Poll: Controversial Protests

[tsb247]

Rather I'd think that it's obvious how much picking and choosing you do, relying on apologetics. Your choice though, but I won't respect it as much as I would of the literalists.

To address your first point, the whole, "Apologetics," part comes from the new testament. In many ways, the new testament undoes quite a few things that the old testament puts into place. No longer is man in bondage to sin, but rather our eternal debt (incurred by Adam way back in Genesis) is paid off. The whole idea is that we are still responsible for our actions, but rather we need to acknowledge our faults and know where we go wrong in order to better ourselves. The idea of repenting is more about the knowledge that we know and understand what is wrong and why.

I would also argue that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. To take the Bible literally is pure insanity seeing as there are things written in that book which do not even make sense. It does, however, make sense if viewed from a metaphorical point of view.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Rather I'd think that it's obvious how much picking and choosing you do, relying on apologetics. Your choice though, but I won't respect it as much as I would of the literalists.

To address your first point, the whole, "Apologetics," part comes from the new testament. In many ways, the new testament undoes quite a few things that the old testament puts into place. No longer is man in bondage to sin, but rather our eternal debt (incurred by Adam way back in Genesis) is paid off. The whole idea is that we are still responsible for our actions, but rather we need to acknowledge our faults and know where we go wrong in order to better ourselves. The idea of repenting is more about the knowledge that we know and understand what is wrong and why.

I would also argue that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally. To take the Bible literally is pure insanity seeing as there are things written in that book which do not even make sense. It does, however, make sense if viewed from a metaphorical point of view.

I understand the New Testament and the tale of jesus. The whole idea is that we can sin, but we need to acknowledge it and ask forgiveness not of the victim but of a man in the sky who caused sin to break out.

Certainly the whole book is not to be literal, but obvious sections like "Hey, see that homo? Kill him for being a homo" can't be taken as allogorical at all. It tells you of a sin in black and white format ignoring grey or without providing a rational reason and people eat it up anyway. I find that just insane.

 

[Skeleon]

I disagree. A symbol doesn't organize or rally groups of people, rather an idea does. Without the symbol there would still be a rallying. What symbol did the American's use against the swastica during the war? None, but plenty rallied against the Nazis.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject then.

In my opinion and to my knowledge, symbols have always been used to rally behind.
They are used to identify like-minded individuals. They create a social structure to which individuals may be bound. Their meanings are ideas or values that members of said structure identify with. Saying a symbol has no power is, to me, pretty short-sighted.

Well, the Americans had their own symbol (American flag), but you should not forget about the power a symbol can have for its enemies as well. It really works both ways. People may as well rally behind the hate for the group that a symbol represents. I daresay the swastika brought the Allies together in their mutual desire to stop Nazi oppression. Of course, the symbol itself is not what the people hated. But the symbol is what grants the hated thing a "face", a target so to speak.

I doubt there's no increasing number of Nazis because they can be dispelled with factual information if they are rational, not because you took away an oddly formed X.

Because people are rational, right. You have to remember that many extremists stem from socio-economically poor areas. Their rational thought-process is often hampered by indoctrination. Look what's happening in the Middle East today. Were it not for the poor living conditions these people have to suffer through, Al Qaede'd have a much harder time to recruit new suicide bombers. It's really the same old story all the time, with normal, rational people being changed into tools for an ideology, be that Nazism or Jihad or whatever else.

People flock towards words just the same as symbols. Evidence: Liberal, Democrat, Conservative, NeoCon, Libertarian, Atheist, Thiest, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice. All verbal banners. I think racism is racism, there is no 'uber-racism'.

Yes, I agree. Again, these words are something people of a similar mindset will rally behind. I don't see how that's a counter-argument, though.

 

[Skeleon]

Add the evolutionary necessity to provide nerve endings on the organs themselves, which is because an organism needs some sort of benefit to partake in an action.

True, true. It is very complicated. But the mingling of genes (heterosexual sex) was obviously advantageous to produce more varied offspring, which resulted in a greater adaptability to changing environments. I doubt it's a coincidence that all higher animals are heterosexual in nature while asexual reproduction is (mostly) limited to the microcosmos.

As for homosexual sex, it, too, was probably of a big advantage. Considering that societal animals such as monkeys are (currently) the peak of evolution, homosexual sex was probably a big help in keeping a community tightly knit, a powerful tool considering that monkeys (and humans too) aren't particularily strong compared to lions or tigers or whatever natural enemies they may have. Saying homosexual sex is wrong on biological principle is ignoring the evidence. Whereas saying it's wrong on the basis of religion is ignorant.

EDIT: Oops, sorry for double post, I was sure somebody else'd have posted by now.

 

[Glerken]

Yes, No.

I have nothing wrong with gay marriage. And I have nothing wrong with people protesting it. But these batshit insane people aren't protesting, they're assholes.

 

[tsb247]

I am against gay marriage, but I also despise Fred Phelps and his flock. They are a stain on the face of this earth; shouting their hate from the rooftops like they do. The good news is that people hate them pretty much everywhere they go, and we've all stopped caring about them. The fastest way to make them go away is to simply stop giving them the attention and press they so desperately want.

If you're against it then why do you despise them? Why are you against it?

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). I can be against gay marriage and not hate gay people. I assure you it is completely possible. I even have some gay friends, and we get along just fine. One does not have to agree with someone else's lifestyle in order to accept them. There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

I'm against the Phelps protests because he and his crew only serve to do two things:

1. Preach nothing but hate and make life miserable for good people that have done nothing wrong.

2. They grossly misrepresent Christianity and make us ALL look bad. They only hurt - never help.

Because it's not morally or biologically right. I don't understand that, but Fred Phelps certainly does. Biologically, it's obviously natural as shown through actual observations in nature. Morally it harms no one. It's consentual so I see nothing wrong with it. I certain you can have gay friends and accept them, just as many accepted blacks but didn't want them in their schools or with their sister or voting. This may be offensive to you, I'm not particularly sorry for that but I urge you to maybe research your beliefs on human beings that doesn't involve supernatural hokum before judging their actions.

1. The Bible preaches hate, they preach the Bible. Cas closed.
2. Actually they totally represent Christianity. I personally think that they don't need to make the religion look bad, it does that by itself from it's own text.

So it's ok for you to attack my beliefs and insult my intelligence for believing what I do, but I cannot disagree with gays being allowed to marry because it does not fit your moral standards? As if my moral standards are somehow wrong?

Seriously, you could not be more ignorant...

And biologically, being gay is wrong. It is what can be referred to as a genetic dead end. If one cannot reproduce, then the genes cannot be passed on. Therefore, that line ends. That's why males and females are needed to produce offspring. Humans aren't asexual... As much as some would want us to be.

You have every right to disagree with homosexuality. I have every right to attack your beliefs and question your intelligence for disagreeing with homosexuality. That's how freedom of speech works.

Biologically sex isn't completely for passing on genetic information. Suggesting it does is a complete nonsensical when you view nature and biological science. An argument was make the same with mixed race sex with just the same methodation of biology....we don't see dogs having sex with cats now do we? It's an ignorant mindset with several assertions that fall piece by piece when viewed logically.

It's about 1:17am where I live, so I will have to call it a night. However, I feel as though I should point out that insulting someone else's beliefs just because you do not agree will not win many friends outside the internet. You don't agree? That's ok with me. But to label me as following a doctrine of hate is a bit much. Slapping a label on a large population is never a good thing. My morals have not failed me yet, and I have no intention of compromising them because all of a sudden it has become acceptable to do so in society today. That's just how a roll.

However, I feel as though I should commend you. You do know how to speak your mind.

Good night.

 

[MasterSqueak]

Stop.

Everyone here needs to realize this first!
There are only ten members in the Westboro Baptist Church.
Almost all of them are the family of Mr. Phelps.

Okay?

They're just dicks.

Oh, and for example of good Christians, remember when that milk-man shot and killed five little girls and then killed himself at an Amish school?

The families of the girls went to milk-man's funeral, offering their condolences, holding no grudges, and forgiving absolutely.

That's what Christianity is about.

That just creeps me out and makes me like Christianity less.

I'm okay with forgiveness, but I feel revenge is necissary on some levels.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I am against gay marriage, but I also despise Fred Phelps and his flock. They are a stain on the face of this earth; shouting their hate from the rooftops like they do. The good news is that people hate them pretty much everywhere they go, and we've all stopped caring about them. The fastest way to make them go away is to simply stop giving them the attention and press they so desperately want.

If you're against it then why do you despise them? Why are you against it?

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). I can be against gay marriage and not hate gay people. I assure you it is completely possible. I even have some gay friends, and we get along just fine. One does not have to agree with someone else's lifestyle in order to accept them. There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

I'm against the Phelps protests because he and his crew only serve to do two things:

1. Preach nothing but hate and make life miserable for good people that have done nothing wrong.

2. They grossly misrepresent Christianity and make us ALL look bad. They only hurt - never help.

Because it's not morally or biologically right. I don't understand that, but Fred Phelps certainly does. Biologically, it's obviously natural as shown through actual observations in nature. Morally it harms no one. It's consentual so I see nothing wrong with it. I certain you can have gay friends and accept them, just as many accepted blacks but didn't want them in their schools or with their sister or voting. This may be offensive to you, I'm not particularly sorry for that but I urge you to maybe research your beliefs on human beings that doesn't involve supernatural hokum before judging their actions.

1. The Bible preaches hate, they preach the Bible. Cas closed.
2. Actually they totally represent Christianity. I personally think that they don't need to make the religion look bad, it does that by itself from it's own text.

So it's ok for you to attack my beliefs and insult my intelligence for believing what I do, but I cannot disagree with gays being allowed to marry because it does not fit your moral standards? As if my moral standards are somehow wrong?

Seriously, you could not be more ignorant...

And biologically, being gay is wrong. It is what can be referred to as a genetic dead end. If one cannot reproduce, then the genes cannot be passed on. Therefore, that line ends. That's why males and females are needed to produce offspring. Humans aren't asexual... As much as some would want us to be.

You have every right to disagree with homosexuality. I have every right to attack your beliefs and question your intelligence for disagreeing with homosexuality. That's how freedom of speech works.

Biologically sex isn't completely for passing on genetic information. Suggesting it does is a complete nonsensical when you view nature and biological science. An argument was make the same with mixed race sex with just the same methodation of biology....we don't see dogs having sex with cats now do we? It's an ignorant mindset with several assertions that fall piece by piece when viewed logically.

It's about 1:17am where I live, so I will have to call it a night. However, I feel as though I should point out that insulting someone else's beliefs just because you do not agree will not win many friends outside the internet. You don't agree? That's ok with me. But to label me as following a doctrine of hate is a bit much. Slapping a label on a large population is never a good thing. My morals have not failed me yet, and I have no intention of compromising them because all of a sudden it has become acceptable to do so in society today. That's just how a roll.

However, I feel as though I should commend you. You do know how to speak your mind.

Good night.

I agree that it won't make many friends, but morally one must speak their mind truthfully if they care about humanity. As you have, and as I have during the conversation. I respect you as a human, but I don't really have to respect your beliefs. Just as you don't for either of those towards me.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

The former group has the right to whatever happiness they want, with whomever they want. The latter group has the right to be upset about something that goes against their personal choices or upbringing. They're protesting, not committing any kind of -cide word (I'm a bit tired, I've been driving all day, so my latin base has faded a bit to come up with an appropriate base for that word. I'll make it up to you later, I promise ).

 

[Cliff_m85]

Add the evolutionary necessity to provide nerve endings on the organs themselves, which is because an organism needs some sort of benefit to partake in an action.

True, true. It is very complicated. But the mingling of genes (heterosexual sex) was obviously advantageous to produce more varied offspring, which resulted in a greater adaptability to changing environments. I doubt it's a coincidence that all higher animals are heterosexual in nature while asexual reproduction is (mostly) limited to the microcosmos.

As for homosexual sex, it, too, was probably of a big advantage. Considering that societal animals such as monkeys are (currently) the peak of evolution, homosexual sex was probably a big help in keeping a community tightly knit, a powerful tool considering that monkeys (and humans too) aren't particularily strong compared to lions or tigers or whatever natural enemies they may have. Saying homosexual sex is wrong on biological principle is ignoring the evidence. Whereas saying it's wrong on the basis of religion is ignorant.

EDIT: Oops, sorry for double post, I was sure somebody else'd have posted by now.

Indeed homosexuality is helpful in keeping a community tight knit but it also is interesting to see that communities of animals with homosexuals inbedded with heteros produce less violent societies. Bonobos use homosexuality against their other ape opponents, offering sex rather than violence. Both parties end up sated and reduce the amount of attacks on their habitat. The thing that confuses me is that the anti-homosexual theist will waste no time to say that sex is for producing offspring but take no mind that before our scientific growth alot of the females would die during the procedure. Then they have the gull to inform us that single parent households don't work.

 

[Talendra]

I obviously do not like that there are protests. This is their right however, no matter how stupid I find it. They definitely should not be allowed to protest at the school though, harassing kids is not ok. Hardly surprising from these people though, they are a disaster waiting to happen, I was surprised when no greiving families knocked one of their lights out, now they are going after kids, and angry parents area scary thing, something bad will happen I can feel it.

 

[Biosophilogical]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA omg *tears stream down face* I can't believe it, that made me laugh so hard. I just find it quite humourous actually.

First thing is that apparently God's logic is beyond us and yet they remain adamant that God wouldn't want this, as though God is, in fact, quite predictable and their idea of him can be put in a little box of attributes. The thing I find humourous is that by doing this, they only hurt their cause, as only people who already disapprove of Gay marriage could possibly be swayed and the rest end up hating them for their ignorance and narrow-mindedness.

Secondly is that, despite saying (not in these exact words obviously) that they are people in a position of power when it comes to ethics, they are horribly narrow-minded and have shallow thought processes, showing undeveloped minds, which is in complete conflict with what is required to have before you are qualified to be an ethical leader.

Thirdly is that, they so strongly belive in their faith and yet if they were raised a buddhist they would (most likely) be a strong believer in buddhism, so they only believe what they believe by complete accident and yet hold so strongly to it. Kinda like opening a fortune cookie which told you you would only be happy by becoming a russian stripper made of cheese so they go and turn themselves into just such a thing.

Oh my I do go on. well /rant

But seriously this whole thing had me in stitches. (Damn sewing kit positioned in my laughter-thrashing zone)

 

[Biosophilogical]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

 

[iherduliekPie]

Phelps at one point declared war on America therefore they're traitors, I vote try them for treason. Screw religion if you dont like the country you live in fuck off, we dont need you.

 

[Sark]

Normally I'm all for freedom of expression, but can't we bend the rule just this once and firehose these mutants?

Anyone with me on that one?

Firehoses have been manned.

Personally, I am against gay marriage. The idea has just never sat right with me and probably never will. Stopping groups such as the Phelps foundation would be a repression of their right to free speech.

 

[Borrowed Time]

That's blather, pure and simple. What you do is a part of who you are. Homosexuality being the sin but the homosexual not being hated is just idiotic since the homosexual can only express physical love through homosexual contact. This contact is a part of who they are, thus the 'sin' is part of who the sinner is. Christ was a scapegoat in all technical words. He died for sins that we didn't commit (we all have sins from Adam, right?) that we didn't ask for. Not to mention the completely immoral claim that you can use someone else as your scapegoat. If I do something wrong, no one can take the punishment for me since it is my duty to make up for my errors. The Westboro Baptist Church are more wise in the Biblical study than your church, simply because they don't agree with apologetics as you obviously do. The Biblical account of history is wrong for the most part, the science is mainly wrong, and the morals are outdated by far. It hurts society, as seen by these discussions. Maybe one day our species will be more logical and dismiss the nonsense, but it's mired with superstition and fear so it'll take quite awhile.

I'm actually quite shocked at your sense of jaded ignorance of Christianity. Your assumption that a belief of certain denominations that sin is inherently passed down from Adam (which was mainly popularized by John Calvin in the early sixteenth century) is not accepted by all. In fact, if one actually reads the scriptures, you find this to be false. Hebrews 4:14-16, "14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." If the idea that sin were passed down from Adam were true, then Jesus, being born human yet divine, would have been born with sin. You have brought up a misinterpretation of scripture stemming from Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,".

Your rant on the "blather" as you call it is far from true. If God Himself truly hated the sinner, then there would never have been a perfect sacrifice given to us to wipe us of the sin, allowing us to be with Him. People themselves are capable of showing this compassion. As was recounted earlier in this discussion I believe, of the Milk Man incident where many were killed by him, the families of those who were killed attended his funeral and showed true love and compassion for the individual despite what had been done. We, being humans, choose how we learn from what we have done and how we evolve with the knowledge we have gleaned from our mistakes. Your attitude concerning what has happened to you in your life will dictate whether you take a good life lesson from it, or you will become jaded and cynical from it. Losing a loved one can either lead you down a dark path of depression and loathing, or you can celebrate that loved one's life and the knowledge they taught you. We learn from our actions and our mistakes.

In the Torah (read Old Testament) it was necessary to give a sacrifice to atone for sins. It was figurative to show that the consequence for sin is death. Blood must be spilled to atone for sin. Even the first sin done by Adam and Eve caused blood to be spilled. God did not create the skins they wore, he killed the animals to provide the clothing. Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice, being the divine Son of God as a human. His sacrifice (being as He gave Himself freely, He made Himself the sacrifice, He was not sacrificed by us) trumped all sacrifices, making the need to sacrifice any more completely moot. His blood spilled for the sin of man was enough to wash all of it away as he was with out sin.

The Westboro Baptist Church is locked in the Old Testament. They are locked in a legalistic system that was put in place to show us how we could never save ourselves. The legalism was a measuring stick given to us by God that allowed us to understand that we needed a savior. Our works will never be enough. We will never be righteous enough. No matter how many people I help and no matter how often I pray or fall to my knees in worship, I will never come close to the glory or righteousness of God.

I would like to see your references as to why the Biblical account of history is wrong, or the science is wrong. The Bible shows that there are 10 dimensions. This can be shown as the fact that we exist in a 3 dimensional world. Height, length and depth are the x, y, z coordinates of our existance. There are 7 Hebrew words found in the Old Testament for "heavens":

- Vilon - is the word for curtain or tent as where God stretches out the heavens. (Isaiah 40:22)
- Rakia - refers to the physical or visible heavens containing the sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:17).
- Shechakim - refers to the atmosphere (Psalm 78:23).
- Zevul - is the habitation where God?s glory exists as in the Heavenly City (Isaiah 63:15).
- Maon - is the place where angels reside from which come songs (Psalm 42:8)
- Machon - refers to the storehouses where the treasures of rain, snow and hail reside (Deuteronomy 26:15).
- Aravot - is the storehouse of righteousness and peace, where angel beings reside and possibly the spirits of those not yet born in waiting(Psalm 6:4).

Yes, these may seem primitive in their explinations, but they really do display a revelation of early Jews of their understanding of the seen and the unseen.

The 4th dimension, time, is the passage of the first 3 dimensions at any single point. The 5th dimension can be explained as every and all possibilities existing at once from the 4th dimension, and so on with the remaining 5 dimensions. If you add the 7 Hebrew "heavens" or dimensions to our 3, lets see, basic math, hrm... 10! You may throw that aside to being simple coincidence but how many times can you use that argument?

Maybe one day our species will realize that more then just what we can see, hear, smell, touch, etc... exists and dismiss the nonsense that our small understanding of the universe is the supreme one. I'm willing to admit that I lack any true ability to understand the universe. Are you?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Have any of you seen the Mikado? I actually haven't myself but my mom always told me about it. It was her favorite play as a kid. Anyway, in it, the High Executioner has a "little list" of "people we could do without who never would be missed".

For me- every member of the Westboro Baptist Church is on that little list.

 

[SUPERtwinky]

I'm all for gay marriage, and I'm fine with protests because I believe in freedom of speech. Absolute freedom of speech. And it's a religious school anyways, where they probably teach to hate science and everything, so it's not that strange for them.

And these guys are just dicks. There are dicks of any race and religion.

Montpellier High school is not a religious school. They are protesting there because all of their other protest locations(Like the capital building) are also in montpelier.