Fred Phelps church rides crazy train to Supreme Court

http://www.ydr.com/mike/ci_16269308

 

Since you're an atheist, why do you keep posting things about Christians?

 

Best line:

..."then it got weird"

Seriously, who were the biggest jerks, the Westboro baptists or the passersby that were egging them on, objectifying the insanity? Someone needs to tell the kids of that church that 'Honor your father and mother' applies when they are acting like a father and mother. It doesn't mean descending into insanity with them. Therapy indeed!

 

I admit you're right.As for proselytizing to members of the military:
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/weinstein.html

 

Christianity is not about how moral Christians are. It is about how moral Christ is. Every Christian is a moral hyprocrit. I am a moral hypocrit. But that just means that Christians have standards that are better than they are. That gives Christians a worthy goal, so worthy it is impossible to acheive. But when you are your own God, you will never be any more moral than your own carnality. When you are your own God, you will never be a hypocrit, but that is because you live to your own standards, standards that may change from day to day, moment by moment, depending on how you feel at the time. And you get to live without regret because you live within your own standards, and you reject any standards but your own.

So as an example of your moral standards, instead of doing something positive with your time today, like trying to support someone else who has problems, elevating his or her spirits, instead you decide that the most moral use of your time, according to your standards, is to place posts on an Internet forum designed for spirutal support of people who suffer with chronic illness, criticizing the Christians in that group for aspiring to live by the highest standards, while of course failing, while you simply do whatever you feel from moment to moment, that being your only standard and your only guide. But at least in doing so, you can rest easy, because at least you are not a hypocrit.

 

Sigh, Barnyard barnyard, why do you keep picking fights with the Christians? We don't go one this part of the forum to get insulted because of our beliefs. If you believe something else more power to you, but don't dog out those of us who do believe.

 

byb,

One of my pet peaves is people playing fast and loose with statistics. It's all about ratio.

But equally important is defintion of terms. The traditional definition of 'Christian' has become diluted over time. There are various Christian denominations; each believing differently. There are people of no particular denomination that claim to be Christian.

When I'm asked about my faith, I ask the questioner how much time I have to answer.

As to your signature sign off, it's very close to a Bible Scripture. Paul puts it this way: "Faith without works is dead." He was clear that prayer is not inferior to good works; they go hand in hand.

I know you claim to hate proselytizing. But I assume you changed your mind when I saw your statement of faith.

 

Fred Phelps is the devil and they are only out to gain national attention for themselves by any means necessary.

 

Well Henry while it's true I don't aspire my morals to an imaginary man in the sky,I do live my life according to the Golden Rule,and while you believers of myths and superstitions have faith,though of course no evidence,just a belief,I can find no evidence for the existence of god(s).Yet as you know there are thousands of belief systems each just like your own claiming that their religion is the one true path to God.Can they be right and Christianity wrong or are you all wrong?I believe science is all we have.
To quote Bertrand Russell:
"Religion is based...mainly on fear...fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death.Fear is the parent of cruelty,and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand...my own view of religion is that of Lucretius.I regard it as a disease born of fear and a source of untold misery to the human race."

 

You assume wrong,because nothing absolutely nothing fails like prayer.Don't believe me? Read the section on prayer in:
http://godisimaginary.com/

 

So do you always do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or are you a hypocrit like the rest of us Christians? And since Jesus taught to live by the golden rule, at least as part of His morality, then why do you have a beef with Christians, just because we believe that there was a Creator of all that has been created. Why, that's just an objective conclusion. Nothing in this universe that you can point to did not have a cause beyond itself. Why then could we imagine that the universe itself did not have one. So am I proslytising now, just speaking my opinion? If that's true, aren't you doing the same thing? My religion accepts God. Your religion does not. You began this and several other threads proslytising your beliefs. Why are you any better than the Christians you accuse of doing the same thing. You are the one taking the initiatives to state your beliefs in your threads. I might have been wrong in my earlier post. You do appear to be a hypocrit.

 

Henry I don't have a religion nor a belief in religion(s).I don't believe in the gods that Man created.But you asked why do I have a beef with Christians and my answer is I don't.I just don't understand how people,not just Christians but any religion,can believe or have faith without evidence.It's like taking a trip.If I was going to take a trip to Albuquerque,N.M.I wouldn't just get in a car and go east.No,I would look at a map first and see what roads I would need to take.But religionists seem to take trips blindly.They'll read an ancient book,whether it's the old testament or the new testament and blindly believe what they've read.Case in point is what this woman read on her MRI.She saw an image of Jesus even though no description of Jesus is mentioned in the N.T.But she blindly believed that that image was Jesus.
As for proselytizing I don't think it's right for Evangelical Christians to proselytize their beliefs to others who don't believe as they do in the United States Military.On a forum like this I have the option of not answering or answering,but in the military when your commanding officer says something and you disagree you're insubordination.As for my proselytizing or your proselytizing,it doesn't bother me as I'm secure in my non-beliefs.If you think I'm proselytizing you and you feel secure in your beliefs then why should my proselytizing bother you?

 

I get it. Your one of Scott's evidence-based buddies that followed him over here from misinformation.org. I just like to know whom I'm dealing with.

Regarding evidence, give me your natural evidence that life can spring from no life, or that matter can spring from no matter, or that the laws of gravity could have been in place before matter existed. You can't. So your evidence based criteria for your belief system is not satisfied. You say you can't believe something without evidence. I just gave you a list of things you believe but for which you have no evidence. So the evidence criteria is a criteria of convenience. You use it when you want and ignore it when you want.

So here's the truth. And it goes for you and Scott and INS and anyone else who follows Scott over here touting evidence-based religion. You prefer that God not exist. That is a personal preference. So you come up with reasons to support that conclusion. Just like life does not spring from no life, yet you believe it does, you can only believe that because you want to believe that. You have no evidence on which to base that conclusion. And if you are ready to admit that it is possible that life can spring from no life, without evidence, then I can say that it is equally likely that God is responsible for natural life because I have just as much evidence as you. So this is not about evidence. Forget that. This is about what you prefer to be the truth. You have selected door number two and you come up with ways to support that selection. It is personal preference, not evidence, on which you make your determination. Just know that.

Now once you discover that your beliefs are actually your personal preferences, then I ask you to try and understand yourself enough to begin to know why you would find it so onjectionable that God is responsible for life. That is a spiritual issue. You have a predisposition that places your attitude such that you reject God. Why would that be? You ponder what I have written you Barnbird. Because I'm telling you the truth and if you consider what I say, you have some answers to come up with, not for me, but for you.

 

A serious question Henry that I am curious about; how many words do you type a minute because it is mind boggling the amount you put out in such a short period of time? I can do about 36 words a minute and my wife does around 48 she says, but I imagine you're probably around 60-65 or else it would take you all night for one post - lol.

 

Its not that I type so fast. I just think fast and my fingers follow. Hey, and I'm on a blackberry. I'm typing with my thumbs!

 

Wow; and my wife pretty much types all day at her job and 48 words a minute is quite sufficient, so you could've probably been one of those court reporters or stenographers at some point.

 

Braves just went ahead 5-4 in the 11th

 

So, Sarita, when I wrote, "Christianity is not about how moral Christians are. It is about how moral Christ is. Every Christian is a moral hyprocrit," I take it that you agree with me. Thank you for your seconding opinion on that. But I am concerned that being a moral hypocrit may not stop at the edge of Christianity, and might, as we have just discovered with Barnbird, extend into the moral realms defined by anyone who claims to have a certain standard of morality, that they themselves do not adhere to.

In Barnbird's example, he says he lives by the Golden Rule. Well does he? Does he never violate that rule? And when he does slip, and when he treats someone in a fashion he would not want to be treated, who is he accountable to? No one. He is not even accountable to the rule itself, because he established the rule. Because he established the rule, he can disestablish the rule at will, and the disestablished rule becomes the rule. So Barnbird's glorious standard, the Golden Rule, is not his standard at all. Yet he says it is. So Barnbird is every bit the moral hypocrit he asserts Christians are. But as a result, because he lives by his own transient standards, he can claim to be perfect, always adhering to those standards, even though his standards change from moment to moment.

In your case, you claim that America was eastablished immorally. You claim that the American indians were treated unfairly in the name of God. Yet you choose to immigrate to and live in such a country. And last time I checked, I haven't seen your face on the cover of Indian Reparation Magazine. But because here you are so passionate against the actions of the early settlers of this country, a nation whose characteristics drew you here to live, selected over all other countries, who is the moral hypocrit?

As I said, Christianity is not about how moral Christians are. It is about how moral Christ is. Every Christian is a moral hyprocrit. but at least Christians have a standard beyond their own particular likes and dislikes during any particular moment in time. And Christians are accountable to authority that is much greater than there own personal authority. I expect that the early settlers who called themselves Christains, and who failed in upholding the morality of Jesus Christ, will have to answer for their lives just like the rest of us. And I do not claim to be better than them, or you, or anyone. The morality of Jesus Christ requires that all sin, no matter what extent or type, is reprehensible and defiles the life God has given us. So the best that any of us can do is repent, which means that we must be truly regretful and move to make a wrongful act right, taking responsibility for the wrong. I do not presume to know what that would mean in the case of compensating the American Indians for there losses, but I do know that through it all, America has taken steps to ensure that the heritage of the American Indian is preserved and that native americans have special programs available to them to help aid them to lead better lives, programs not available to others.
If you go to Washington DC, you ought to start your tour in the museum of the American indian at the southeastern end of the Mall, in a prominant place almost adjacent to the Capital Building. It is a beautiful testimony to the heritage and worth of the lives of the native American cultures. It is very well done and I believe that in your personal pursuit of fully understanding the cultures yourself, with the goal of personally offering to the native American cultures whatever you, as an individual who actually chose to live in a nation that has such an immoral heritage, can do, to aid their plight. That seems the least that anyone should do if they choose to live by the Golden Rule.

 

And I'm saying that the bigger moral hypocrit is one who establishes his own moral standards, under his own authority, and fails to uphold those standards, than one who accepts the highest standards from the highest authority and fails to uphold those standards.