Quantcast

May I introduce, Christians I love to dislike.........

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
:mumble: :mumble: :mumble: :mumble:

States Eye Picketing at Soldiers' Funerals By CARRIE SPENCER GHOSE, Associated Press Writer
Mon Feb 6, 3:15 PM ET



States are rushing to limit when and where people may protest at funerals — all because of a small Kansas church whose members picket soldiers' burials, arguing that Americans are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals.

During the 1990s, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., went around picketing the funerals of AIDS victims with protest signs that read, "God Hates Fags." But politicians began paying more attention recently when church members started showing up at the burials of soldiers and Marines killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Legislation is being considered in at least 14 states, and several of the bills moving quickly, with backing from legislative leaders and governors.

If they pass, the bills could set up a clash between privacy and free speech rights, and court challenges are almost certain.

"We're not proposing to silence the speech of the Westboro Baptist Church, as offensive as most of us find that," said Kansas Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, a Republican. Instead, he said, he is trying to achieve a balance that respects "the rights of families to bury their dead in peace."

The church has about 75 members, most of them belonging to the extended family of Westboro Baptist's pastor, the Rev. Fred Phelps. The church is an independent congregation that preaches a literal reading of the Bible.

Shirley Phelps-Roper, Phelps' daughter and an attorney for the church, said states cannot interfere with their message that the soldiers were struck down by God because they were fighting for a country that harbors homosexuals and adulterers.

Lawmakers are "trying to introduce something that will make them feel better about the holes we're punching in the facade they live under," Phelps-Roper said. "If they pass a law that gets in our way, they will be violating the Constitution, and we will sue them for that."

Among the states considering such measures: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Some of the bills specify noisy, disruptive behavior or signs with "fighting words," as in Wisconsin. Some bar protests within one or two hours before or after a funeral starts; others specify distances ranging from 10 car lengths to five blocks away; some include both.

Violations can bring fines of a few hundred dollars, up to 30 days in jail, or more. Wisconsin is calling for fines of up to $10,000; one of five Oklahoma bills would set a one-year jail sentence.

Missouri's bill was named for Army Spc. Edward Lee Myers, 21, whose wife went to his funeral an hour early to try to avoid protesters. They were already across the road, holding signs that read "God Hates Fags" and "God Made IEDs," a reference to roadside bombs.

Her 5-year-old son kept asking why "mean people" were outside, undercover agents were in the church, and she worried that angry relatives might start a fight.

"I couldn't even pay my last respects because of everything that was going on," Jean Myers said.

Legislation against funeral protests was also introduced in West Virginia last month after a small knot of protesters from Westboro Baptist demonstrated outside a memorial for the 12 men killed in the Sago Mine disaster. The protesters held signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Miners," "God Hates Your Tears" and "Miners in Hell," arguing that the miners' deaths were a sign of God's wrath at America for tolerating gays.

"It's just inhuman for a group that says it's coming in the name of the Lord to protest a funeral," said state Delegate Jeff Eldridge, a co-sponsor of the West Virginia bill.

If such restrictions are challenged, the courts will probably look to rulings on laws governing abortion protests, constitutional scholars said.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Florida ban on peaceful picketing within 300 feet of an abortion clinic, but allowed restrictions on behavior that impedes access to a clinic. However, the courts have allowed restrictions on picketing in front of doctors' houses, saying privacy trumps free speech.

The question is whether a church, funeral home or cemetery is considered private or public during a ceremony, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.

___
 

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
Andyman_1970 said:
:mumble: :mumble: :mumble: :mumble:

States Eye Picketing at Soldiers' Funerals By CARRIE SPENCER GHOSE, Associated Press Writer
Mon Feb 6, 3:15 PM ET

States are rushing to limit when and where people may protest at funerals — all because of a small Kansas church whose members picket soldiers' burials, arguing that Americans are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals.
Hmm. Well, the laws which protect gays unfortunately also protect these idiots.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
Old Man G Funk said:
Wait, I thought we were in Iraq fighting for the Iraqis. Allah hates fags and adulterers too, so what's the problem?
I think that they think that everyone (besides them) is homosexual.
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Old Man G Funk said:
Or, maybe he just emphasizes different parts of the Bible than modern society. Maybe he is really more Christian than most.
Or maybe he emphasizes parts of the Bible to the exclusion of others and/or takes them out of context.
 

kinghami3

Future Turbo Monkey
Jun 1, 2004
2,239
0
Ballard 4 life.
Andyman_1970 said:
True, very true.................I must say I am ashamed to share the same "label" (that would be "Christian") as these folks though................
:stupid: but it's something we all have to deal with. I just went to see Jim Wallis (Sojourners) give talk this morning, so I'm feeling a little redeemed. :D
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
Andyman_1970 said:
I disagree but I don't have the energy to enter the steel cage with you today...............:p
That's all right. I wasn't trying to start another big, long discussion. You have to admit, though, that society has changed our morals, and strictly following the morality as laid out in the Bible is no longer socially accepted.
 

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
Old Man G Funk said:
That's all right. I wasn't trying to start another big, long discussion. You have to admit, though, that society has changed our morals, and strictly following the morality as laid out in the Bible is no longer socially accepted.
Big brush, large thick strokes, not much detail to been seen by this artist.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
ummbikes said:
Big brush, large thick strokes, not much detail to been seen by this artist.
Because Andyman and I have hashed it out quite a few times already. If you want some details for yourself, let me ask you if you think divorce should be allowed and for what reasons? How about whether you own slaves or at least think slavery is OK? What crimes do you think people should be put to death for?
 

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
1. Ohhh, pick me, pick me! If the spouse exits the marriage bed to enter another.

2. I am slave, to sin, to God's law, to the IRS. In which context are you discussing slavery?

3. None. I'm not the state, nor God, so it's not my call. People were killed for all kinds of reasons in the bible. What's your point?

I have found you and Andyman to have some good discussions. I really shouldn't have responded to your jabs. I'll try and pop in today and see where your next move is, but really I would prefer you just get to the point and make a more refined statement.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
ummbikes said:
1. Ohhh, pick me, pick me! If the spouse exits the marriage bed to enter another.

2. I am slave, to sin, to God's law, to the IRS. In which context are you discussing slavery?

3. None. I'm not the state, nor God, so it's not my call. People were killed for all kinds of reasons in the bible. What's your point?

I have found you and Andyman to have some good discussions. I really shouldn't have responded to your jabs. I'll try and pop in today and see where your next move is, but really I would prefer you just get to the point and make a more refined statement.
You are actually more permissive of divorce than Jesus or Paul.

The point is that if you were to follow the morality of the Bible, then you would not fit into modern society's morals. No Christians now-a-days really follow the Bible. To criticize this guy for not being Christian or not following the Bible is hypocritical and fallacious. We should be criticizing him for not accepting the evolution of societal morals.
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Old Man G Funk said:
No Christians now-a-days really follow the Bible.
In the "literal" sense you are correct we can't (nor are Gentile Christians commanded to in the Bible) follow 100% of the Bible, we can however "love our neighbor as ourselves".
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
Andyman_1970 said:
In the "literal" sense you are correct we can't (nor are Gentile Christians commanded to in the Bible) follow 100% of the Bible, we can however "love our neighbor as ourselves".
Andyman, it would be nice to see you acknowledge the evolution of culture and society that has shaped the current morals that we have today. Whatever argument you make about the "literal" interpretations or the exhortations to "love our neighbor as ourselves" does not change that fact, nor does it change the fact that one strictly following the morality of the Bible today would be seen as a freak.
 

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
Old Man G Funk said:
The point is that if you were to follow the morality of the Bible, then you would not fit into modern society's morals.
Which morality? Pre Abraham? Pre Christ? Law or grace? Very broad again.

What Jesus asks us to do is very relevant and fresh even today.

Leviticus, well even most of that is relevent...:p

Like Andy mentioned (Hi Andy, how is your ministry?) when Jesus gave the sermon on the mount He spelled out in very simple terms what we should do. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31
 

ummbikes

Don't mess with the Santas
Apr 16, 2002
1,794
0
Napavine, Warshington
Old Man G Funk said:
Whatever argument you make about the "literal" interpretations or the exhortations to "love our neighbor as ourselves" does not change that fact, nor does it change the fact that one strictly following the morality of the Bible today would be seen as a freak.
I personally don't disagree too much with that point. It is noticable when a person acts differently than the norm. A person who was following the teachings of Christ would appear less than normal in modern America. Ya.
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Old Man G Funk said:
Whatever argument you make about the "literal" interpretations or the exhortations to "love our neighbor as ourselves" does not change that fact, nor does it change the fact that one strictly following the morality of the Bible today would be seen as a freak.
That's the point of following Jesus, is that you'd unconditionally love others and it would be so counter to the culture around you (those early Christians in Asia Minor were viewed as "freaks"). As Peter says people would ask you about this hope you have (because you live differently than the surrounding culture), in Peter's case even in the face of Christians being used as outdoor lighting for Nero's parties.

That's what "evangelism" is suppose to be about, living counter to the culture that people see you really do love others unconditionally (i.e. not a hypocrite) and people ask you why you do that........not getting in your face and asking "you don't want to go to Hell do you?"
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
ummbikes said:
Like Andy mentioned (Hi Andy, how is your ministry?)
It’s going well, not as I expected but well. I haven’t taken that position, and not sure I will, but I’m continuing to do the weekly “service” for college students and 20 year olds…..we start for the spring this Saturday night, and I’ll be posting recordings of the teachings from those services on my website if anyone’s interested in listening…..

ummbikes said:
when Jesus gave the sermon on the mount He spelled out in very simple terms what we should do. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31
As disciples we’re obligated to live out Jesus interpretation of Torah, that’s what a disciple does they live out and continue the teaching of their rabbi, in our case that’s Jesus.

Back to the literalism for a minute. I’ll give an example. In 1 Timothy, Paul tells Timothy what a leader in his church should “look” like and gives a long list of requirements for such a leader. Now a lot of conservative fundamentalist Christian churches take this list literally. The problem is, Paul was writing to a specific person, in a specific place at a specific time. Timothy was the leader of the church in Ephesus. Ephesus in the 1st century was the world headquarters of Artimus worship – her temple was one of the seven great ancient wonders of the world.

Because Ephesus was the center of Artimus worship, and the cult of Artimus placed women in control of everything (women ran the city and most families in 1st century Ephesus) Paul has specific instructions for Timothy. Now there are some lessons that can be learned form those letters, but I don’t live in 1st century Ephesus, so I need to interpret and live out that Text with that understanding. The Gnostic cult of Eve was also big in Ephesus, which is why Paul addresses the whole Adam was created first in his letter to Timothy.

IMO it’s a misuse of the Text to say that we should literally follow / understand the Text without first placing it in light of the context it was originally written in. This is why context is key.

I thought I wasn’t going to get into the cage………………..
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
Andyman_1970 said:
That's the point of following Jesus, is that you'd unconditionally love others and it would be so counter to the culture around you (those early Christians in Asia Minor were viewed as "freaks"). As Peter says people would ask you about this hope you have (because you live differently than the surrounding culture), in Peter's case even in the face of Christians being used as outdoor lighting for Nero's parties.

That's what "evangelism" is suppose to be about, living counter to the culture that people see you really do love others unconditionally (i.e. not a hypocrite) and people ask you why you do that........not getting in your face and asking "you don't want to go to Hell do you?"
No, evangelism is about following the scriptures. Your interpretation that the scriptures boils down to simply loving one's neighbor is not necessarily correct, and it's a case in point that no Christian really follows the Bible in modern society.

If you really want to follow the Bible and the words of Jesus, then you should not be willing to grant a divorce to a woman who is severly beaten by her husband every day. You can grant it to him though, but only if she sleeps with someone else. And, according to Jesus it is alright to beat slaves, but no more than they deserve. If you do not follow those words of Jesus, how are you to criticize someone else for not following other parts of the Bible?
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
ummbikes said:
Which morality? Pre Abraham? Pre Christ? Law or grace? Very broad again.
Either one. Both are binding as part of the scripture. Do you follow either of those? Of course not. You follow the morality that was taught to you by your society and your culture.
What Jesus asks us to do is very relevant and fresh even today.
So long as one ignores the parts that aren't relevant and fresh, like how one should treat ones slaves.
Leviticus, well even most of that is relevent...:p
Which parts? Should we kill children that are disrespectful to their parents?
Like Andy mentioned (Hi Andy, how is your ministry?) when Jesus gave the sermon on the mount He spelled out in very simple terms what we should do. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31
But, that did not absolve the Christian from following the other rules laid out in the Bible. Some dietary rules were done away with, but not many of the others. Plus, one is not absolved from following Jesus's other teachings.
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Hold on let me get into the cage…………LOL (I said I was not going to do this…………ugh!)

Old Man G Funk said:
No, evangelism is about following the scriptures.
What? How so?

Old Man G Funk said:
Your interpretation that the scriptures boils down to simply loving one's neighbor is not necessarily correct, and it's a case in point that no Christian really follows the Bible in modern society.
It’s not my interpreatation it is Jesus’ and several other rabbi’s interpretation that all the Torah “hung” on that passage in Leviticus, that by living that one passage out one fulfills Torah. Jesus’ “yoke” His interpretation of Torah boiled down to two commands, loving God and loving others, He said all other commands “hang” on those two. So as His disciple, my job is to center my life around living those two commands out, otherwise I’m not a disciple. Most Christians (including myself a lot of the time) are not disciples, or at least not very good ones (most Christians don’t really know what it means to be a disciple).

Old Man G Funk said:
And, according to Jesus it is alright to beat slaves, but no more than they deserve.
Chapter and verse, I guess I missed that one.

Old Man G Funk said:
If you do not follow those words of Jesus, how are you to criticize someone else for not following other parts of the Bible?
These are people claiming to be followers of Jesus, and yet some of their actions blatantly violate His interpretation of Torah, that’s how.
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Old Man G Funk said:
Either one. Both are binding as part of the scripture.
Not for a Gentile follower of Jesus they are not, see Acts 15.

Old Man G Funk said:
But, that did not absolve the Christian from following the other rules laid out in the Bible. Some dietary rules were done away with, but not many of the others. Plus, one is not absolved from following Jesus's other teachings.
Jesus Himself says His teachings can be summed up in two commands, this was known as a rabbi’s yoke, love God and love others, if one can live out those two commands one has fulfilled all of the commandments………that’s the responsibility of a disciple.

Also check out the term “rabbinic binding and loosing” Jesus gives the disciples in Matthew 16 this authority and IMO His followers today as well.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
Andyman_1970 said:
Hold on let me get into the cage…………LOL (I said I was not going to do this…………ugh!)
Like I said, I wasn't trying to start a cage match on this either. All I'm really looking for is for you to admit that society evolves and what we deem as moral behavior now is not what is espoused in the Bible.
What? How so?
Actually, evangelism is defined by Meriam Webster as:
Main Entry: evan·ge·lism
Pronunciation: i-'van-j&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ
2 : militant or crusading zeal
It’s not my interpreatation it is Jesus’ and several other rabbi’s interpretation that all the Torah “hung” on that passage in Leviticus, that by living that one passage out one fulfills Torah. Jesus’ “yoke” His interpretation of Torah boiled down to two commands, loving God and loving others, He said all other commands “hang” on those two. So as His disciple, my job is to center my life around living those two commands out, otherwise I’m not a disciple. Most Christians (including myself a lot of the time) are not disciples, or at least not very good ones (most Christians don’t really know what it means to be a disciple).
We've already talked about this and one can not follow all of god's commands by simply following those two pieces of advice. Besides that, they are contradictory at times. In order to "love god" one must obey god, which means not loving one's neighbor at times, like when that neighbor is being put to death for murder or something else.
Chapter and verse, I guess I missed that one.
Luke 12:47-48
While we are at it, why don't we also talk about Jesus's words about how one should treat one's family, or how he came not for peace but with a sword, etc. You are seriously glossing over the parts that you don't agree with all the while accusing others of the same offense. Plus, you refuse to recognize that the reason you don't agree with those parts is because of the evolution of society.
These are people claiming to be followers of Jesus, and yet some of their actions blatantly violate His interpretation of Torah, that’s how.
No, they blatantly violate YOUR interpretation of the Torah. By my interpretation, god does hate fags. I don't remember Jesus saying anything to the contrary.
 

Old Man G Funk

Choir Boy
Nov 21, 2005
2,864
0
In a handbasket
Andyman_1970 said:
Not for a Gentile follower of Jesus they are not, see Acts 15.



Jesus Himself says His teachings can be summed up in two commands, this was known as a rabbi’s yoke, love God and love others, if one can live out those two commands one has fulfilled all of the commandments………that’s the responsibility of a disciple.

Also check out the term “rabbinic binding and loosing” Jesus gives the disciples in Matthew 16 this authority and IMO His followers today as well.
As we've discussed before, he says those are important, but not the only ones necessary.
 

SK6

Turbo Monkey
Jul 10, 2001
7,586
0
Shut up and ride...
sanjuro said:
Hmm. Well, unfortunately the laws whichs protect gays also protect these idiots.
Damn dude, you seem like you get it...:thumb:

Thats what I've learned about law after a year and a half of school....
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Old Man G Funk said:
We've already talked about this and one can not follow all of god's commands by simply following those two pieces of advice. Besides that, they are contradictory at times. In order to "love god" one must obey god, which means not loving one's neighbor at times, like when that neighbor is being put to death for murder or something else.
Several rabbi’s including Jesus indicate you can fulfill the Torah through these two commands. Yes they can be contradictory, which is why the rabbi’s were around to determine which command was “heavier” for a given situation. Healing on the Sabbath for instance, could be violated to save a life, so protecting a life was “heavier” than keeping the Sabbath commands. We totally don’t view the Scriptures in this manner today, we view it in a very literal concrete Greek/Western understanding, not in “living” way the Jews viewed the Text.

This is my main “argument” against fundamentalism and it’s literal view of the Text, they don’t take this concept into account, nor to they understand that Jesus gave His followers the authority to do this kind of “binding and loosing”…………which is really what a denomination is, it’s a group of people how have bound (prohibited) some things and loosed (allowed) other things.