 |
|
|
|
 Fred Phelps, the founder of Westboro Baptist Church, has been a controversial figure in American Christianity.
March 17th, 2014
10:05 AM ET
Westboro Baptist Church founder near deathBy Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN) - Westboro Baptist Church, the Kansas congregation known for picketing funerals with anti-gay signs, called reports that its founder, Fred Phelps, is near death "speculative." "Fred Phelps has health issues," the church said in a statement Sunday, "but the idea that someone would suggest that he is near death, is not only highly speculative, but foolish considering that all such matters are the sole prerogative of God." Nathan Phelps, the estranged son of Fred Phelps, posted a Facebook message Sunday saying his father was "at the edge of death" at a hospice in Topeka, Kansas, where Westboro Baptist Church has long been a controversial presence. Nathan Phelps also said his father had been excommunicated from the church. "I'm not sure how I feel about this," he added. "Terribly ironic that his devotion to his god ends this way. Destroyed by the monster he made."
Westboro declined to say whether or not its patriarch has been excommunicated. The church's statement said that "membership issues are private" and that eight unnamed "elders" lead the Westboro congregation. A church spokesman declined to respond to follow-up questions. Fred Phelps founded Westboro Baptist Church in 1955 and molded it in his fire-and-brimstone image. Most of the small congregation are members of Phelps' extended family. Nathan Phelps is one of several relatives who left the church in recent decades. He lives in Canada, according to his Facebook page. MORE ON CNN: 'Most-hated,' anti-gay preacher once fought for civil rights Despite its "Baptist" name, Westboro is not affiliated with any larger church denomination. Most Christians criticize the congregation's harsh anti-gay rhetoric and penchant for pursuing the limelight at inappropriate moments. According to the church's website, it has picketed more than 53,000 events, ranging from Lady Gaga concerts to funerals for slain U.S. soldiers. Typically, a dozen or so family members - including small children - brandish signs that say "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers." Westboro's website keeps a running tally of "people whom God has cast into hell since you loaded this page." By the church's idiosyncratic logic, God's damnation, including the death of U.S. soldiers, is the price to pay for the country's acceptance of "sins" such as homosexuality. Despite the protests' unpopularity, the Supreme Court upheld Westboro's right to picket military funerals on free speech grounds in 2011. Several states, though, have passed laws aimed at keeping the controversial church at a distance from funerals. "I feel sad for all the hurt he's caused so many," Nathan Phelps said of his father on Sunday. "I feel sad for those who will lose the grandfather and father they loved. And I'm bitterly angry that my family is blocking the family members who left from seeing him, and saying their good-byes."
Next entry »Will American Jews back Hillary?
« Previous entryFive things you didn't know about Jesus
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
The world is a better place today.
Ramen. A bitter, vitrolic old man.
And apparently is now dead.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/us/westboro-church-founder-dead/index.html
"Nathan Phelps also said his father had been excommunicated from the church."
Is any of this a surprise? I'm sure the schisms in that little group will continue. And they are bound to continue with the rest of the over 41,000 sects of insanity. They can't help it – that's the way of the Christian. The motor-mouthed Saul of Tarsus layed out the blurry canvas for conflict and judgment – and with no decent evidence for his claims. His words, that if cleverly used, can back any side of any argument winning popularity through fear – believe or you will burn.
Also in the news – Franklin Graham supports Putin's crackdown on gays.
Also in the news – Pope postpones trip to Uganda for canonization of Uganda Martyrs. Yeah – I bet the pope doesn't want to make a fool of himself this year like Benedict did a couple of years ago – accepting a Christmas gift from one of Uganda's top ministers of a promise to push the "kill all the gays" bill through their legislature.
Also in the news, pastor James David Manning: "Jesus Would Stone Homos". This coming from the vitriolic pastor of the ATLAH World Missionary Church in Harlem who rants constantly about Obama, even making derogatory comments about Michelle's physical characteristics.
=====
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! With the rational respect that is due to it, knavish priests have added prostitutions of it, that fill or might fill the blackest and bloodiest pages of human history." -John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson
I still wonder why he was excommunicated from the church he founded. I haven't see an actual reason stated.
That is very silly Doris!! 😉 You are on the verge of a Panic attack that can get you into a brawl even an stampede. If you do get into a brawl or an stampede, then you are bigger than the elephant in the room. You cannot hide behind the elephant in the room anymore. Neither will you be able to hide again before the alleged hypocrisy of others, because yours will ALWAYS be bigger. Those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic Those who do not including those who fake-it will indeed PANIC.
(maybe this his panic pull-string toy has cheap batteries in it if we're lucky.....lol)
“I even I may be his Panic!!”
What does this mean? Although you didn't write this in the above post, I that you write this often. I’ve never seen ‘I even I’ used before. Meaning, please?
Thanks.
I expect it's just a worn out pun on Hispanic.
I'm curious why you would cite as authority on what is truly moral a man (Jefferson) who thought nothing of owning and most certainly violating his female slaves.
I don't think Doris intended Jefferson as an authority on morality.
The reference relates to the shortcomings of religion, which are self-evident in the quote.
Exactly. Besides, perhaps if Jefferson and Adams weren't so busy trying to deal with feuding religious sects, emancipation of slaves might have occurred sooner.
Certainly God never forbid slave use or violation thereof.
OK people clearly the man has suffer for a long time of anxiety, hysteria and Panic. That's because his confidence was misplaced. His understanding was blurred and clouded by his lack of knowledge, real belief and True Faith. He faked and that is the end result. However those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic. I even I may be his Panic!! 😉
" those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic."
LOL. Yes, that's what every Christian claims. But they certainly don't do a very good job of not panicking – especially as they look at each other and differ over what should cause panic.
For some, what alleviates their panic is to sacrifice people through their simultaneous worship of Jesus and Santa Muerte (Mexico). For some, what alleviates their panic is to throw a baby into a bonfire (Chile) claiming they have rid themselves of an antichrist.
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson
Clearly you may be suffering from anxiety which can lead to hysteria and Panic even an stampede. Whatever they do in Mexico is not my problem since I'm not there or from there. Your inability to differentiate cults and religions from real Faith and Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son is a clear indication of your absence and complete lack of Faith and Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son. Therefore you are faithless which leaves you ignorant and unable to differentiate and discern the abysmal differences. Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son, otherwise you will end up in a State of Panic, which can lead you to be in a brawl or stampede like an animal.
Blah blah blah – 41,000 sects of conflicted goat-herder worship are instigators of panic, not the solution.
"If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England." -Ben Franklin, while in London, to the London Packet
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." -James Madison, chief architect of the U.S. Constitution and eleven of the Amendments including the Bill of Rights
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Either you don't read well above 6th grade level or your inability to differentiate and discern is hampered by your Total ignorance of the Bible. You are about to go into an stampede much like an animal. Those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic. Those who don't and those who Fake it will Panic. I even I may be his Panic. However anxiety, hysteria and Panic are things very human and very animal, but that is because of the present state of mankind which is not much better than that of animals. Unless you are smaller than the elephant in the room you will not be able to hide behind it. You are on the edge of hysteria which can lead to Panic and to an stampede.
Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son and you WILL NOT Panic!!
Well if you don't call it panic then i'd at least say you are hyperventilating.
Also, if you don't want anyone to think you are "Hispanic" then you may want to change your moniker to something other than "His Panic"...
I don't know, neverbeen – pull His Panic's string again – see if we can get this dang toy to say something else.... lol
The ignorance of atheists is similar to that of Mrs. Sarah Palin!! 😀 Who tough that Africa was a country and could see Russia from Alaska was a qualification of international affairs. They [atheists] as Mrs. Palin and the immense majority of Americans are Totally clueless about the rest of the world beyond their closed and closeted cult like system. Hispanic is not the same as or does not means Mexican. Mexican is a nationality, Hispanic is an ethnicity, a term to designate someone who is or descend from people in Spain. The Romans back in the days of the Roman Empire called that region of Europe HISPANIA, just like they called another region GERMANIA from which you get Germany and Germans.
Panic however like anxiety and hysteria can overcome people and animals, leading them into stampedes. In the present conditions is natural for people and animals alike to fall victims to Panic. That is why for example, there was a Panic in a stadium in Nigeria. There are brawls, Panic and stampedes in Stadiums every year in Europe as well as in other countries.
That is because people do not Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son.
The "bright" one: "The ignorance of [blah blah blah]...Hispanic is not the same as or does not means Mexican. [blah blah blah]"
Who said it did? Are you arguing with someone else in your head??
The "bright" one: "Panic however like anxiety and hysteria can overcome people and animals, leading them into stampedes. [blah blah] That is why for example, there was a Panic in a stadium in Nigeria. There are brawls, Panic and stampedes in Stadiums every year in Europe as well as in other countries."
That's true and a majority of people who are into such major events (and also large religious gatherings) are religious and superstitious and love to PANIC! lol...
The "bright" one: "That is because people do not Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son."
Well, it may very well help you avoid panic, but history shows that, as much as anything else, religion and superstition causes people to panic and be at odds with one another for the silliest of reasons.
One reason people are at odds with one another over the Abrahamic religions is there is no decent evidence to support the supernatural from it. One may as well be a Mormon if you willing to believe all the unsupported mumbo jumbo that Saul of Tarsus claimed....
His panic = another deluded nut job.... yawn..
Well i don't know what any christian has against the westboro, since
Romans
24 Therefore aGod gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be bdishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for 1a alie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, bwho is blessed 2forever. Amen.
26 For this reason aGod gave them over to bdegrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, amen with men committing 1indecent acts and receiving in 2their own persons the due penalty of their error.
There are plenty others
rockswiki,
Yep. It's all pick and choose HYPOCRISY.
still trying to work that old pun I see.
Ah such a special club you belong to...sorry we don't share the same delusions, I much prefer reality.
Theo – We don’t know exactly why we are born with instinctual values / feeling of what is right and wrong (I’ll stop calling them morals since that seems to be distracting the conversation). Evidence suggests it’s a result of evolution, but let’s not go there. I think we can all pretty much agree that it is wrong to unnecessarily cause pain to others – whether that comes from instincts or is learned is not relevant to my point. If it’s wrong to needlessly cause pain to others, then it seems wrong to kill animals for our consumption. Again, I am an imperfect meat-eating person. You are the one who stated that it is not immoral to kill animals to eat and I was simply responding to such a questionable declaration.
Igaftr – I’m pretty sure your posts are usually rational and anti-religious, but your position here has a lot of obvious holes. The fact that you’re on Theo’s side should be the first indication that you’re not thinking straight. Your point about eating plants misses the point completely. Plants aren’t sentient beings capable of experiencing pain. We’re not talking about all life forms, we’re talking about animals that experience pain. The question is, why should we actively cause pain that is completely avoidable?
I'm on my way to a good Restaurant where I will order Filet-Mignon well done. I drank my coffee with milk this morning and I had with it for breakfast bacon with fried eggs. Animals like people do Panic and go into stampedes because of that. However those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic.
I didn't realize the insanity of the religious extended to their restaurant orders. Who the heck would order a filet mignon WELL-DONE?!? You might as well just eat your shoe.
Should I order then Medium-rare instead?
Uh, yeah, obviously. Or rare. No more than medium rare on a filet, ever.
If you were smart, you'd stay away from that beef and fix some black bean and spicy salsa soft tacos with fresh asadero cheese.
I've never heard of someone having filet well-done, though. That's nuts.
Never mind I called the Rest. out of my budget for this week! 😦 :-O I'll have to wait till after Pay day! 😦
Go to Wendy's, get a bacon double cheeseburger and be thankful that as a Christian you get to ignore whatever parts of Leviticus you like.
Medium rare is burned as far as I am concerned.
LOL – good one, Doc.
"However those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic."
What on earth are you talking about? Fred Phelps "trusts in God and in Jesus" but he suffered from anxiety and panic all the time. He spent much of his life dealing with said anxiety by beating his wife and children before moving on to verbally abusing gay man and lesbians. Look up "Addicted to Hate" a biography of much of Fred Phelps' life. You'll see how little his "trust in God" did to allay his fears or even inspire him to become a halfway decent person.
He Faked it all this time. His "trust" evidently was not real Trust. Which is contrary to what I been saying. He "trusted" in a personal and very particular interpretation that went unchecked. Like most wrong interpretations is usually and loosely based on a grain of truth but not on the Whole Truth of Jesus Christ the One and Only Son of God. He is very wrong when he says that God hates the hom.ose.xuals. What God Hates (and HE does Hates), is the SIN not only of Hom.ose.xua.lity but also as well ALL others SINS. Because SIN caused death and when God Create man in the beginning was to have immortality. SIN caused death, suffering and Separation from God. Which God Hates, but NOT THE SINNERS.
"Like most wrong interpretations"
LOL
His panic......... "sin", like god, is a man made concept... imaginary... not real... made up. So sorry for your personal delusion.
seavik
" Plants aren’t sentient beings capable of experiencing pain"
Are you so sure?
Do a google search for plants feel pain, since this won't post with the url's.
There have been a number of studies that do indicate responses from plants that may well be pain. It is a different form that creatures with a brain, but your infromation is likely not as cut and dry as you think.
All you are doing is stating something that may not be true...check out some of the studies conducted and you just might change your mind.
You are still deciding which life you can eat and which life to spare, so it is not a morality thing at all, as many vegans and vegetarians like to claim. It may well be that the plants know more than you think.
Ok, so let me get this straight. Your position is that we cause as much pain whether we kill plants or kill animals and since we need to eat, it makes no difference whether we kill plants or animals from a moral perspective. I have to say, that's pretty idiotic. Using that logic, torturing dogs causes less harm than going for a walk in the park (think of the pain all those blades of grass must endure!).
for all you know, those blades of grass are screaming in pain, in their own way.
Your point is that an option with less suffering is better.
On a friends farm, they do not take ANY precautions to protect the plants from feeling pain, even though it appears to be a false assumption that they do not feel pain...they just might.. They do though, when killing a cattle, make sure the animal is stunned and killed very swiftly. By your logic, if the plants feel more pain than the animal, who feels nothing then we should eat the cattle, not the plants.
Since you do not know what pain or how much either the animal nor the plants feel, your argument falls apart.
What if we find that plants do in fact feel pain?
My point is that the assumption that plants do not feel pain is possibly incorrect, AND you are in fact eating billions of tiny animals with every bite of anything, that no matter what you do, something must die for you to live ( except in the case of most fruits or nuts where the plant does not die in supplying the food, although you are eating plant ovaries.
You have decided that plant life is secondary to animal life. One does not have to make any animals suffer in order to kill them and harvest the material, but what precautions do you take to minimize the plants suffering, if that is in fact what they do?
From a truly moral standpoint is one form of life really that different from another?
If we find that plants feel pain, I'll revise my view accordingly. In the meantime, I find the idea preposterous. And I did google it as you suggested and the top results clearly differentiate between reacting to stimuli (which does occur) vs. feeling pain (which requires a brain and nervous system, which plants don't have).
seavic
"feeling pain (which requires a brain and nervous system, which plants don't have)."
You mean as far as we know. Perhaps it is pain, perhaps not. They do respond to stimuli, which was thought to be preposterous until recently.
There are many forms of Jellyfish, and various other animals, that have no brain...by your thinking you can eat them.
Just because something does not conform to our current knowledge does not mean we can make assumptions about it.
The fact remains...in order for the food to be grown, animals must die.
Dig a plow line in the soil...how many worms died in that act?
When they harvest...how many worms, birds nests, underground dwellers such as mice and moles die in planting/harvesting the veggies? No matter what you do, no matter what you eat, animals, insects, microbes etc. ALL died.
If I eat an ear of corn, and to make that ear of corn, 20 earth worms, 34 insects died, 10 trillion single celled creatures died, 5 mice and 2 moles died in the planting and harvesting....is it still moral to eat that corn? Or would it be better to NOT grow that corn and just eat the worms, insects, mice and moles?
Whether or not you eat meat or just vegetation, things died to make it happen. There is no morality at play here...it is perceived morality.
If you can't understand the concept of minimizing the amount of pain one causes, I don't know what else to tell you.
I understand that this is a complex issue – is killing a dog the same as killing an ant? (Not in my opinion.) But I think anyone who acts like there are no ethical questions to ponder regarding whether or not to kill and consume an animal is in serious denial.
Plants have reflexes. They "know" nothing. They lack the mechanisms for "processing" information. They have no genetics and epigenetics for memory. You're doing "anthropomorphism" at it's worst. Try to go learn some science, and Neuro-chemistry.
in the end the only question that really matters is 'did you learn to love?'
we're here to love the unlovely, and the unloved. (not saying this is easy, however as they say, the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step)
"If you want to love me [Father], then love the people you see; what you do for them, you do for me. If you want to show that your life is intended to serve God, then let it serve people, yet continually with the thought of God"
"we're here to love the unlovely, and the unloved."
That's certainly one opinion. A nice one granted, but an opinion none the less.
What can one say about such a man? Death is too good for him. He was a true Christian though, so credit for that.
Well, CS, he'll die and he'll die hoping that he gets his "etenal reward." Like all christians, he'll die praying for salvation and the forgivness of his sins. Yes, credit for that, if you're a xtian, but there isn't a god to cash in that credit, and like all of us, we just die. No heaven, no hell. Just a blank page after that. Fini
Yes, fini for him and everything he imagined in his reality. But for us, for now, his particles live on as minerals; mineral that might get in our water...
It's like dying and leaving a bank vault full of monopoly money to your heirs...
Good one!!!!
Since you've never been dead,"Snuffleupagus",what do base your info on inre the non-existence of God,heaven and hell,etc?
I don't know about Snuffy, but I'd like a crack at this. I would "base [my] info on inre the non-existence of God,heaven and hell,etc" on the absolute lack of even a shred of hard verifiable evidence for these extraordinary claims, and the fact that even after thousands of years of frantic and determined efforts by the most ardent and intelligent proponents of these claims, they still have been completely unable to demonstrate them in any testable manner.
If it were any other claim outside religion, none of us would even bother having the discussion.
Anyone else find it odd that the regular posters here (believers) have avoided this story like the plague ?
Ezekiel 18:23-24 – Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord God, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.
Are you able to provide any signs of actual thought, or just copy and paste random quotes from a work of fiction?
That is a rhetorical question, isn't it?
Yeah, well, humans who make up stuff, and claim a deity says it, need medication.
Just because it's in an ancient book, is no reason a modern human should pay any attention to it, TP.
Midwest rail,
There aren't too many bragging about how he can make it to heaven and all he has to do is to repent on his deathbed.
There is that, true – what I find odd is that the vast majority are only too happy to invoke Leviticus to condemn gay people, but distance themselves from someone who took it more seriously than they do.
God requires repentance – whether it is from the man who hates sodomites, or whether it is the sodomite himself, BOTH are commanded to repent.
There was a battle that took place under the command of Alexander the Great, and in the heat of battle, a young man ran from the battlefield – a coward. After the battle was won, Alexander called for the young man to stand before him, and he asked him why he ran. He said that he was afraid. Alexander then asked him what his name was, and he mumbled something under his breath, so he asked him to speak up. Raising his voice, the young man said “my name is Alexander.” Thinking about this for a moment, Alexander the Great looked at the young man and said “young man, change your att.itude, or change your name.”
In that sense, John wrote in 1 John 3:4-10:
“Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.” (cf Matthew 7:21-23)
So, young man who calls yourself a Christian yet lives in sin – change your att.itude, or change your name!
If a real Christian does not sin, there are no True Scotsmen.
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. "
– 1 John 1:8
If you invoke Leviticus, how much of the Holiness Code do you adhere to ? And if you are consistent, how many gay people have you killed ?
Doc,
What he is saying is that no Christian lives in sin. No Christian practices a lifestyle of continuing, unrepentant sin.
"If you invoke Leviticus, how much of the Holiness Code do you adhere to ? And if you are consistent, how many gay people have you killed ?"
----------
We are not Israel living under the covenant of the law in that time. We are gentiles, living in the church age under the new covenant. Although it is still considered sinful, under the new covenant of grace, there is no longer a penalty of death. Yes, we may invoke Leviticus, Peter, Corinthians, Jesus' words in Matthew, and others to point to the sinfulness of sodomy, but the new covenant removes the penalty of death by the hands of men for this sin.
Is all sodomy a terrible sin, or just when it is two men?
Is any se/xual congress that doesn't involve va/ginal penetration inherently evil?
"Is all sodomy a terrible sin, or just when it is two men?
Is any se/xual congress that doesn't involve va/ginal penetration inherently evil?"
--------–
The Greek lexicon defines a sodomite not as an act specifically, but a ho.m.os.exual in general – meaning either male or female. The word "ar.senokoites" means a sodomite, and the city of Sodom was infamous for its rampant hom.ose.xuality – both of men and their women. Ergo the word "Sodomite" is meant to refer to one who has se.xual relations with the same s.ex. See also Romans 1:18-32
" Yes, we may invoke Leviticus,..."
If you are no longer bound by the old covenant, why invoke it at all ? If the rest of Leviticus is no longer applicable, why is this portion of it so popular ?
" Yes, we may invoke Leviticus,..."
If you are no longer bound by the old covenant, why invoke it at all ? If the rest of Leviticus is no longer applicable, why is this portion of it so popular ?"
-------------
The Levitical law was in place until the new covenant would come through Christ and replace it (Jeremiah 31:31, Luke 22:20)
There are 3 ways to determine if an OT law is applicable to the NT church:
a)Divide the Mosaic law into 3 components: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial
The Civil Laws are gone because we are not Israelites living in Israel in that time period
The Ceremonial Laws are gone because we have the Lamb slain once for all time (Jesus)
As a part of this, the dietary laws are gone – see Acts 11
The Moral Law (10 Commandments) ARE STILL applicable to the New Testament church today, except the Sabbath Law, the 4th Commandment. This is gone because under the New Covenant, we have a rest in Christ.
b)The OT law is not enforceable unless the NT says it is
c)The OT law is still enforceable unless the NT says it is not
Theo – there are many things we disagree on (and will, in all likelihood never agree on), but I appreciate your responses regarding Mr. Phelps.
@Theo
Check your translations.
AR.SENKOTAI – Has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "se.xual per.verts" (RSV), "sodo.mites" (NKJV, NAB, JB, NRSV), those "who are guilty of hom.ose.xual per.version" (NEB), "men who lie with males" (Lamsa), "behaves like a hom.ose.xual" (CEV), "men who have se.xual relations with other men" (NCV), and "ho.mose.xual offenders" (NIV). The New American Bible (Roman Catholic) translated ar.senokoitai as "practicing hom.ose.xuals".
'Ar.senokoitai' referred to male prosti.tutes for Paul and Christians until the 4th century.
Some say that "sodo/mite" refers to men who lust for other men even after getting jiggy with a woman.
But in reality, it refers to temple prosti/tutes.
The pagan Canaanite religious worship of the people of Sodom included the cultic, religious, se.xual activity which was forbidden by God in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18.
The Hebrew word for sodomites is qadesh, used in Deuteronomy 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46 and Job 36:14
It's not about same-gender relations – it is about se.xual idolatry and worshipping false gods.
"It's not about same-gender relations – it is about se.xual idolatry and worshipping false gods"
----------
It does refer to certain kinds of idolatry, sure, but you have to remember, all sin is idolatry, therefore when using the word ar.senokoitai, it refers to the idolatry (sinful act) of same gender s.ex. It does not refer strictly to temple prosti.tutes – that is eisegeting the text, forcing it to say something that it doesn't intend it to say. Sure, it CAN mean them, but it does not SOLELY refer to them. For instance, was Sodom destroyed solely because of the acts of their temple prost.itutes? If that is the case, then why was Corinth not destroyed?
Corinth was not destroyed because Sodom was supposed to serve as the example, it having been destroyed centuries before the Greek temple prost/itution in Corinth.
But we can debate the true reasons for God's wrath raining down upon the people of Sodom.
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it."
– Ezekiel 16:49
"But we can debate the true reasons for God's wrath raining down upon the people of Sodom."
---------–
Actually, no, it's not open to debate.
According to Genesis 19:1-29 ho.mose.xuality was the dominant iniquity that brought on the wrath of God, although there were other sins as well: they were exceedingly wicked and sinners, Genesis 13:13, they were arrogant, and they did not help the poor and needy, Ezekiel 16:48-49.
2 Peter 2:6-10 – …if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Go.morrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.
Clearly, Peter claims the sins of Sodom and Go.morrah was the “sensual conduct of unprincipled men” who “indulged their flesh in its corrupt desires,” and “despised authority.”
But again, the scripture you quote doesn't specifically mention ho/mose/xuality – sensual sin can be committed by heteros too.
Note that the passage from Peter actually corroborates the one from Ezekiel in pointing out that arrogance, inhospitality and rejection of God's authority were the prime factors in incurring God's wrath.
Doc,
So show me in scripture where God endorses ho.mo.se.xuality.
Doc,
Bible scholars have proclaimed the truth that ho.mo.se.xuality is sinful for as long as there have been Bible scholars. It is only recently since men have began to so adamantly assert that moral relativism is the only moral absolute that culture has began to readily accept sin as being moral, and see what is moral as being sin. "Woe to them who call good evil, and evil good." So said Isaiah.
Men like Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Owens, Edwards, Flavel, and many, many more have proclaimed the truth of what the Bible says about this sin. Are you trumping them and their scholarly credentials just because you wish to eisegete the text based on what culture deems acceptable? How does culture have anything to do with determining the truths of Scripture? The Bible is not the consti.tution. Of these two, only the consti.tution can be reinterpreted based on the opinion of the majority.
"Actually, no, it's not open to debate."
Theo, you are hilarious. You have obviously spent WAY too much time studying the bible. Imagine what you could do if you used that time and energy towards a productive endevor? You are like someone obsessed with Star Wars debating how "The Force" works, as if it's a real thing.
" Imagine what you could do if you used that time and energy towards a productive endevor?"
----------–
Actually, I make my own wood archery bows for target shooting and hunting!! Does that count?
"Actually, I make my own wood archery bows for target shooting and hunting!"
Killing animals? Uh, no, that doesn't count.
"Killing animals? Uh, no, that doesn't count."
-------–
I eat everything I kill from squirrels to deer and bear. We raise chickens at our house for eggs and meat, and grow our veggies. There's nothing immoral about killing to eat. If there is, then you've got a huge problem with animals in the wild then...
"There's nothing immoral about killing to eat."
There are many people who would disagree with that statement given it's not necessary to kill. I'm torn on the issue myself. Regardless, it's certainly not a fact as you've implied.
"Regardless, it's certainly not a fact as you've implied"
------
Are Tigers immoral when they kill to eat? Are Coyotes immoral? What about Orcas? Popoises? Man? If man is immoral when he kills to eat, why is he different from all the rest?
seavik
You kill all day long without eating your kills ( and eating many which kills them). Every breath, every movement, kill some microscopic organism. Even vegetarians ( which means lousy hunter) eat billions of life forms and kill them when they eat, so morality for killing animals to eat, ridiculous. We kill all day long, just don't notice it...not immoral, just the way it is.
Trust me, I've been through this debate more extensively than you (I have vegan relatives, although I'm not one). The obvious difference is that humans have no need to consume animal products to survive (and it's becoming more and more clear that it's much healthier to not consume animal products).
"and it's becoming more and more clear that it's much healthier to not consume animal products)."
---------
It's only unhealthy when you choose to eat meat "Approved by the FDA." I don't do that. My meat comes from the forest, not the supermarket.
Theo, now you're a nutrition expert? Is there any subject that you don't have the definitive answer on?
My main point is simply that killing animals uneccesarily is questionable from a moral perspective. As I said, I'm torn on the matter and do eat meat myself. But just saying it's ok because animals do it is a pretty stupid position.
"from a moral perspective."
----------–
I thought morals were relative? Are you saying that it COULD be absolutely immoral to kill an animal even for food?
If you don't want to eat meat, that's fine... I'm not debating over whether or not eating meat is wrong for you. I'm just raising questions of the source of morality for the situation – whether that is from a relative perspective or an absolute.
If morality is relative, then one can never say that such and such a thing is wrong. Only that it is wrong for YOU in your opinion. But one can never make a moral judgement on others.
"and it's becoming more and more clear that it's much healthier to not consume animal products)."
Not really. It depends on the individual. I know one family who was "vegan" who's daughter was chronically ill until they took her off the vegan diet. Once she was eating animal protiens, she gained her health.
Most people who calim vegetarian or "vegan" do not know enough about nutrition or in many cases have enough variety to choose a healthy diet.
If you were living off the land by yourself and a deer walked by, you would not hesitate.
I'm saying it's hard to see how it's not wrong to take the life of another being just because you like the way it tastes, when you have other options that are better for you to consume.
"I'm saying it's hard to see how it's not wrong to take the life of another being just because you like the way it tastes, when you have other options that are better for you to consume."
-------–
Wrong based on what? The Coyotes out my back door eat meat, as testified by the occasionally scattered feathers around my chicken coop, but my dog doesn't eat meat. Is my dog somehow right, and the coyotes wrong? Am I right or wrong because I don't feed my dog meat?
Wrong based on my instinctual knowledge of right and wrong. That's the problem with religious people – you think you need to get your morals from a book. I don't need a book to tell me that it's wrong to kill without good reason.
Forgive me if I don't think that anti-semitic, misogynistic, puritanical theologans are the best source of morality.
"Wrong based on my instinctual knowledge of right and wrong. That's the problem with religious people – you think you need to get your morals from a book. I don't need a book to tell me that it's wrong to kill without good reason."
---------–
If you're claiming morality comes from instinctual knowledge, your ancestors were hunters, so you should have no problem with eating meat. If you're claiming that a sense of morality comes from within us, then truly morality is relative, therefore there is no moral absolutes, therefore you can hold no judgment on others for any actions they may do because they themselves may be acting on their own instinctual knowledge and are merely "dancing to their dna."
Ok, Theo. If talking in circles helps you justify immoral behavior, good for you.
The world has changed over time. No one seriously thinks everything that our ancestors have done in the past would be moral to do today. Embarassingly bad logic.
Seavik,
Youre the one who brought it up. So tell me then, what informs your instinct that informs your morals. And if morality is relative, how CAN you make a judgment on others' actions?
seavik
It simply boils down to one thing. We need to consume life to sustain life. Is it more moral to consume plants?
Research is finding out that plants do talk to each other, they do have a form of language. You claim it is immoral to eat one life form, yet consume another.
We raise animals for food, we grow plants for food. We raise them, kill them and eat them, and you want to split hairs as to the nature of that life?
If you can survive without killing ANY other life forms, then perhaps you may have some moral ground, but otherwise, it is simply relative morality. There is not a single protein that did not come from some form of life, and we need proteins to live.
You simply cannot survive without eating life.
theo purports to speak for god again.
how pompous can he be?
"theo purports to speak for god again.
how pompous can he be?"
-----------–
Proclaiming the word of God is not pomposity, it is rather the duty and obligation over every saint.
This thread has gotten way too long so I will reply in a new post.
That is precisely what what it is theo.
Or, maybe we should just go by your given name, Saint Corn Pone
Theo Phileo,
Skip all the HYPOCRISY and read your Bible again. Sodom wasn't destroyed because there were gays there, the sin there was GREED.
Actually Alexander the Great WAS a "sodomite", you fool, TP.
Are you comparing your John to a sodomite "
If you actually knew anything, you would know that straight engage in "sodomy" as much if not more than anyone else.
Don't you think it's just a "wee" bit pompous and arrogant to think you, of all people, think you KNOW what the creator of 600 se'xtillion stars "requires". It certainly shouldn't need you to speak for it.
"Skip all the HYPOCRISY and read your Bible again. Sodom wasn't destroyed because there were gays there, the sin there was GREED."
--------
Nope. You're wrong. Read the Genesis account. I can list dozens of passages that speak to the sin of ho.mo.s.e.xuality, can you list ONE where the Bible endorses it?
" only the consti.tution can be reinterpreted based on the opinion of the majority."
Patently untrue. If that were the case, there would not have been a Protestant Reformation, nor would there be tens of thousands of sects of Christianity.
As for the theologans you list, many of their teachings and opinions are no longer considered relevant – for example, Calvin's misogyny and Luther's anti-semitism.
You seem steadfast in your condemnation of gays to the point that you yourself are rejecting scripture that calls your prejudice out.
I again put God's own words here for you to see:
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it."
– Ezekiel 16:49
The Lord God Almighty Himself makes NO mention of hom/ose/xuality as the reason He "removed them".
Are you doubting the Word of God? Do you think He is lying by omission? or perhaps just forgot to highlight the whole "gay" thing as a reason for destroying the city?
What difference does it make? you're arguing about a book of FICTION.
"f that were the case, there would not have been a Protestant Reformation,"
------------
Then sir you do not understand what the Protestant Reformation was. The Protestant Reformation was not a reinterpretation of the Biblical texts, rather, it was a return to proper Biblical teaching after the Council of Nicea in 325 created the hellish religion of Roman Catholicism. Romanism has perverted the teachings of the Bible for its own devices, and it took a bloody reformation from godly men to restore that which Satan has tried so desperately to destroy.
@Theo
And Jehovah's Witnesses say the exact same thing about how your brand of Christianity has gone astray and perverted the true meaning of the Bible.
But let me guess – they're not True Scotsmen either because nobody except for people who believe exactly the way you do have the right Tartan....
Ooooooh, here we go with Satan's hand in things..lol. Like when he allegedly performed plagiarism backward in time. "Diabolic mimicry" the early apologists such as Justin Martyr called it (plagiarism by anticipation). This was the best excuse several early apologists had as to why earlier pagan stories similar to the Gospels were fake. (Refute by controlling all the evidence, and scaring people with Satan, and you're bound to get some new customers for your new religion.)
Doc,
We have already been through this. You read Ezekiel 16 to the exclusion of Genesis 19 and 2 Peter 2. It is not I who am ignoring scripture, it is you. You ignore the plethora of teaching against the sin of ho.mo.se.xuality so that you can make the Bible say what you want it to say.
So what you have there, Theo, you know besides motor-mouthed Saul's best bud Luke? Do you have some names or other writings by that bunch of "500"? Who really authored Peter? Who really authored the Gospels? How many were involved in those writings? Anything? Just hearsay "historians"? I keep hearing about mountains of supporting evidence on file somewhere. Now is the time to get all that out, Theo. Let's fill in all these holes...
So what do you have there....
@Theo
What does 2 Peter 2 have to do with Hom/o/se/xuality?
Or are you implying that the Book of Ezekiel is false teaching?
He can be saved if he repents. But that is a big "if." Deathbed repentance is rare, but it happens. The thief of the cross is one example.
There is greatness in the mercies of God that He can save one even as wicked as me. If God can save the theif on the cross, If God can save Paul, a mass murderer of Christians, and if God can save me, He can save Mr. Phelps.
What makes you wicked?
Akira,
I do not understand how an all-knowing and all-powerful God can know what I did, and said, and thought on yesterday, and not kill me in my sleep last night. There is nothing in my life that is not tainted with the stench of sin.
theo
How utterly sad your religion teaches you that. It is absurd. I hope you get help...maybe your friends will care enough to do an intervention and save you from religion. One can hope.
That's the big joke, and also the greatest sales pitch for christianity.... sin sin sin... you can always be forgiven..... sin and sin again.... come back for more forgiveness..... a big load of poo-poo.
Theo: Your god is a vindictive, petty pr1ck and you are a snivellng sycophant. Thanks for playing, corn pone
best news i've heard all day
Good Lord in Heaven!! What was all that Photoshop on his pic. for? Just to make him look scary?
Anyways the old man is just one more victim of anxiety, Mass hysteria and Panic. Those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic.
I even I may be his Panic!!! 😉
If he really, really would Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son, he would not have fall victim to Panic like that.
God (Yahweh) had many sons. Actually HE was the 70th son of El Elyon, (the chief Babylonian deity).
"Son of god" was a general honorific ti'tle given to many people.
BTW : another bail in the coffin of Bible Thiumpers
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/
oops "nail"
Clearly you are a candidate to fall victim to the same anxiety hysteria and Panic as his.
Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son and you will Not Panic neither fall victim of hate, hysteria, Panic, ignorance and prejudice. Because those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic. 🙂
" those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic."
LOL. Yes, that's what every Christian claims. But they certainly don't do a very good job of not panicking – especially as they look at each other and differ over what should cause panic.
For some, what alleviates their panic is to sacrifice people through their simultaneous worship of Jesus and Santa Muerte (Mexico). For some, what alleviates their panic is to throw a baby into a bonfire (Chile) claiming they have rid themselves of an antichrist.
I even I may be his Panic!! 😉
"I even I may be his Panic!!"
What does this mean? I see that you write this often, but I've never seen 'I even I' used before. Meaning, please?
Thanks.
That's not Photoshop. That's what a person who is decaying from the inside out looks like.
The red in his face is his hate for gays...
lets picket his funeral......
may he rest in hell and that church burn down and all members die a HORRIBLE death
What about small children who are dragged there by their parents? Why would you kill them off?
I'm sure we could find a bible passage to justify it. There's probably many to choose from.
Christians must think belive that it is o.k. to hold kids responsible for their parents sins or the cocept of originsl sin woldn, t be found in the bible. With morals coming from god that means it is completely moral according to what Christians believe.
Why let his hate infect your life and fill your heart? If you can find no compassion for a man who has lived a life marred by so much anger and hatred, why not simply ignore his passing?
The best revenge, after all, is to live well.
Would you say the same about Stalin and Hitler?
Where do you draw the line?
Don't get me wrong, I struggle with this too.
The truth is hating him does nothing for you. Hate is a cancer that burns inside you, eating away at you.
I don't ask you to love him, only to love yourself enough to let go of the toxicity.
It isn't about him or what he's done. It's about you.
I usually don't like to badmouth someone who is dying or dead, but Phelps has made an art form out of speaking ill of the dead. So I say it is a good thing that he is close to death. I don't believe there is any sort of sacred eternal punishment awaiting Phelps, he will die, just like me and everyone else. But there's one thing I can rest assured of. On my deathbed, I will not be hated and reviled by millions of people across the country.
small children will be singing "Thank God for Dead Phelps."
As I have said in another thread, we all leave a trail in this world that marked our path and sadly there are a lot of people following in his footsteps.
Phelps' trail is one of ichor and bile...his followers become infected with disease.
^encountering ^is a ^experience
Westboro Baptist Church founder near death
?
What you put out to the world, comes back to you.
It really is too bad sometimes that hell isn't real. I'd feel good if this guy could go there. Oh well.
Yeah bummer. One of those cases where divine justice would a plus. Oh well.
Let me know when they schedule the funeral.
Oooooooohhhh, THAT will be good one!
Oh, they didn't tell you? It'll be on trash day.
like
The devil himself is salivating to get his fangs on this inhuman monster!
Fred is a jerk, but he is not known for killing innocent people. That places him much higher on the morality ladder than the Bible god.
Fred Phelps is more than the sum of his parts. If you can’t like the man, at least say a few nice words about his subatomic particles.
His subatomic particles suck.
It is easy to attack this man but remember that fleas have free will.