless, let me respond and hopefully you are still reading this thread.

      Thank you for clarifying the difference between athiest and agnostics. So if I'm reading what you are saying correctly, you would say athiests are more against the notion of religion than the notion of a God existing? I think you'd find quite a few Christians who are not down with the whole religious thing. I know I'm not. It's why many Christ-followers will say, "It's about a relationship, not a religion." So thank you again for that clarification.

      Doubting the Bible's veracity? That's difficult to say. I certainly think times have changed and I think one would be a fool not to realize that the Bible, both OT and NT, have a bias to them. However, that's why I have a relationship with God, not the Bible. Some of the things can't be applied today (like, Paul's admonitions to slaves), but many of the teachings can be and I think it gives an idea of how God was in the past. But I do take what the Bible says with a grain of salt and work towards understanding God more than the Bible. And I suppose I could be wrong. Heck, there's always a first time for everything, huh? 🙂

      As far as clarification of my point, I believe that it is history told from one perspective, the author's. Let's say there was a car accident where one side is claiming the other ran a red light and the other is saying the light was yellow. Now one of the people flees the scene, so the police only have one point of view. But are there some facts we can extrapolate,? Absolutely. So what I generally do is ask God to give me His understanding and how this should relate to me. If you're reading the Bible without seeking God's wisdom, then it's just reading one person's viewpoint on events that transpired. So the OT is a historical perspective from one person who is chronicling their faith. When it becomes the NT, there is still some of that, but it is more about how one should lead a good, Christian life. Obviously, as I said before, certain things don't really apply, because the culture has changed (I don't think a woman needs to keep her head covered all of the time and if you have slaves, well you have more problems than trying out how to properly treat them in the Bible.) but the rudiments are still there.

      Your point about faith absolutely makes sense. And that's why I say I've found my answer. I did a lot of soul-searching and found mine. I believe it's the right one. Could that lead me down the wrong path? I suppose anything's possible, but I don't doubt that I am correct. And I've had this internal debate before of "You know, death is really gonna su.ck if the Muslims are right." But that's part of faith. Having a complete trust. Is it blind? A bit. But at least I can admit it. I can't articulate in words all of my experiences that led me to my conclusion, however, for me, that doesn't make it any less correct.

      As to your question about stepping out from behind the curtain, I don't know why He doesn't. I can speculate though. Having faith is having trust. By believing He exists, it shows there is a trust there. And God desires us to trust Him in all things. Proverbs 3:5-6 states, "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight"

      I am happy if you have found something that works for you. And we may not agree on these beliefs, but that's ok. I know not everyone is going to agree with me and I'm not going to agree with everyone. My point is, did Noah build an Ark and put two of every animal in it? That's what the Bible says. And then I am asked, "Did it actually happen?"

      My response is, "Does it matter?"

      So many times people get locked up on the details that they don't see the big picture. Christianity isn't about whether Samson slew the multi.tudes with the jawbone of a donkey, or whether Elijah was actually taken up in a chariot of fire, or any of that. What matters is, was Jesus Christ who He said He was?

      If He was, then we have a responsibility to live up to that.

      If He wasn't, then He was nothing more than a blaspheming carpenter who deserved the punishment He received.

      That's really the end of the discussion. Was Jesus who He said He was? I personally say yes He was. You may say He wasn't. And hey, in the end, we'll find out, won't we? And if I am wrong, I will happily meet you in the afterlife with Aussie Cheese Fries and say, "Well, Laughing, you were right!"

      September 21, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Damian

      Sorry to spoil it, I had changed computers that I previously written on as laughing so it reverted back. I've indeed changed to Chuckles now.

      I may want to clarify my explanation on agnostic/atheist a little more. Atheists are more against the notion of religion than god, however an atheist for the most part will bundle them as one. For instance if I think religion is a farce, I sort of throw god in with that, an atheist will more often than not (but not every time) have a disbelief in god as well, but if they are against something, the something is religion.

      As to your next part, I have hard time believe any of that history actually happened at all insofar as the events themselves. I like your car accident analogy but as I see it, it's actually as if both people left the scene of the crime and a person who heard from a witness is telling the police what happened. At that point, what may have been a minor fender bender could reach police as an epic fight between a nun and satan himself. The most i can really glean from the bible that could have truth at all is names of people and places probably have some significance and truth, even though all those people and places have long since vanished.

      I think your unique perspective however, that you read the bible with a grain of salt and that you rely on a person relationship with god is good however there are two immediate flaws I see. One is that although you sound sane and rational, if you told, say, Pat Robertson that he should use the bible as a guidebook and his inner relationship with god is really the only thing that counts, he might actually be able to spew even more hate and horribleness without needing to back it up. The second thing is how do you know the god you have a relationship with is the one from the bible? If you use it only as a god book but are 100% sure of yourself he exists because he's revealed himself to you, thats fine, I don't know what experiences you've had to make you come to that conclusion, but it doesn't sound like you used the bible in so much as your own inner soul searching and heard gods voice and matched it to the one in the bible, even though the bible should be read with a very very large grain of salt.

      Skipping now more towards the bottom, you asked (paraphrased) does it matter if noah built the ark and had two of each animal on it, or that adam and eve existed, or any of fantastical things that occured throughout the bible whether they were miraculous or not?

      My answer to that first part is yes, yes it does. One reason it does matter is specifically just "knowing god" and building a religion around it. If god didn't do the things attributed to him, is it right to worship him for it. If evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth, and not creationism, is god not as precise as he's supposed to be? does he not have as much guidance or vested interest as we as.sume he does? For most people, the only way to know god is through the bible, and if the bible is wrong, or exagerrated or made up, does that mean that they actually don't know god at all, the god they've been praying to for all these years doesn't actually exist (to clarify this existance portion. Specifically not that god doesn't exist period, but his persona, his being that they've come to love and accept).

      I want to preface this next statement by first saying, you are a worthy opponent, a seemingly good, sane and rational person and so I don't mean offense when I say that I personally beleive if you are going to believe in god, especially the christian god, or muslim god, or jewish god, or hindu god(s), ect... the only way to do so would be through the only source material that's out there. Once you start inferring, implying or down right interpreting it to fit a modern day thought or action, it transforms immediatly into your own bias and away from what was originally intended.
      My example would be for instance, and which I feel is a perfect example, is Star Wars. You might laugh, but I actually think its the best illustrative point I've come across. The original 3 were released in the 1970's and were widely acclaimed, they gained a cult following that still is very alive today. At the beginning when we are introduced to Luke, he is already almost a man and we learn that he's living with his aunt and uncle, the whereabouts of his mom and dad are unknown. Since I know you are probably as big as myself I'll skip to Return of the Jedi. We now know Luke and Leia are twins and Darth Vader is actually Lukes father (SPOILERS), however we still do not know whatever happened to Luke's mother, or even her name nor do we know why Darth Vader turned to the dark side. We can maybe imply that Darth/Anakin killed her, but to what end? We could also maybe even as.sume she might actually be alive. We thought dad was dead and he turned out to be one of the most evil people in the galaxy, mom might have a similar histoy you know? Now lets fast forward again to present day where we have had 3 new movies added to the canon and it actually fundementally changes (I think) the original plot and meaning of the first 3. We learn that star wars, far from being a hero story about Luke, is really about the life, redemption and death of Anakin Skywalker, that Anakin (not luke) is actually the chosen one who will ultimately save the galaxy. We learn many things that we might have implied from the original three, but also things that wrap up the story more than we had known or could have extrapolated from the original 3 (like, who knew Anakin had built C3P-0 and been close with R2, you would have thought those two droids would have said SOMETHING right? What about the fact that all the storm troopers were actually all clones, and of Boba Fete no less and lastly I thought I could never hate so much to be turned to the dark side until I was introduced to Jar Jar Binks). So now we have 6 official movies in the canon that is star wars. Sure there are many coincidences and deus ex machina that give the movie dramatic effect, but I contend the bible does the exact same thing.

      Apart from showing off my nerd credentials, I think you can probably see that when you overlay the biblical story over star wars there are lots of similarities (as most hero movies are because lets face it, whether jesus existed or not, it's one of the best stories of all time and is constantly borrowed) however, you see my main point right? It is impossible without consulting with the big man himself (George Lucas) to add anything else to the star wars story or try to infer or imply a given event and its outcome unless the original writer is adding it in.

      Last, but sure not least, Was Jesus who he says he was? Well that's tough to say. Was he really the son of god/god? I think it's incredibly unlikely (I think that's pretty clear), but jesus could also say he was a jewish rabbi and carpenter who preached love and kindness which , again if we can trust the translations and writings, then I would be believe that he was those things and believed himself to be god. I think we have a duty to live up to some of the teachings of jesus christ regardless of creed or faith because I think what he preaches creates a harmonious society.

      You are right though, we could both die, go down to hel.l and realize the mormons were right all along, in which case I'll bring Star Wars.

      September 21, 2011 at 4:17 pm |
    • duh

      Chuckles two thing, 1) christianity made more money than star wars. LOL! 2) I'll bring the popcorn to he ll for you, if you're bring star wars! I'll start practicing cooking popcorn over an open flame since I HATE burnt popcorn!

      September 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @Laughing/Chuckles/Hysterically Giggling/Guffawing/Chortling, 🙂

      "...an atheist will more often than not (but not every time) have a disbelief in god as well, but if they are against something, the something is religion."

      This quote intrigues me. It seems to me athiesm has some of the same inherent troubles that Christianity does. Let's look at pure fundamentals. In Christianity, it all falls back to Christ was crucified for the sins of mankind and rose three days later. Any religion that doesn't believe that isn't a Christian religion, at least in my book. Athiesm seems to do the same thing. Ya'll might have many different beliefs about the universe, but it comes back to, ya'll don't believe in any god and/or religion. So debates between athiests could be as big as Christian debates.

      You said, "I think your unique perspective however, that you read the bible with a grain of salt and that you rely on a person relationship with god is good however there are two immediate flaws I see. One is that although you sound sane and rational, if you told, say, Pat Robertson that he should use the bible as a guidebook and his inner relationship with god is really the only thing that counts, he might actually be able to spew even more hate and horribleness without needing to back it up."

      Pat Robertson is a tool. Next point. 🙂

      I think the important part is to look at the character of God. That's what is really helpful with the Bible. I believe the Bible is the word of God spoken to man, but man has a tendency to put things in his own perspective. This goes into your idea of creationism/evolution. First off, let me say, I don't buy the whole "young Earth"/"World created in seven days" idea. There's too much science showing that the world is not 6,000 years old. I believe that the seven days analogy was described to be seven different time frames, the last being when man came into existance. I don't know when Genesis was written, but I'm pretty sure, whenever it was, they didn't have electron microscopes to analyze cells. 🙂 So God had to make this more simple for man to understand. An example of this is, a fruit fly, I believe lives for like three days. As.suming you could talk to it, how would you explain a year to something with that short of a lifespan? It would be difficult. I believe God did the same thing.

      As for offending me, don't worry about it. Your comments aren't offensive. You're presenting this in an academic and logical manner. You're not making references to my "zombie god" or "flying spaghetti monster" or "sky fairy" or any of those other derisive comments.

      I will agree with the idea of "inferring, implying or down right interpeting..." And I will admit, I have my own bias. I'm not afraid to say it. But at the same time, I try to carefully check what I believe in God back to the Bible. Sometimes I've found myself believing one thing and realizing I was wrong. So I try to correct myself. I think we can sum up the discussion to, "How do you know your God is real?" And my answer is, "I believe it to be so." And while I appreciate the compliments, fundamentally, I have to come back to "My beliefs don't make sense. It's why it's called faith. If they made sense to humans, we wouldn't need faith." I'm not trying to shut down the conversation, I'm trying to be honest.

      If I understand your Star Wars analogy, you're saying the original trilogy is like the OT and suddenly, the NT comes along and you realize "OMG! The story is about Jesus, not Abraham!" And that's accurate, I think. Am I on track? Or did I miss what you were saying?

      I think you bring up an excellent point regarding the teachings of Jesus. Regardless of whether you believe Jesus is the Son of God, you cannot deny that His teachings were sound. His main message was "Love people." And if we could live this way, we wouldn't see the problems we do. There wouldn't be wars, hate, anger, persecution, genocide, etc. But unfortunately, that's not the way things work. That's not how humans are hardwired and it's a lot easier to react in a hateful way than it is in a loving way. And believe me, I'm preaching as much to myself as to anyone else.

      Aussie cheese fries and Star Wars? Awesome. I firmly contend that if I am wrong about my faith, that we just actually become one with the Force. That's option number two, always has been.

      September 21, 2011 at 5:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You're a moral defect, Addled.

      September 21, 2011 at 7:39 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Damian

      This may be a dead thread, but I'll reply anyway. First, I'm pretty sure my next handle is going to be Guffawing.

      As for the similarities about christianity and atheism. It's sort of like comparing apples and oranges and saying, well they're similar in that they don't taste like banana's, however you are right in your conclusion that debate between atheists can be as heated as debate between two christians on theology.

      Here's my main issue with what you said about god trying to for all intents and purposes, dumb down creation so we could understand it. If we were gods creation and he wanted to tell us about the time before we were created, couldn't he easily just give us that understanding? I see your point about a fruit fly having only 72 hours to live, so to explain to a fruit fly what a year, decade, century, millenia is seems pointless, except that we aren't ascribed with omnipotent power capable of making that fly understand.

      One of the most frustrating things I see on this board and generally everywhere is that people as.sume that man back in BCE, or Rome or Old England or whatever time period were idiots because they didn't have the knowledge we had today and we basically just idiot sheep herders. It's simply not the case. I'm sure some of the most brilliant people of their time, just by happenstance, were the goat herders or butchers, or whatever job and put their keen intellects to use as best they could. I think they would be as capable of understanding the size, scope and depth of the universe that we currently have. I see absolutely zero reason why god, with all the powers of the universe at his disposal would look at his own creation that he had just given all of this knowledge and large brain and think, well he's too dumb so instead of a couple of billion years while the sun was first converting hydrogen to helium and the rest of the planets were forming, I came along and set a couple of single celled organisms in water and then let evolution fly! To explain that in "7 days" is not even a very good explanation at all.

      This is why the bible must be taken literally. When they say 7 days, they don't mean 7,000 years, or 7 ages or 7 epochs, it means 7 days. And why not? If all the cultures around you had come up with these all powerful and mighty gods and you had one, that one needed to be super powerful, so powerful he create the whole universe in a week! And one of those days he just took off because he's so badas.s that he can take an entire day to do nothing. We can delve more into genesis, but just reread the first creation lines, they truely do not in anyway match up with current science (for instance, water existed before the earth, light and the earth was created before the sun, and fish and mammals were created together at the same time, not to mention.....well there's no mention of dinosaurs anywhere).

      Also, as I was writing this I realized you might bring up the point that when god first created adam, he didn't imbue him with knowledge (thus original sin, blah blah blah) however, by the time the creation story was written, the author is supposedly moses being told of these events by god, on a mountainside, alone .... sounds like an ancient joseph smith to me)

      My Star Wars analysis was sort of saying that the orignals were the OT and later 3 were the NT and yes, it did change perspective on the testements to say I thought it was about Abraham but it's actually about Jesus, but more importantly my main point was that you can quote from star wars, you can say certain events happened in star wars, but anything that isn't in the movies that you believe happened is all supposition, there's no basis in fact. Admittedly I went a little overboard in that, but I was having fun writing about it, so I just went with it.

      "I try to carefully check what I believe in God back to the Bible. Sometimes I've found myself believing one thing and realizing I was wrong. So I try to correct myself."
      - Ok, I had to quote you on this because I'm having a hard time accepting it. After all this thread, where your telling me it's a guidebook, it's a history chronicled in faith, you read it with a grain of salt but now your saying your checking out your beliefs against this book, you've somehow erred in a specific belief and changed it to fit the biblical version? Why? Why change a belief that you came up with soul searching within yourself, presumably chatted with god about it, why use this errant guide/history book to change your belief so it fits more with this book?

      I also feel compelled to point out, maybe we can distill the teachings of jesus to "Love people" however jesus was a jew first and foremost and his preachings really only were supposed to be applied to jews and only jews, same thing with the 10 commandments before them. Thou shalt not kill (jews is implied), but it's perfectly acceptable and even encouraged to kill all you want outside of the faith. All of jesus's teachings and preachings were then taken from him by his disciples like Paul who then opened it up for anyone, seeing that this religion had merit but would die without followers, since the jewish community was pretty small and he was only getting a really small percentage of that small community, he had to expand to the gentiles and did so.

      Lastly, being absorbed into the force is something an atheist and a christian could both agree, I'd totally be down to become the force in the event of my death, however I still believe partying in hel.l with some star wars, some outback steakhouse bloomin onion and aussie fries actually sounds incredibly appealing.

      September 22, 2011 at 9:45 am |
  3. hippypoet

    @ Mathilda, check these sites out then get back to me on your thoughts...

    http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

    http://askdrbrown.org/ask-dr-brown/35-ask-dr-brown/79-what-is-the-original-hebrew-name-for-jesus-and-is-it-true-that-the-name-jesus-greek-isssous-is-really-a-pagan-corruption-of-the-name-zeus

    September 20, 2011 at 10:41 am |
    • Mathilda

      Hippy, I won't. Explain yourself or forget it. I didn't like your language in the last time. Behave yourself.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:43 am |
    • hippypoet

      ok, here is the most simple way i can think to understand the bible.. first i need to ask do you take the bible as the word of god?

      September 20, 2011 at 10:46 am |
    • Mathilda

      Hippy, the Bible IS the inerrant Word of God. Hippy, I'm sorry I must leave now. Meet me in the newer news post a day later.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:50 am |
    • William Demuth

      I am not sure, but I think Hippy is dating Mathilda!

      Hippy and Matilda sittin in a tree, K I S S I N G!

      September 20, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • hippypoet

      ya cut me deep just then william, ya cut me deep! i would never ever date such a close minded fool... also the reason why my wifes mother and I don't talk anymore! 🙂

      September 20, 2011 at 11:13 am |
    • William Demuth

      hippypoet

      I for one love using the pover of the pipe to sway them from their wicked ways.

      Take one for the team and convert this whacko!

      September 20, 2011 at 11:28 am |
  4. Gezus

    Hate is a demon on the back of humanity

    September 20, 2011 at 10:35 am |
    • Mathilda

      You need to hate what is evil. You can't love falsehood and stay good.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:38 am |
    • herbert juarez

      Then Mathilda is one of the most evil people in the world. The falseness is loved by Mathilda to her eternal damnation.

      September 20, 2011 at 8:57 pm |
  5. William Demuth

    TruthPrevails

    Matilda: dear leader? you mean William's grandparents? they would have been the main guiding force for his parents
    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Actually to understand my primary giding force, I suggest you go the the Wikipedia page on Karl Marx, and search for my last name.

    It might provide you some insight into my persepective.

    September 20, 2011 at 10:23 am |
    • Mathilda

      William, Jesus alone can save you from your hellish ideology and evil traditions of any kind.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:29 am |
    • William Demuth

      Mathilda

      Jesus leads a cult of Pedophilles.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • Mathilda

      William, you are wrong. Christians are the most loving, sacrificial and pure-hearted people.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:33 am |
    • You're a Cook

      Demuth, a housemaid

      September 20, 2011 at 10:40 am |
    • William Demuth

      Mathilda

      Christianity is Syphilis with powder on the sores.

      It is a disease that leaves its victims blind and mad.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:41 am |
    • William Demuth

      You're a Cook

      Actually I am a Databse designer and nerd!

      September 20, 2011 at 10:44 am |
    • Jimtanker

      @ Mathilda

      "Christians are the most loving, sacrificial and pure-hearted people."

      Then explain to us the Crusades, the Inquisitions, State/Church supported slavery. Thanks.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:45 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      definitely did that 🙂

      September 20, 2011 at 10:46 am |
    • Mathilda

      William, no. Christianity is the only good thing that this planet has and it rescued more than 10 billion people so far. You Westerners were all worthless sa-va-ges if you had no Christianity. Christianity was the only good thing about the Western Civilization, nothing else.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:46 am |
    • William Demuth

      Mathilda

      How is saving your kind something I want?

      We have FAR too many of you already. Like an infestation of indoctrinated vermin, I have always thought the best treatment you warrant is euthanasia.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:49 am |
  6. TruthPrevails

    @William: you're great at picking apart the delusional minds of people...please have fun with the following post located on page 14. Would enjoy hearing your opinion of the delusion. 🙂

    "on September 20, 2011 at 12:17 am, Mary Hillsbrough
    The Lord provides funds for the work that they do. He will always provide for those doing His work."

    September 20, 2011 at 9:54 am |
    • William Demuth

      Perhaps the Temptations said it best

      Hey Mama, is it true what they say,
      that Papa never worked a day in his life?
      And Mama, bad talk going around town
      saying that Papa had three outside children and another wife.
      And that ain't right.
      HEARD SOME talk about Papa doing some store front preaching.
      TalkIing about saving souls and all the time leeching.
      Dealing in debt and stealing in the name of the Lord.

      Mama just hung her head and said,
      "Papa was a rolling stone, my son.
      Wherever he laid his hat was his home.
      (And when he died) All he left us was ALONE."

      September 20, 2011 at 10:16 am |
  7. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Addled/Mathilda is so crazed she honestly thinks all Americans are at fault for the problems the nation is facing. I wonder, Addled, whom do you blame for YOUR country's problems-because they're certainly far more serious than any here. If they weren't, you wouldn't be so keen to return to the US. If your hometown is so fabulous, then why is it you're so busy trying to get out?

    September 20, 2011 at 9:49 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      she thinks she can save the world b/c she believes the voices she hears will guide her...what she tends to forget is the USA is not a divided country unlike the one she resides in

      September 20, 2011 at 9:56 am |
    • Mathilda

      My home countries and my region never had such rich Protestant intelligence and discipline like USA did. Therefore you secular Americans are hopelessly more stupid and far more evil than the rest of mankind. Poor your Founding Fathers! We will have your land since you betrayed them.

      September 20, 2011 at 9:56 am |
    • Mathilda

      Tom, you don't get it. I don't need to return to USA. I love USA because I love the Founders and want to see my Christian friends there and also because you hate me so much. I just wonder how much annoyance I will be to you if I'm physically present in USA.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:00 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      @Matilda: once again...the USA is not a christian nation nor has it ever been...when will you get that through that thick skull of yours? As previously pointed out to you by numerous other people, if anything the founding fathers were deist ( a person who believes that god created the universe and then abandoned it; as.suming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation)
      Once again you prove how uneducated you really are! Thank you for continuing to prove our point and helping our side!

      September 20, 2011 at 10:17 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What a hoot. Mathilda thinks that I'll be "annoyed" if she shows up here, among millions of people in a huge country.

      Dufus, thy name is Mathilda.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:21 pm |
  8. Bo

    I can't believe you people are still on this topic, but Tessa, 1:24am has some very good advise: "...ignore the behavior and don't feed it...."

    September 20, 2011 at 9:15 am |
  9. William Demuth

    Matilda

    I suspect it is the South Korean Christians who shall end up in a camp in North Korea

    Just like you.

    The Dear Leader will enjoy PERSONALLY reeducating you, as he did your parents.

    September 20, 2011 at 8:48 am |
    • Mathilda

      That won't affect me as I'm not South Korean. The dear leader is yours, not mine. Koreans are one big family, unlike unrelated parasites living in USA like you.

      September 20, 2011 at 9:26 am |
    • William Demuth

      Mathilda

      A slope is a slope is a slope.

      September 20, 2011 at 9:47 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      Matilda: dear leader? you mean William's grandparents? they would have been the main guiding force for his parents

      September 20, 2011 at 9:58 am |
    • Mathilda

      @T-P-, William is talking about the brutal atheistic North Korean dictator – his own kind but not his blood relative.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:03 am |
    • William Demuth

      Mathilda

      Marx was my blood.

      Pure by any standard

      September 20, 2011 at 10:06 am |
    • William Demuth

      Mathilda

      Besides, you KNOW the son considers himself Christ, so in the end if they worship him, aren't they really Christian?

      September 20, 2011 at 10:08 am |
    • Mathilda

      William, the North Korean regime is the atheism gone insane. They knew about Christianity and could not eradicate the beliefs in God, so they require every North Korean to worship the dead man mimicking the Christian format. Ancestor worship is common in Asia. The tyranny is most brutal in North Korea among mankind.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:14 am |
    • William Demuth

      Mathilda

      This is ironic coming from a suspected ChiCom.

      He is Maoist, as I suspect you were ALSO raised.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:18 am |
    • Mathilda

      William, no... I've been in different places. I never had a home. Israel and USA are my hearts' homes. American Christian missions helped us. Will you please believe I love your country? I'm grieving because kids like you say non-sense about my Christian America.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:23 am |
    • William Demuth

      Mathilda

      Child. I am old enough to be your father.

      In fact, I MAY actually be your father.

      I have a taste for crazy asian zealots.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • Mathilda

      William, are you 100 years old? You need repentance before it's too late.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:31 am |
    • herbert juarez

      Repent William! Repent before she jumps your bones! LOL

      September 20, 2011 at 9:01 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      the preceding is a false post
      only the gutless do not have the courage to represent themselves fairly and find the need to attach themselves to someone else
      fakes leave an electronic trail that is easy to follow

      September 20, 2011 at 9:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, herbie, you're the only real post here. At least you're as dumb as one.

      September 20, 2011 at 10:23 pm |
  10. hippypoet

    down with chrestus and the chrestusians... screw joshua in his unholy @ss

    September 20, 2011 at 8:25 am |
    • hippypoet

      source page.....yeah found it!

      http://askdrbrown.org/ask-dr-brown/35-ask-dr-brown/79-what-is-the-original-hebrew-name-for-jesus-and-is-it-true-that-the-name-jesus-greek-isssous-is-really-a-pagan-corruption-of-the-name-zeus

      September 20, 2011 at 8:28 am |
    • hippypoet

      some more historical source pages... and just to let ya all confused folks know, by providing this info does in no way make me a follow of this fake clearly brainwash type belief system... i am more a buddhist than anything, but i still hold to that i am nothing...

      anyway, the source page – http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

      September 20, 2011 at 8:36 am |
    • Honest-to-god-pagan-christian

      GOD hates Figs. You know it. I know it. He'll hate figs to the ends of this earth. He'll rip every last one and send them straight to hell where they'll raisin their poor miserable lives for eternity.

      September 20, 2011 at 8:54 am |
    • hippypoet

      @ HONEST – dude! really! why must the ignorance of christians ruin my perfectly listed soucres... do you have a problem with undeniable truth? or is it that you just enjoy being a moron?

      September 20, 2011 at 9:38 am |
    • Axing You A Question

      So the only reason you would keep saying "Joshua" when everyone else is saying "Jesus" is because you got it from one source and that source is a Christian extremist?
      I guess you're just a troll who likes to confuse people. If everyone is using a particular word to describe a person, why not just go with the flow? We aren't speaking Latin, Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew here. We need to focus and we need YOU to focus also.
      When you keep saying "Joshua" most people are going to assume you're talking about that guy with a loud coat, not Jesus.
      Then they are going to wonder if you are completely lost and not even on the right website. Cut it out.
      Get your information from a neutral source, not a religious extremist. He's a hater. Fuuck haters.

      September 20, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
    • Jack O'Tack

      Saying "fuuck haters" means you're a hater. Good one.
      How about "fuuck religious extremists"? That works much better.

      September 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
  11. Ainjeh

    KM – you are an idiot.

    September 20, 2011 at 7:56 am |
    • Jimtanker

      At least he knows how to reply to a post. You dont seem to grasp that concept.

      He seems like a very rational person to me.

      September 20, 2011 at 8:21 am |
  12. Reality

    Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.

    Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospels being mostly fiction.

    Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side (Westboro Baptist is beyond the odd side) believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European, white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!

    So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher man or his followers would do or say?????????????????????????????????????????????????

    September 20, 2011 at 7:49 am |
    • Julie T

      How could one person remain so popular over thousands of years? Simple. If he was actually crazy he would never gain so much recognition and hold it. He wasn't lying–this is the same guy that split time in half.

      September 20, 2011 at 8:57 am |
    • JF

      How could one person remain so popular over thousands of years?

      Google "brainwashing". That should cover it.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:29 pm |
    • Flash

      Julie T, "–this is the same guy that split time in half."

      Please look up the origination of the BC/AD calendar. It was the idea of a 5th century monk of a very powerful (politically, socially, etc.) Church.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Julie T.
      Thor is more popular than ever these days! I guess He must be real too.
      Gilgamesh's story has been told for far longer than Christ's. I guess ancient babylonian centenarian demi-god rulers are real.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
    • Flash

      Doc Vestibule,

      Yeah...

      All English-speaking people honor the Moon (Monday), the god Tyr (Tuesday), god Woden (Wednesday), god Thor (Thursday), goddess Friga/Freyja (Friday) and god Saturn (Saturday) and the Sun (Sunday) every week... and god Janus (January), the pagan ritual of Februa (February), god Mars (March), goddess Maia (May), and goddess Juno (June) every year.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
    • .........

      spam alert you have been taken in by copy paste spam hit report abuse to all reality posts

      September 21, 2011 at 7:44 pm |
  13. Lisa

    Why does the Westboro cult still enjoy the tax-exempt status of a church? Why do people accept that they are a "church"?

    The Foo Fighters served them but removal of their tax-exempt status for this hate-cult would serve them even better.

    September 20, 2011 at 7:33 am |
    • William Demuth

      They don't actual have any donors.

      They make money from lawsuits, so whoever decides to assasinate him need to be quite carefull.

      Criminal conviction for his murder would be unlikely, but civil penalties would be quite high.

      Perhaps a vet who has agent orange related terminal cancer might once again step up to serve his country?

      We can only hope.

      September 20, 2011 at 8:51 am |
    • DamianKnight

      Because regarless of whether we like the message, they are still a religious organization. It's a slippery slope argument to remove their tax-exempt status, because at what point do you draw the line?

      September 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
  14. Just A Person

    How did a "church" decide that "God hates" anything? I have read the Bible, many different versions of it and translations and I have not found the words "God" and "hate" in the same sentence ANYWHERE. This church is a hate group cult and when they show up anywhere spreading their "HATE" message, they need to be arrested, prosecuted and removed from the general populace because they are dangerous only to themselves. This needs to happen before one or more of them gets hurt or killed. So far they have only picked on nice innocent and loving people. Someday they're going to find out that not everybody is nice and loving and there are INDEED a great many hateful murderous people that won't put up with their crap and can dish out and give them not only a taste of their own HATE but much much worse evil then their simple minds can imagine. Jesus and God DOES NOT have anything to do with this "church" of liars, zealots and rabble rousers. Jesus Christ will denounce and punish this "church" most vehemently!

    September 20, 2011 at 5:15 am |
    • KM

      You sound almost as insane as they do.

      Religion makes otherwise decent people stupid. You are no exception obviously.

      September 20, 2011 at 6:19 am |
    • Offthegrid

      I skip replies that are longer than two lines as a rule. I have found longer than two lines are usually some puffed up freak that thinks their opinion is so important.

      September 20, 2011 at 7:03 am |
    • Jeff

      I don't think that the Westboro people are on track. However,

      Deuteronomy 12:31
      You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

      Deuteronomy 16:22
      and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the LORD your God hates.

      Malachi 2:16
      “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” [Or “I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “because the man who divorces his wife covers his garment with violence,”] says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.

      September 20, 2011 at 7:34 am |
  15. Chris Cotter

    Here it is...Where was jesus at 9-11? where was jesus when i lost my business. Where was jesus when I went to the Christian help center in my city for help, and they sent me away with a box of corn flakes for my kid. Foo fighters, black sabbath, or wham for that matter. wht's the difference. Music is the international language, and the only one that everyone seems to speak. Too badd about the church. If they actually read their bibles they'd realize that you can not blame anyone for your inadequacies, even if you're no good at preaching the word of your "god"

    September 20, 2011 at 4:47 am |
  16. scndnv

    Ok, so a church has convictions and beliefs.. So..?

    September 20, 2011 at 4:41 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      when those convictions and beliefs intrude on another person's right to freedom, they become an issue...the WBC protests too much. protesting the at the tragedy of such things as an air flight disaster or intruding on a soldiers families right to grieve or protesting against gay rights is not normal.

      September 20, 2011 at 6:28 am |
  17. Scared

    Dave Grohl: My hero!

    September 20, 2011 at 4:11 am |
  18. yannaes

    Balance is the key!

    September 20, 2011 at 3:06 am |
  19. Mathilda

    Why are Americans so obsessed with this church? USA has more problems than this church does. Americans need proper education so they won't get addicted to Westboro or drugs.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:42 am |
    • Honest-to-god-pagan-christian

      Because, neechan, we despise anybody who would try to assert their will on to the will of the people. Jesus didn't – in fact HE had the good sense to tell his followers to worry about their own sin before bothering others about their sin. Remember that? Or do you have Leviticus crammed so far down your throat that you don't remember the message of the Gospels? (I was going to say 'shoved up your @ss' but I didn't want to be crass, on account you being a girl and all – btw, need some lubricant to get that out?).

      September 20, 2011 at 9:03 am |
  20. Mathilda

    USA was created by Christians for Christians. All atheists in USA should be shipped to North Korea.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:41 am |
    • Stan DAMAN Buie

      Sounds like you are yourself ready to join Westboro Baptist Church. Give them a call.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:43 am |
    • fred bazzeeda

      Mathilda, go back to your brainwashing, uneducated, ignorant cave.
      You absolutely have no idea of how the USA was founded and the idea of the founding fathers.
      Btw, believing in fairytales are for children. Forcing your beliefs of invisible men in the sky who have absolute control over everything is first of all, ludicrous and second, full of hypocrisy.
      peace, love and unity. not holier than thou – pseudo self righteous figments of non-reality

      September 20, 2011 at 3:50 am |
    • Mathilda

      There won't be peace, love or unity in USA because Americans are immoral and they blaspheme.

      September 20, 2011 at 4:28 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      I hear Fred Phelps is looking for you to return...quick now child, go...try to keep your delusions within your cult and not in public!

      September 20, 2011 at 4:36 am |
    • scndnv

      Atheists, believers - you're all just as hateful. I think it's actually an american thing..

      September 20, 2011 at 4:43 am |
    • Zach

      Mathilda, did you know that many of the forefathers of the United States were, in fact, not christians, but deists. Just a thought… As an aside, I often find the deists' belief system far more palatable than that of the modern christian.

      September 20, 2011 at 4:53 am |
    • Chris Cotter

      I'm sorry Mathilda. THe Us has every religion on the face of the earth. What about freedom? More people have died and been reduced to poverty because of christians than anyone else. Check yourself. america is not just for Christians. If it were, you wouldn't have the problems of a rock band supporting a protest against your belief system. Stop thinking "what about me?" and start thinking what about "us"? Jesus was an important Jew, remember that.

      September 20, 2011 at 5:00 am |
    • KM

      If my lifestyle is considered amoral then I don't really care what morals your religion has given you!

      Eat, Drink, and be merry! For to dust we turn again.

      (seriously though, religion is for people who are too stupid, fearful, weak-willed, brainwashed, etc. to live life on their own)

      September 20, 2011 at 6:23 am |
    • TruthPrevails

      once again you babbling fool...the USA is not nor has it ever been a christian nation

      September 20, 2011 at 6:29 am |
    • JayDubya

      Australia called and said you have to come home now

      September 20, 2011 at 8:43 am |
    • Honest-to-god-pagan-christian

      Bwahahahahahaha! I guess that's news to the Jews who were there... LMAO

      September 20, 2011 at 8:56 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Dweeb.

      September 20, 2011 at 9:07 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.