Curiosity (about Fred Phelps)

[SallyAnne]

How many followers does Fred-The-Wolf-Phelps have? Tis not a trick question, am genuinely interested to understand how big his following is in real terms ie: number of congregants.

ETA: oops I spelled curiosity wrong in the heading, sorry.


====================
I edited the title to make the topic a little clearer.

RBH

I corrected the spelling of curiosity.

Pendaric

[David B]

How many followers does Fred The Wolf Phelps have? Tis not a trick question, am genuinely interested to understand how big his following is in real terms ie: number of congregants.

ETA: oops I spelled curiosity wrong in the heading, sorry.

Not many:D I've seen the number 70 bandied about, and from what I recall of the Theroux documentary, that wouldn't be far off.

However, the idea that the 'sin of homosexuality' leads a putative God to punish America with hurricanes like Katrina is not, IIRC, exclusive to Phelps, and I gather that some prominent evangelists who take this view have much more of a following.

David

[SallyAnne]

How many followers does Fred The Wolf Phelps have? Tis not a trick question, am genuinely interested to understand how big his following is in real terms ie: number of congregants.

ETA: oops I spelled curiosity wrong in the heading, sorry.

Not many:D


LOL! :D

[SallyAnne]

I've seen the number 70 bandied about, and from what I recall of the Theroux documentary, that wouldn't be far off.

However, the idea that the 'sin of homosexuality' leads a putative God to punish America with hurricanes like Katrina is not, IIRC, exclusive to Phelps, and I gather that some prominent evangelists who take this view have much more of a following.

David



Yeah, I've been hearing from some others here that they've been doing that...

I once watched a Derek Prince sermon and he was saying the same thing about Britian, but over Britian's dealings with Israel (not gay stuff), and that Britain was under judgement because of it....I have to say, it did alarm me a bit because they can make things seem to fit, he certainly did anyway but it didn't bother me anymore after about a couple of hours.....

[Hevvin Machine]

Depends on what you mean by follower. The dues paying members of Westboro Baptist Church aren't even a hundred as far as I know. But the numbers of people who blame America's problems on gays, rather than cheap consumerism or the Bush Administration or such obvious reasons are legion. Millions, without a doubt.

Out of curiousity, at one point the WBC was going to England to disrupt the funeral of a British soldier. Did they pull that off?
Hev

[David B]

Depends on what you mean by follower. The dues paying members of Westboro Baptist Church aren't even a hundred as far as I know. But the numbers of people who blame America's problems on gays, rather than cheap consumerism or the Bush Administration or such obvious reasons are legion. Millions, without a doubt.

Out of curiousity, at one point the WBC was going to England to disrupt the funeral of a British soldier. Did they pull that off?
Hev

Nope. Denied entry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm

David

[Joykins]

There are about 70 people in the cult itself, most of them members of Phelps' extended family.

[SallyAnne]

There are about 70 people in the cult itself, most of them members of Phelps' extended family.



Thanks, I thought the reality was titchy, it's just his big mouth that makes him seem like he has millions....

[RBH]

There are about 70 people in the cult itself, most of them members of Phelps' extended family.Thanks, I thought the reality was titchy, it's just his big mouth that makes him seem like he has millions....The really loony one now in that clan is Phelps' daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper. She is scary crazy. She has a J.D. and is a practicing lawyer. There are Youtubes of her ranting here (a cat fight) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA) that starts about 2:45 in); a semi-documentary clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciee1qdWE3M); and a somewhat longer interview with the "Crazy Atheist" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSvY2Up2EA) with lousy audio on her end.


ETA: Here's another lovely rant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEvFmBkfDKw) about Heath Ledger on an Australian radio station.

[TheBear]

How many followers does Fred-The-Wolf-Phelps have? Tis not a trick question, am genuinely interested to understand how big his following is in real terms ie: number of congregants.
I think his congregants are mostly his inbred family members. :D

[SallyAnne]

How many followers does Fred-The-Wolf-Phelps have? Tis not a trick question, am genuinely interested to understand how big his following is in real terms ie: number of congregants.
I think his congregants are mostly his inbred family members. :D


Lol....:evil:

[SallyAnne]

There are about 70 people in the cult itself, most of them members of Phelps' extended family.Thanks, I thought the reality was titchy, it's just his big mouth that makes him seem like he has millions....The really loony one now in that clan is Phelps' daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper. She is scary crazy. She has a J.D. and is a practicing lawyer. There are Youtubes of her ranting here (a cat fight) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA) that starts about 2:45 in);



Oh my goodness. I only made it through that first one and I'm sitting here stunned and nearly shaking.:eek:

Wow, that was pretty terrible. I can't believe what I just watched, the complete lack of compassion for that poor father who buried his son with the cruel banshee there with leary grin saying he brought it on himself. That was so chilling.

Her crazy twisted grin seemed psychotic to me. I'll have to calm down before I watch the rest of them, because frankly, that really was scary, and the way the presenter was yelling back at her too, it felt like if they were in the same room they would fly at each other and tear each other apart. I was sitting here crapping my pants because I could feel all that mutual animosity jumping out of the clip, yikes, it's very scary, chilling!:eek:

That should be on the shelves of the "thrillers" and "horrors" section at the video store. It's unreal.

[Hevvin Machine]

Wow, that was pretty terrible. I can't believe what I just watched, the complete lack of compassion for that poor father who buried his son with the cruel banshee there with leary grin saying he brought it on himself. That was so chilling.
Those people are, however, Christians. This simply cannot be denied.
Fred and his church believe in Jesus and The Bible. I think that they are a tiny little group who will eventually implode since their world-view is based largely on hatred, which was not what Jesus taught. I see them as an abject lesson in how not to be a Christian, just like the Crusaders and the Slavers.

Fortunately for them(temporally speaking) they live in a secular society where freedom of speech gets better protection than religious morals. Most, nearly all, Christians that I know of are appalled by WBC. If the WBC tried what they are doing three hundred years ago they would all be rounded up and hung for treason. They want to equivocate between secular morals and religious morals. They want to use their secular freedom of speech to spout off things that wouldn't be tolerated in a theocracy run by modern Christians.
Hev

[SallyAnne]

Wow, that was pretty terrible. I can't believe what I just watched, the complete lack of compassion for that poor father who buried his son with the cruel banshee there with leary grin saying he brought it on himself. That was so chilling.
Those people are, however, Christians. This simply cannot be denied.
Fred and his church believe in Jesus and The Bible.


I don't care what he believes. There's no-way that crowd is spiritually representative of what I believe, that's for damn sure!

I regard him and his clan as anathema!

[SallyAnne]

Fortunately for them(temporally speaking) they live in a secular society where freedom of speech gets better protection than religious morals. Most, nearly all, Christians that I know of are appalled by WBC. If the WBC tried what they are doing three hundred years ago they would all be rounded up and hung for treason. They want to equivocate between secular morals and religious morals. They want to use their secular freedom of speech to spout off things that wouldn't be tolerated in a theocracy run by modern Christians.
Hev



That's a really great observation actually, very astute indeed.

[Norrin Radd]

[QUOTE=Joykins;25401]...


Thanks, I thought the reality was titchy, it's just his big mouth that makes him seem like he has millions....

I hardly ever hear about him except on boards where someone is ranting about him and implying (if not declaring) he's typical of all of us fundygelicals.

[SallyAnne]

I hardly ever hear about him except on boards where someone is ranting about him and implying (if not declaring) he's typical of all of us fundygelicals.



Yeah exactly, that's (underlined) what's been declared in another thread here and it gets on my wick.

And you live in the US of A and don't regard him with any influence.

[SallyAnne]

I hardly ever hear about him except on boards where someone is ranting about him .


Like me in this here thread, LOL!:D Rant on Sally!:p

[Nohweh]

Here's (http://www.examiner.com/a-1319944~Judge_orders_lien_on_Westboro_church.html) some good news: the financial pressure is on the WBC. Liens have been placed on church property and bonds ordered posted in their court case arising from a military funeral protest. Forcing WBC into bankruptcy may have the added benefit of revealing who's got the deep pockets.

[RBH]

Here's a report (http://www.endhereditaryreligion.com/2009/04/nate-phelps-and-religious-abuse/) about Nate Phelps' talk at American Atheists. Nate is estranged (to put it mildly) from his family. It's a gut-wrenching description of life as a child in Phelps' cult:At one point, he showed us the kind of handle Fred used to beat his children — a four or five foot long piece of wood not unlike an axe-handle. He explained how his father learned the most effective ways of causing excruciating pain; for instance, he would hit his children in one particular spot enough that a bruise would raise up and blood would accumulate over the course of ten or fifteen minutes, and then he would hit them again in the same spot, causing the skin to break, and inflicting terrible pain. When he was particularly irate, he would hit them behind the knee, or on the small of the back, where the pain would be the most searing and brutal. Purely sickening.

More on Nate Phelps (http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/11/15/nate-phelps-fred-phelps-religion-as-child-abuse-mental-abuse.htm), and Shirley's commentary:At the end of the day, rebel Nate who is a man of the flesh according to the Bible, cannot get it into his head the the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. The child crying over a fear of hell is exactly what is intended by the plain language of the scriptures.Lovely woman, that.

[miss djax]

I hardly ever hear about him except on boards where someone is ranting about him and implying (if not declaring) he's typical of all of us fundygelicals.



Yeah exactly, that's (underlined) what's been declared in another thread here and it gets on my wick.

And you live in the US of A and don't regard him with any influence.


that is not what is being 'declared' on another thread here. i'd suggest a re-read, because that is absolutely not the case.

[SallyAnne]

I hardly ever hear about him except on boards where someone is ranting about him and implying (if not declaring) he's typical of all of us fundygelicals.



Yeah exactly, that's (underlined) what's been declared in another thread here and it gets on my wick.

And you live in the US of A and don't regard him with any influence.


that is not what is being 'declared' on another thread here. i'd suggest a re-read, because that is absolutely not the case.



Again, you and I will have to disagree on that. I'll send Norrin to read it for himself and he can draw his own conclusions.

[Pendaric]

I hardly ever hear about him except on boards where someone is ranting about him and implying (if not declaring) he's typical of all of us fundygelicals.

Yeah exactly, that's (underlined) what's been declared in another thread here and it gets on my wick.

And you live in the US of A and don't regard him with any influence.

Hi Sally Anne, hope you're keeping well.

I've just been and had a quick read through the other thread about Phelps, and I'm struggling to see anybody saying that he's typical of all 'fundygelicals' (nice word, is that one you made up yourself?)

The general thrust of the conversation seems to be a 'True Scotsman' argument, ie that his interpretation has as much validity as any other. You may disagree with that particular premise, but I don't think it's quite the same as saying that his viewpoint is typical of other people.

Perhaps you could link me to the particular posts that you feel are declaring that, because at the minute I'm not seeing it. But I'm curious as to where the difference in interpretation between us is, and I'd appreciate your help in pointing it out.

Thanks.

[SallyAnne]

I hardly ever hear about him except on boards where someone is ranting about him and implying (if not declaring) he's typical of all of us fundygelicals.

Yeah exactly, that's (underlined) what's been declared in another thread here and it gets on my wick.

And you live in the US of A and don't regard him with any influence.

Hi Sally Anne, hope you're keeping well.

I've just been and had a quick read through the other thread about Phelps, and I'm struggling to see anybody saying that he's typical of all 'fundygelicals' (nice word, is that one you made up yourself?)

The general thrust of the conversation seems to be a 'True Scotsman' argument, ie that his interpretation has as much validity as any other. You may disagree with that particular premise, but I don't think it's quite the same as saying that his viewpoint is typical of other people.

Perhaps you could link me to the particular posts that you feel are declaring that, because at the minute I'm not seeing it. But I'm curious as to where the difference in interpretation between us is, and I'd appreciate your help in pointing it out.

Thanks.


Hi Pendaric, nice to see you.:)

I'm mainly referring to the first 3 or 5 pages of that thread and particularly what Lisa said.

"Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?"

Norrin is a Conservative Christian and to a certain extent so am I (even though I don't share many of the politics, I'm not right wing, and I'm not American).

And like I already said in that thread, and so did Hent, we haven't met any Christian, let alone "Conservative" Christian, who Phelps represents. His small cult is not what we regard as conservative christianity. He's certainly not typical of mainstream conservative christians, let alone being their representative for funeral protests, gay-hating, abortion bombing, etc...

I don't know of any conservative christian who puts their seal of approval on the actions of Phelps and condones his "hate" mantra or thinks it's right to protest at funerals. So Phelps and his inbred legion are very much only representative of themselves and not "typical" of Conservatives.

[David B]

I hardly ever hear about him except on boards where someone is ranting about him and implying (if not declaring) he's typical of all of us fundygelicals.

Yeah exactly, that's (underlined) what's been declared in another thread here and it gets on my wick.

And you live in the US of A and don't regard him with any influence.

Hi Sally Anne, hope you're keeping well.

I've just been and had a quick read through the other thread about Phelps, and I'm struggling to see anybody saying that he's typical of all 'fundygelicals' (nice word, is that one you made up yourself?)

The general thrust of the conversation seems to be a 'True Scotsman' argument, ie that his interpretation has as much validity as any other. You may disagree with that particular premise, but I don't think it's quite the same as saying that his viewpoint is typical of other people.

Perhaps you could link me to the particular posts that you feel are declaring that, because at the minute I'm not seeing it. But I'm curious as to where the difference in interpretation between us is, and I'd appreciate your help in pointing it out.

Thanks.

Well, there was a bit I posted, saying that other evangelicals were saying that Katrina et al were judgements from God on America.

But there are such other evangelicals, aren't there?

David

[Pendaric]

Yeah exactly, that's (underlined) what's been declared in another thread here and it gets on my wick.

And you live in the US of A and don't regard him with any influence.

Hi Sally Anne, hope you're keeping well.

I've just been and had a quick read through the other thread about Phelps, and I'm struggling to see anybody saying that he's typical of all 'fundygelicals' (nice word, is that one you made up yourself?)

The general thrust of the conversation seems to be a 'True Scotsman' argument, ie that his interpretation has as much validity as any other. You may disagree with that particular premise, but I don't think it's quite the same as saying that his viewpoint is typical of other people.

Perhaps you could link me to the particular posts that you feel are declaring that, because at the minute I'm not seeing it. But I'm curious as to where the difference in interpretation between us is, and I'd appreciate your help in pointing it out.

Thanks.


Hi Pendaric, nice to see you.:)

I'm mainly referring to the first 3 pages of that thread and particularly what Lisa said.

"Conservatives would strongly disagree, but they have done more to desensitize the average American to the things of God than anyone else. What point is there in believing if Fred Phelps and his ilk is how God is represented to many people? If people's idea of Christianity is funeral protesting, abortion bombing, and gay-hating, who would in their right mind believe?"

Norrin is a Conservative Christian and to a certain extent so am I (even though I don't share many of the politics, I'm not right wing, and I'm not American).

And like I already said in that thread, and so did Hent, we haven't met any Christian, let alone "Conservative" Christian, who Phelps represents. His small cult is not what we regard as conservative christianity. He's certainly not typical of mainstream conservative christians, let alone being their representative for funeral protests, gay-hating, abortion bombing, etc...

I don't know of any conservative christian who puts their seal of approval on the actions of Phelps and condones his "hate" mantra or thinks it's right to protest at funerals. So Phelps and his inbred legion are very much only representative of themselves and not "typical" of Conservatives.

Ok, thanks. I still don't think it says exactly what you were saying it does, but perhaps I can see where you get it from.

One point I would make is that the quote you have picked up on is one that Lisa, a Christian, made. It wasn't made by any of the atheists in the thread.

I think the vast majority of people realise that what Phelps and his clan do in terms of funeral protests and the like isn't typical - the reason why they get so much media attention is precisely because they are somewhat unique.

But I do think the gay-hating thing is wider than just the WBC, even if others don't take it to the same extremes in expressing it. Not trying to suggest it extends to you, but I'm sure I've seen it expressed by more than just the WBC.

[SallyAnne]

'fundygelicals' (nice word, is that one you made up yourself?)




That's Norrins made up word, lol.

[TheBear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Yaoe5273s&feature=related

[SallyAnne]

But I do think the gay-hating thing is wider than just the WBC, even if others don't take it to the same extremes in expressing it. Not trying to suggest it extends to you, but I'm sure I've seen it expressed by more than just the WBC.



Ok, well that's fair enough. We have an outspoken church down here, which refers to itself (and is regarded by others) as a pentecostal "U.S" style church and when the same-sex union bill came up for parliament to decide, this church protested parliament. It was a peaceful protest, they weren't beating up on gay folk, they were just opposing the bill. But it was obviously political and it marks them as quite different to all our other churches here, the majority, who don't make political protests in the name of the church or Christianity.

But again, people sitting in their homes might look at one politically outspoken church, which is only one church, and not representative of the majority of NZ Christianity but regard them as the "face" of Christianity. Although NZ'ers are pretty switched on down here when it comes to religion, and they very much realise that this church is something all in itself and don't tend to regard it as the "representative" of the rest of us.

[SallyAnne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Yaoe5273s&feature=related


Wow. I think Hannity and Colmes handled that really well and it was amazing how they managed to keep their cool.

You know what I find most disturbing about her, Bear? That crazy leary twisted grin she has plastered to her face....it's psychotic..:eek:

[Pendaric]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Yaoe5273s&feature=related


Wow. I think Hannity and Colmes handled that really well and it was amazing how they managed to keep their cool.

You know what I find most disturbing about her, Bear? That crazy leary twisted grin she has plastered to her face....it's psychotic..:eek:

To be honest, I thought it was pretty crap as an interview. They just took the opportunity to call her names. That might be emotionally fulfilling for them, and the audience might enjoy it, but they didn't come close to engaging with her on the points she was making.

I'd like to see a proper debate between her and a mainstream Christian who was actually prepared to talk about scriptural interpretation with her rather than just stand up and call her names - maybe there is one online somewhere. Because whether you agree with her interpretation or not, she knows her stuff.

[SallyAnne]

To be honest, I thought it was pretty crap as an interview.


You did? I haven't seen any apart from the Theroux doco and that first one I commented on page one. But in this interview, I thought Hannity did well because he kept calm and managed to get it in there that the soldiers have died for her right to freedom of speech, and what does she do with it? Denigrate their memory in the cruelist way possible. That's an important point to make as the poster on the front page has done about her having a secular "freedom of speech" but a few hundred years ago she'd be tried for treason and executed under her so-called "religious moral code."



They just took the opportunity to call her names. That might be emotionally fulfilling for them, and the audience might enjoy it, but they didn't come close to engaging with her on the points she was making.

See, but I don't see her making any points at all. How can she justify protesting at a funeral? It's kind of indefensible so what point was she making that is even intelligent to respond to?


I'd like to see a proper debate between her and a mainstream Christian who was actually prepared to talk about scriptural interpretation with her rather than just stand up and call her names - maybe there is one online somewhere. Because whether you agree with her interpretation or not, she knows her stuff.


I don't agree that she knows her stuff at all. First off, she's living under the wrong Covenant. Christians live under the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ, it is Grace. She's living under the Law of Moses from the Old Covenant but she's not even an orthodox Jew and they don't even do what she does. So she's seriously confused.

When I was watching that first interview, I was thinking about how I would handle talking to her, but I couldn't imagine where I could even start a conservation with someone like that. And she says the same things over and over and over, another atheist I know from another site said the same and that there's only so much "raging mad God" and "you're all going hell" and "obey your God" that someone can say until the words totally lose their meaning. I totally agree with him.

[Pendaric]

To be honest, I thought it was pretty crap as an interview.


You did? I haven't seen any apart from the Theroux doco and that first one I commented on page one. But in this interview, I thought Hannity did well because he kept calm and managed to get it in there that the soldiers have died for her right to freedom of speech, and what does she do with it? Denigrate their memory in the cruelist way possible. That's an important point to make as the poster on the front page has done about her having a secular "freedom of speech" but a few hundred years ago she'd be tried for treason and executed under her so-called "religious moral code."



They just took the opportunity to call her names. That might be emotionally fulfilling for them, and the audience might enjoy it, but they didn't come close to engaging with her on the points she was making.

See, but I don't see her making any points at all. How can she justify protesting at a funeral? It's kind of indefensible so what point was she making that is even intelligent to respond to?


I'd like to see a proper debate between her and a mainstream Christian who was actually prepared to talk about scriptural interpretation with her rather than just stand up and call her names - maybe there is one online somewhere. Because whether you agree with her interpretation or not, she knows her stuff.


I don't agree that she knows her stuff at all. First off, she's living under the wrong Covenant. Christians live under the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ, it is Grace. She's living under the Law of Moses from the Old Covenant but she's not even an orthodox Jew and they don't even do what she does. So she's seriously confused.

When I was watching that first interview, I was thinking about how I would handle talking to her, but I couldn't imagine where I could even start a conservation with someone like that. And she says the same things over and over and over, another atheist I know from another site said the same and that there's only so much "raging mad God" and "you're all going hell" and "obey your God" that someone can say until the words totally lose their meaning. I totally agree with him.

It came across to me as being all about the presenters making their points, not letting her respond to them without jumping in and telling her how awful she was all the time. It was a lecture from them about how horrible she was, not a conversation asking her proper questions about her viewpoint and why she believed it.

She didn't make any meaningful points in large part because she wasn't allowed to. It was about tarring and feathering her, not about interviewing her. That may well be what she deserves, but I would have found it more interesting if they'd actually let her talk when they asked her a question instead of shouting her down.

Again, I'm pretty sure she knows her bible back to front and can quote chapter and verse all day long. You may not agree with her interpretation of those chapters and verses, but she does know the source material. I'd like to see someone who knows the source material equally well actually engaging her, and raising points with her like the one you raised above.

[David B]

To be honest, I thought it was pretty crap as an interview.


You did? I haven't seen any apart from the Theroux doco and that first one I commented on page one. But in this interview, I thought Hannity did well because he kept calm and managed to get it in there that the soldiers have died for her right to freedom of speech, and what does she do with it? Denigrate their memory in the cruelist way possible. That's an important point to make as the poster on the front page has done about her having a secular "freedom of speech" but a few hundred years ago she'd be tried for treason and executed under her so-called "religious moral code."



They just took the opportunity to call her names. That might be emotionally fulfilling for them, and the audience might enjoy it, but they didn't come close to engaging with her on the points she was making.

See, but I don't see her making any points at all. How can she justify protesting at a funeral? It's kind of indefensible so what point was she making that is even intelligent to respond to?


I'd like to see a proper debate between her and a mainstream Christian who was actually prepared to talk about scriptural interpretation with her rather than just stand up and call her names - maybe there is one online somewhere. Because whether you agree with her interpretation or not, she knows her stuff.


I don't agree that she knows her stuff at all. First off, she's living under the wrong Covenant. Christians live under the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ, it is Grace. She's living under the Law of Moses from the Old Covenant but she's not even an orthodox Jew and they don't even do what she does. So she's seriously confused.

When I was watching that first interview, I was thinking about how I would handle talking to her, but I couldn't imagine where I could even start a conservation with someone like that. And she says the same things over and over and over, another atheist I know from another site said the same and that there's only so much "raging mad God" and "you're all going hell" and "obey your God" that someone can say until the words totally lose their meaning. I totally agree with him.

My bold.

I imagine that they see themselves as in the role of Jeremiah.

He did a lot of 'raving mad God' etc, and was IMV very similar to Phelps.

Here is the start of Jeremiah, and he goes on the same vein.

1: The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin:
2: To whom the word of the LORD came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign.
3: It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of Josiah king of Judah, unto the carrying away of Jerusalem captive in the fifth month.
4: Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
5: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
6: Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child.
7: But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak.
8: Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.
9: Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.
10: See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.
11: Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree.
12: Then said the LORD unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it.
13: And the word of the LORD came unto me the second time, saying, What seest thou? And I said, I see a seething pot; and the face thereof is toward the north.
14: Then the LORD said unto me, Out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land.
15: For, lo, I will call all the families of the kingdoms of the north, saith the LORD; and they shall come, and they shall set every one his throne at the entering of the gates of Jerusalem, and against all the walls thereof round about, and against all the cities of Judah.
16: And I will utter my judgments against them touching all their wickedness, who have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, and worshipped the works of their own hands

When you consider the bible verses which, on reasonable readings, to castigate gay sex, I for one find it understandable that a fanatic could well consider that tolerating gays is to have forsaken their imaginary God.

I don't like the Phelps family at all, but in some ways I see them as victims themselves. Victims of the sort of fanaticism that places a belief in the infallibility of one (among many) old books above learning about life the universe and everything from observation and thought.

David

[Pendaric]

Ezra talked in a fairly similar vein as well:

10 "But now, O our God, what can we say after this? For we have disregarded the commands 11 you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: 'The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. 12 Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.'

13 "What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this. 14 Shall we again break your commands and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor? 15 O LORD, God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence."

[TheBear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Yaoe5273s&feature=relatedI think Hannity and Colmes handled that really well and it was amazing how they managed to keep their cool. as plastered to her face....it's psychotic..:eek:
Yeah.

That was broadcast on Fox News in 2006. There have been many other interviews and news articles about the WBC before and since, and from a variety of sources.

[SallyAnne]

It came across to me as being all about the presenters making their points, not letting her respond to them without jumping in and telling her how awful she was all the time. It was a lecture from them about how horrible she was, not a conversation asking her proper questions about her viewpoint and why she believed it.

She didn't make any meaningful points in large part because she wasn't allowed to. It was about tarring and feathering her, not about interviewing her.

But she's already tarred and feathered herself. She's responsible for those actions, so it's not like she's come on TV as a reasonable person in the first place. And no doubt, if she wasn't an extremist of everything that is wrong with religion, she wouldn't be there anyway. She's one of those notorious types who can only find fame by being outrageously and extremely negative, the antithesis.


That may well be what she deserves, but I would have found it more interesting if they'd actually let her talk when they asked her a question instead of shouting her down.

I think she pretty much gave the thrust of her argument Pendaric. We're all going to hell because none of us obeys our God to her exacting satisfaction. The Phelps clan wouldn't accept me or the majority of the mainstream as Christians at all.



Again, I'm pretty sure she knows her bible back to front and can quote chapter and verse all day long.


It's a pity she's not aquainted with the saving grace of Christ Jesus enough to quote that in public all day long. Why doesn't she go to funerals and pray for forgiveness for America if she's that concerned about it? You know, like our Lord and Saviour did for His enemies as He hung dying on the Cross?

Loving instead of hating.

Because she doesn't love that's why. You know Pendaric, I have been gravely concerned about Britain. It has broken my heart on a few occasions, even brought me to tears, and I have privately prayed for my country and will continue to do so. I love my country and all the people in it no matter who they are, and I have prayed for forgiveness for Britain and that God may have mercy on us. I feel very embarrassed to have revealed this, because I know how it must come across to an outsider, that I've lost my mind or something...


You may not agree with her interpretation of those chapters and verses, but she does know the source material. I'd like to see someone who knows the source material equally well actually engaging her, and raising points with her like the one you raised above.


Well, I'd love to see her come up against someone like Charles Stanley or David Pawson. I think the Holy Spirit would bowl her over and she'd fall flat on her face and praise God for real, LOL.:D

[David B]

It came across to me as being all about the presenters making their points, not letting her respond to them without jumping in and telling her how awful she was all the time. It was a lecture from them about how horrible she was, not a conversation asking her proper questions about her viewpoint and why she believed it.

She didn't make any meaningful points in large part because she wasn't allowed to. It was about tarring and feathering her, not about interviewing her.

But she's already tarred and feathered herself. She's responsible for those actions, so it's not like she's come on TV as a reasonable person in the first place. And no doubt, if she wasn't an extremist of everything that is wrong with religion, she wouldn't be there anyway. She's one of those notorious types who can only find fame by being outrageously and extremely negative, the antithesis.


That may well be what she deserves, but I would have found it more interesting if they'd actually let her talk when they asked her a question instead of shouting her down.

I think she pretty much gave the thrust of her argument Pendaric. We're all going to hell because none of us obeys our God to her exacting satisfaction. The Phelps clan wouldn't accept me or the majority of the mainstream as Christians at all.



Again, I'm pretty sure she knows her bible back to front and can quote chapter and verse all day long.


It's a pity she's not aquainted with the saving grace of Christ Jesus enough to quote that in public all day long. Why doesn't she go to funerals and pray for forgiveness for America if she's that concerned about it? You know, like our Lord and Saviour did for His enemies as He hung dying on the Cross?

Loving instead of hating.

Because she doesn't love that's why. You know Pendaric, I have been gravely concerned about Britain. It has broken my heart on a few occasions, even brought me to tears, and I have privately prayed for my country and will continue to do so. I love my country and all the people in it no matter who they are, and I have prayed for forgiveness for Britain and that God may have mercy on us. I feel very embarrassed to have revealed this, because I know how it must come across to an outsider, that I've lost my mind or something...


You may not agree with her interpretation of those chapters and verses, but she does know the source material. I'd like to see someone who knows the source material equally well actually engaging her, and raising points with her like the one you raised above.


Well, I'd love to see her come up against someone like Charles Stanley or David Pawson. I think the Holy Spirit would bowl her over and she'd fall flat on her face and praise God for real, LOL.:D

My bold.

I presume that Stanley and Pawson are the sort of evangelists are the sort of evangelist that gets people to fall over.

It's such a pity that last time I looked, Derren Brown, the famous mentalist, had had the clips of him (a gay atheist) replicating the effects of that sort of evangelism had been removed.

There are better explanations for people having that sort of experience than them being bowled over by some sort of putative Holy Spirit. The power of suggestibility, coupled perhaps with positive reinforcement, is very powerful.

It is also not confined to Christianity.

'Receiving the Knowledge' from Guru Maharaj Ji had a lot in common with it, from what I gather from friends who did so.

To say nothing of my own experiences with the teachings of another guru.

It is a big mistake, Sally, to view things like the Toronto Blessing as any sort of good evidence for the existence of any sort of Holy Spirit.

David

[SallyAnne]

I presume that Stanley and Pawson are the sort of evangelists are the sort of evangelist that gets people to fall over.


No they don't actually, far from it. They're very staid and serious, especially Pawson. And Pawson has "established a reputation among both evangelicals and charismatics as an effective and balanced expositor of the Bible" (wiki).

I like Pawson and Stanley, I don't always agree with them, but I do believe that they consistently exhibit the Fruits of the Spirit and therefore have the Holy Spirit whereas the Phelps clan, I don't believe exhibit the fruits of the Holy Spirit even on an inconsistent basis because they don't reflect who He is.



It is a big mistake, Sally, to view things like the Toronto Blessing as any sort of good evidence for the existence of any sort of Holy Spirit.
David


I'm not referring to the Toronto Blessing, and I think Pawson in particular would probably be against that kind of euphoria as "evidence." Although don't quote me on that, it's just not his style at all and he is quite critical of a lot of the religious "fads" that the modern church goes through preferring a balanced approach. Which is why I like him in particular, because he is reasonable and tries to give scriptural and godly perspective to things when the church gets carried away sometimes....He gets criticised a lot because of it. Some of it warranted, sure, but many times, I actually agree with him which puts me at odd with the mainstream sometimes...

I'm thinking more along the lines of some of the scriptures where the power of the Holy Spirit has moved people physically, but I was being tongue in cheek about what I was saying about Phelps, that's why I laughed and had this smilie ---> :D

[David B]

I presume that Stanley and Pawson are the sort of evangelists are the sort of evangelist that gets people to fall over.


No they don't actually, far from it. They're very staid and serious, especially Pawson. And Pawson has "established a reputation among both evangelicals and charismatics as an effective and balanced expositor of the Bible" (wiki).

I like Pawson and Stanley, I don't always agree with them, but I do believe that they exhibit the Fruits of the Spirit and therefore have the Holy Spirit whereas the Phelps clan, I don't believe exhibit the fruits of the Holy Spirit.



It is a big mistake, Sally, to view things like the Toronto Blessing as any sort of good evidence for the existence of any sort of Holy Spirit.
David


I'm not referring to the Toronto Blessing, and I think Pawson in particular would probably be against that kind of euphoria as "evidence." Although don't quote me on that, it's just not his style at all and he is quite critical of a lot of the religious "fads" that the modern church goes through preferring a balanced approach. Which is why I like him in particular, because he is reasonable and tries to give scriptural and godly perspective to things when the church gets carried away sometimes....He gets criticised a lot because of it. Some of it warranted, sure, but many times, I actually agree with him even which puts me at odd with the mainstream sometimes...

I'm thinking about some of the scriptures where the power of the Holy Spirit has moved people physically, but I was being tongue in cheek about what I was saying about Phelps, that's why I laughed and had this smilie ---> :D

Ah, ok. It seems I read too much into the bit I bolded a couple of posts down the board.

Though, given your choice of words, I think it a forgiveable mistake to have made.

David

[SallyAnne]

Ah, ok. It seems I read too much into the bit I bolded a couple of posts down the board.

Though, given your choice of words, I think it a forgiveable mistake to have made.

David


Of course, we're all still getting to know each other, no probs. :)

[SallyAnne]

I don't like the Phelps family at all, but in some ways I see them as victims themselves. Victims of the sort of fanaticism that places a belief in the infallibility of one (among many) old books above learning about life the universe and everything from observation and thought.

David



Actually, I see them as victims too, but not of religion or even faith. They're victims of their own hatred and that is to be pitied most of all...

[TheBear]

Actually, I see them as victims too, but not of religion or even faith.
What's next? Religion and faith have nothing to do with Jihad suicide bombers?

[Norrin Radd]

'fundygelicals' (nice word, is that one you made up yourself?)




That's Norrins made up word, lol.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I picked it up from one of the fundy-bashers at one of our previous hang-outs. As I recall, their view was along the lines that "evangelical" is really a way of hiding from the Fundamentalist label, and of course all fundies are unintelligent uneducated hostile joyless self-righteous legalistic creeps. (I of course am only hostile and self-righteous, but I gladly embrace the fundy label as a way of saying :bunny: to the infidels and libs.)

[SallyAnne]

Actually, I see them as victims too, but not of religion or even faith.
What's next? Religion and faith have nothing to do with Jihad suicide bombers?


Actually, great question. I've watched a few docos about Jihad bombers and during their training for suicide missions they get brainwashed with a compelling mix of politics and distorted versions of extremist Islam.

So whilst they believe that they are doing something for Allah, they've been brainwashed with politics in a way that normal every day people, like mainstream Muslims, can't even comprehend with their daily religious faith.

[SallyAnne]

'fundygelicals' (nice word, is that one you made up yourself?)




That's Norrins made up word, lol.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I picked it up from one of the fundy-bashers at one of our previous hang-outs. As I recall, their view was along the lines that "evangelical" is really a way of hiding from the Fundamentalist label, and of course all fundies are unintelligent uneducated hostile joyless self-righteous legalistic creeps. (I of course am only hostile and self-righteous, but I gladly embrace the fundy label as a way of saying :bunny: to the infidels and libs.)


LOL! I didn't know it was from one of our beloved fundy-bashers! :evil: I thought it was yours, hahaha...:D

Touche, it's pretty cool.

[TheBear]

I'm just wondering why people tend to give religion and faith protective treatment in all these circumstances ans situations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg&feature=channel_page

[SallyAnne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg&feature=channel_page


It's really fascinating how he says we deserve "mockery" and that he will mock. He just proved what the Bible said about "mockers" appearing in the last days. Thanks.

[SallyAnne]

I'm just wondering why people tend to give religion and faith protective treatment in all these circumstances ans situations.



Actually, the most amount of suicide terrorism has occured under the Tamal Tigers, a secular group. But I'm pretty sure their lack of religion and faith has nothing to do with it, hate is hate.

[RBH]

I don't like the Phelps family at all, but in some ways I see them as victims themselves. Victims of the sort of fanaticism that places a belief in the infallibility of one (among many) old books above learning about life the universe and everything from observation and thought.

DavidActually, I see them as victims too, but not of religion or even faith. They're victims of their own hatred and that is to be pitied most of all...The saddest bit is in the second clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciee1qdWE3M) I posted above. At about 1:25 into the clip the interviewer talks to three young Phelps girls, apparently in their mid-teens. Judging by her facial features the middle one is pretty clearly Shirley's daughter.

One of them says "Our parents love us enough to teach the truth to us." Then they sing "I'm ashamed to be in America, where the fags can freely roam."

Those kids are well and truly fucked up.

[SallyAnne]

I don't like the Phelps family at all, but in some ways I see them as victims themselves. Victims of the sort of fanaticism that places a belief in the infallibility of one (among many) old books above learning about life the universe and everything from observation and thought.

DavidActually, I see them as victims too, but not of religion or even faith. They're victims of their own hatred and that is to be pitied most of all...The saddest bit is in the second clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciee1qdWE3M) I posted above. At about 1:25 into the clip the interviewer talks to three young Phelps girls, apparently in their mid-teens. Judging by her facial features the middle one is pretty clearly Shirley's daughter.

One of them says "Our parents love us enough to teach the truth to us." Then they sing "I'm ashamed to be in America, where the fags can freely roam."

Those kids are well and truly fucked up.


Yes, I agree with you and it is sad. That was extremely disturbing to see the girls singing that song with the same leary grin of Shirley, it must be Phelps family trait.:eek:

and what did she mean that the University campus massacre was good?

[TheBear]

It's really fascinating how he says we deserve "mockery" and that he will mock.
Well, I don't think people deserve to be mocked. Beliefs, on the other hand, are fair game.

He just proved what the Bible said about "mockers" appearing in the last days. Thanks.
There have been "mockers" ever since the early Christian writings, all the way to present time. But, I always get a chuckle every time a Christian tries to incorporate this into a discussion. :D In most cases, (just like this one right here), its nothing more than a red herring distraction, having nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I wasn't discussing mockery, or what the Bible says about mockery. I am discussing your willingness to defend and exonerate religion and faith, in regards to the WBC.

[SallyAnne]

I wasn't discussing mockery, or what the Bible says about mockery. I am discussing your willingness to defend and exonerate religion and faith, in regards to the WBC.


Wait a minute. You posted about the Jihad suicide bombers. I replied about them having a compelling mix of politics and extremist Islamist beliefs fueling their warped sense of reality, it's not simply mainstream religion and faith, (just as the Phelps clan aren't mainstream either.)

But if religion and faith is to blame for such atrocities, then why has the secular group, The Tamal Tigers engaged in more suicide terrorism than even the Jihaddi extremists?

[TheBear]

But if religion and faith is to blame for such atrocities...
Stop right there. You're moving goalposts. No one has said that the blame lies solely on religion and faith. But, you went well past that, and basically claimed that religion and faith had nothing to do with it.

Now, let's get back to the WBC. You claimed that religion and faith had nothing to do with it. Are you sticking with that position, or are you going to back off of it?

[SallyAnne]

But if religion and faith is to blame for such atrocities...
Stop right there. You're moving goalposts. No one has said that blame lies solely on religion and faith. But, you went well past that, and basically claimed that religion and faith had nothing to do with it.

Now, let's get back to the WBC. You claimed it had nothing to do with religion or faith. Are you sticking with that position, or are you going to back off of it?



Listen, you posted about Jihad bombers, so I responded to that. If you had simply asked me why I didn't regard WBC actions as being fueled by religion and faith then I would have answered you. But you referred to the Jihaddi suicide bombers which is something else altogether, so it was YOU who moved the goalposts, not me.

But ok, lets get back to the Phelps and what you're really trying to ask me now.

David B said this:

"I don't like the Phelps family at all, but in some ways I see them as victims themselves. Victims of the sort of fanaticism that places a belief in the infallibility of one (among many) old books above learning about life the universe and everything from observation and thought."


David clearly sees the Phelps family as victims of fanaticism. Certainly, I can agree that they are. But I don't see why fanaticism has to result in the hatred that they spew. Why couldn't they be moved to fanaticism of love which Jesus represents? So no, I think they are victims of their own hatred, not religion and certainly not the faith that Jesus Christ inspires.

Same as Jihaddi's, I think they too are victims of their own hatred, same as the Tamal Tigers.

Does that answer your question? It might not be the answer you want to hear, but that's what I think.

[TheBear]

But if religion and faith is to blame for such atrocities...
Stop right there. You're moving goalposts. No one has said that blame lies solely on religion and faith. But, you went well past that, and basically claimed that religion and faith had nothing to do with it.

Now, let's get back to the WBC. You claimed it had nothing to do with religion or faith. Are you sticking with that position, or are you going to back off of it?



Listen,
:D I know where someone's at when they start out with "Listen", or "Look." :D

Relax, Sally. We're just having a discussion.




you posted about Jihad bombers, so I responded to that. If you had simply asked me why I didn't regard WBC actions as being fueled by religion and faith then I would have answered you. But you referred to the Jihaddi suicide bombers which is something else altogether, so it was YOU who moved the goalposts, not me.
Those who are following along know that this little bit started out with you saying -
Actually, I see them as victims too, but not of religion or even faith.

To that I replied -
What's next? Religion and faith have nothing to do with Jihad suicide bombers?

Let's keep things in context and not misrepresent. mkay?


Does that answer your question?
Kind of. It tells me that you feel that when Muslims are involved in anti-social behavior, along with politics, hatred, etc, religion and faith also play a role. But when its Christians involved in anti-social behavior, it has nothing to do with faith and religion, and only has to do with politics, hatred, etc.

[SallyAnne]

Kind of. It tells me that you feel that when Muslims are involved in anti-social behavior, along with politics, hatred, etc, religion and faith also play a role. But when its Christians involved in anti-social behavior, it has nothing to do with faith and religion, and only has to do with politics, hatred, etc.


Actually, that's probably a fair point you just made. I wasn't meaning to imply that but maybe I did. Ok, I will stand corrected and agree with you on that.

[TheBear]

Kind of. It tells me that you feel that when Muslims are involved in anti-social behavior, along with politics, hatred, etc, religion and faith also play a role. But when its Christians involved in anti-social behavior, it has nothing to do with faith and religion, and only has to do with politics, hatred, etc.


Actually, that's probably a fair point you just made. I wasn't meaning to imply that but maybe I did. Ok, I will stand corrected and agree with you on that.
That's the only point I was making in all this. I'm glad we can move on from here. :)

[SallyAnne]

Kind of. It tells me that you feel that when Muslims are involved in anti-social behavior, along with politics, hatred, etc, religion and faith also play a role. But when its Christians involved in anti-social behavior, it has nothing to do with faith and religion, and only has to do with politics, hatred, etc.


Actually, that's probably a fair point you just made. I wasn't meaning to imply that but maybe I did. Ok, I will stand corrected and agree with you on that.
That's the only point I was making in all this. I'm glad we can move on from here. :)


LOL! Ok. ;)

[David B]

I'm just wondering why people tend to give religion and faith protective treatment in all these circumstances ans situations.



Actually, the most amount of suicide terrorism has occured under the Tamal Tigers, a secular group. But I'm pretty sure their lack of religion and faith has nothing to do with it, hate is hate.

I'm not so sure that the Tamil Tigers are secular.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2070817.stm

David

[dancer_rnb]

I'm just wondering why people tend to give religion and faith protective treatment in all these circumstances ans situations.



Actually, the most amount of suicide terrorism has occured under the Tamal Tigers, a secular group. But I'm pretty sure their lack of religion and faith has nothing to do with it, hate is hate.

I'm not so sure that the Tamil Tigers are secular.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2070817.stm

David

Sounds more like a minority group is concerned about treatment by the majority than the Tamil Tigers are not secular.

[Ray Moscow]

In general, Tamils are not secular, and neither are Tamil militants. Many "Tigers" are devotees of Sai Baba.

[dancer_rnb]

I do wonder how much is a result of a certain country screwing around in that area for a couple of hundred years.:D