westboro baptist WTF

[SoCo KungFu]

Is there a transgression in voicing one's opinion's no matter how odd or sulphurous it may be?

Would not a transgression be when one forces another off his spiritual path?

Yes there is transgression. Why these people are allowed to display is beyond me. If I was to go outside a black mans home and or a black church and spout racist hate eventually I'd be taken in for disturbing the peace. And rightfully so, because my actions would be violating the rights of another human being to be free from discrimination and happiness. I see these people as no different. Funny thing about people is, everyone thinks that they should just be able to do as they please with no regard for anyone else. But you are not. You are only privy to your "freedoms" (speech, congregation, etc.) so long as your freedoms do not impede on those of another.

[Matt Stone]

The bible is NOT innerant.

So which parts are wrong?

And many christian scholars say so, Bruce Metzger is an example of one.

Theologians and scholars know the bible is flawed and mostly factually wrong, but that particular nugget of information isn't making its way to the assembled masses... They still think it's perfect, despite the truckloads of blatant errors.

God made NO one flawed, man's choices made them flawed.

Apologetics. If God is omniscient, he knew every potential thread of future events, every line of the cosmic flow chart, every possible outcome based upon every possible variation in decisions. He knew in advance what was going to happen. He set the entire thing in motion... None of it was a surprise. He deliberately, intentionally constructed Adam (if we accept for the sake of argument that Adam was real; he wasn't, but that's a different discussion - even more important because if Adam wasn't real, then there was no reason for Jesus' execution/sacrifice), knowing full well what he was capable of doing. God knew the likelihood was that Adam would fall, and he placed the temptations there to begin with. Don't blame it on the talking snake, either. Who made him? Who put him in the garden? Who made him without free will, meaning he was compelled to tempt Adam and Eve, according to God's twisted designs...

Christianity is unique among religions because it says this:
God is here, way up here and we are down here.
Some religions say that by doing A,B and C you can get THERE.
Christianity says, nope, sorry, not gonna happen, it can't, we are imperfect.
So what does God do?
God comes DOWN to US in the form of his only begotten Son Jesus.
His becoming human allows man to relate to God on OUR level and is also the ultimate act of Love from God and it is also a huge gift for us and God' way of saying, " you guys such but I love you and you are worth it, so worth it that I will die and suffer for you, when I don't have to, because you guys have so much potential to be "like me".

That's flatly insane... "I deliberately made you flawed and imperfect, intentionally placed moral hurdles in front of you that I knew you'd never be able to get over, so now I'm going to show you how great a guy I am but incarnating myself so my own blood sacrifice, my own staged death, will cause me to forgive you for being the ****heads I made you to be." Seriously? That's the best an omnipotent, omniscient deity can do? Crap job of creation if you ask me.

Jesus said, " I require love, not sacrifice".

Cite, please.

God didn't commit suicide, but you are free to believe he did or to NOT believe he did.

Was Jesus also God? If so, sending himself to die amounts to suicide. He caused himself to be killed. Kind of like "suicide by cop," just in this case it's "suicide by Roman."

The story of Adam and Eve is symbolic of the "mistake" man did-

I love this... If Adam and Eve's story was symbolic, what did Jesus have to die for? Without the literal occurrence of Adam/Eve's disobedience, there was no disobedience for Jesus to die for. It makes Jesus wholly irrelevant, and therefore undermines the entire premise of christianity from the start...

Turning from God when they had found God and God asked very little of them. Just like we do everyday, not just to God, but to those we love.

They "found" God? How so? God created them and set them in the garden with him. According to Genesis, God walked bodily in the garden with them, ogling their "sinful" nakedness like some sort of pedophile... It wasn't until Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that the realized their nakedness was "dirty," becoming exactly like God (meaning God knew their nakedness was "dirty," but he did absolutely nothing to cover them up, making him a bit of a perv... See Gen 3:5). You have to question God's omniscience here as well, as in Gen 3:8 God had no idea where Adam and Eve were, needing to call out to them to ascertain their location. Sounds a lot less like a story about the divine and more like the poorly thought out parable created by an uneducated, illiterate goat-herd with an extraordinarily limited understanding of critical thinking, logical argument, or cohesive writing styles...

[Matt Stone]

Uh, I believe you should be required to provide scripture and context in regards to your remarks.

For instance, you say -plenty of examples of human sacrifice in the bible? In god's name? where? Abraham and Isaac? God stopped him before he killed Isaac (or if you're a muslim then it's about Ishmael. either way, the kid lives) Or maybe you're talking about the old testament and the great flood? sodom and gemorrah? David? Joshua?

Where are these plenty of human sacrifices you speak of?

You've already provided the human slaughters. Re-read what I wrote, though... I said "creations," and by that I'm including anything and everything that walks, crawls, flies, swims, etc. God's killed off everything once over (except Noah if you believe the flood story, a story that has absolutely no foundation whatsoever), has always been really keen on burnt offerings, and blood sacrifice, up to and including his own "son" really seem to get his motor running. For that matter, the only human sacrifice I have to cite is Jesus his****self. Really, no other one is needed.

also, in my belief, god incarnates in all of us. Everyone who is born is given the breath of god for their lifetime here. We all are children of god and have god within us, always. This is in the new testament and old. Jesus was a teacher. What of his teachings do you see to be "wrong"? Christians believe that god incarnated as Jesus to teach us how to be humans and how to move upwards and be better humans than our base selves.

And killing Jesus was important why, again?

Your last point of the adam and eve tale doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you could clarify more.

Which point was that?

[Matt Stone]

Is there a transgression in voicing one's opinion's no matter how odd or sulphurous it may be?

Would not a transgression be when one forces another off his spiritual path?

No. Your right to spew hatred ends where your hatred splashes up against my right now to be subjected to it.

Christians ***** about atheists being outspoken, being "disrespectful" for questioning religion generally, complaining about being "under attack." They call for atheists to be silenced. Right... back... atcha.

Atheists simply question the claims presented by the religious. The fact that the religious can't manage to answer the hard questions without resorting to "it's magic," or because they think their sky-daddy-god and mythology are so fragile that they can't withstand some healthy criticism and inquiry, is certainly not the fault of the atheist camp.

These human filth, picketing funerals and imposing their evil upon grieving families, relieves them of their "right" to say what they like. If this was a group of white men picketing a gathering of traditionally black fraternities, there'd be a ridiculously public outcry, condemning the obvious hate-speech being brought to the public square. But because these cultists are doing so in the name of their zombie god, nobody, including people from their own general religious background, is stepping up to publicly, loudly, aggressively condemn these hate-mongers for their actions... Because they know deep down their religion, perhaps more moderately practiced, really does contain that kind of hate and venom.

[Matt Stone]

I can't answer your post because I don't know what your foundation is for truth, right, wrong.

Truth, right, wrong, good, evil, are independent of any "god."

See the "Epicurean Riddle" -

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Another form of the argument is as follows:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

So, if there really is a perfectly good, loving God, the fact that evil runs rampant in the world, that people suffer and die horribly in every corner of the planet, easily disproves either God's goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, or simple existence.

It is wrong to hurt others. This is independent of religion or culture. The allowance for injuring others is an aberration, universally despised. Same with theft and lying, both being but subtle shades of hurting others. We do not need a god to provide us with guidance on how *not* to harm others.

[SoCo KungFu]

Truth, right, wrong, good, evil, are independent of any "god."

See the "Epicurean Riddle" -

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Another form of the argument is as follows:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

So, if there really is a perfectly good, loving God, the fact that evil runs rampant in the world, that people suffer and die horribly in every corner of the planet, easily disproves either God's goodness, omnipotence, omniscience, or simple existence.

It is wrong to hurt others. This is independent of religion or culture. The allowance for injuring others is an aberration, universally despised. Same with theft and lying, both being but subtle shades of hurting others. We do not need a god to provide us with guidance on how *not* to harm others.

Not that I much care as a biology student adhering to evolutionary theory, but just because. You are jumbling different schools of thought. What you are most referring to are those such as Calvinist doctrine. What your argument is illustrating is an issue with predestination. But that isn't the only idea out there. There are others who more prescribe to free will. Which your argument somewhat touches on, but not completely.

When man ate from the tree of good and evil, in essence we gained independence from the creator, free will. It was our choice. So, you may say:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Its none of the above. We made the choice of independence. Just because I know that if you've been double fisting tequila shots all night and go get on a motorcycle that you are going to wreck and possibly kill yourself, does that mean you are predestined to do so? A god may see the outcome, just as we can. But he is not bound to intervene, that is (our) free will. Its not that a god is unable, nor is it that unwilling. It is simply, god respecting our wishes so to speak. In allowing us our independence to choose, and suffer our own consequences of our choice, he/she/it loves.

At least, if you so adhere to that doctrine.

Personally, I think its much more interesting studying how all things on earth are related, biologically that is. Even if at times very far removed.

[Matt Stone]

When man ate from the tree of good and evil, in essence we gained independence from the creator, free will. It was our choice.

Then we didn't gain free will by eating of the tree... We had to have it to begin with, as God prohibited eating from the tree to begin with, and without free will Adam and Eve would have happily complied.

So, you may say:
...

A god may see the outcome, just as we can. But he is not bound to intervene, that is (our) free will.

If an earthly parent stood idly by while their children participated in dangerous behavior, they'd be reviled far and wide for their absentee parenting and for doing nothing to prevent said behavior. That implies that God is an absentee father, too uncaring to step in and do something. No intervention on his part. Frankly, that's ****-poor parenting. If God is so active in the lives of his followers that he listens to every prayer, and as Jesus promises, acts upon them, why then is he so obviously absent from every actually important event?

Its not that a god is unable, nor is it that unwilling. It is simply, god respecting our wishes so to speak.

What??? How many devout believers, perhaps in the slums of India, beg God daily to bring them relief from their suffering. Nothing happens. Nothing at all. So God's respecting the wishes of whom, precisely? The easier hurdle is that God does not exist, as the definitions of what God is considered to be do not allow that kind of non-action on his part.

In allowing us our independence to choose, and suffer our own consequences of our choice, he/she/it loves.

I'm the father of two teens. Like hell will I stand idly by while they make a mess out of their lives. I'll be hip deep in their lives, helping to guide them, being very present, very available. That's love. Standing back, watching you suffer, doing nothing to alleviate that suffering while you kneel, begging for aid, is not love. It either proves God doesn't exist, doesn't care to get involved, enjoys the suffering, or is powerless to intervene, all of which (except the whole "not existing" option) pretty much eliminate him from the duty description of "loving, all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good God."

Personally, I think its much more interesting studying how all things on earth are related, biologically that is. Even if at times very far removed.

I'd agree... There is so much more wonder to be had with the natural world... It actually cheapens things, makes them less special, if they were all created by an omnipotent deity. Things are amazing because it was so random, such an impossible chance, that life would arise as it did. If a perfect, all powerful god created everything, he sure did a ****ty job...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Matt, you seemed to have been exposed to a very fundamentalist view of christanity and I can see why you are hostile to it.
My advice, if you care enough to take it, is to look to the true meaning of Christianity ( love thy neighbour, judge no one, salvation through Grace) and to read the NT without and preconceived notions of what you THINK it means.
May I suggest this website as a start:
www.biologos.org

Of course if you don't care either way, that is fine too.

[kfson]

Everyone has the right to hate someone else. There isn't anything you or anyone else can do to stop that... unless the hating person has agreed to allow him/herself to be changed by someone else.

[David Jamieson]

Everyone has the right to hate someone else. There isn't anything you or anyone else can do to stop that... unless the hating person has agreed to allow him/herself to be changed by someone else.

Hate is held in the hearts and minds of many towards others.

It is when people act on their hatred. They have no right to impose their hatred on who they hate. That is bringing harm.

Hate cripples the hater more than the hated.

[kfson]

Hate is held in the hearts and minds of many towards others.

It is when people act on their hatred. They have no right to impose their hatred on who they hate. That is bringing harm.

Hate cripples the hater more than the hated.

Hate is held in the hearts and minds of many towards others.
Don't you think that is their right?

It is when people act on their hatred. They have no right to impose their hatred on who they hate. That is bringing harm.
They have the right to hold up hate signs in public.

Hate cripples the hater more than the hated.
So they have chosen a crippling path.

[Matt Stone]

Matt, you seemed to have been exposed to a very fundamentalist view of christanity

Not really "exposed," but "surrounded" is more like it. That same fundie perspective is everywhere you look. There are entire channels on cable devoted to revisionist history, agenda-pursuing news reporting, end times prediction, fake faith healings and other scientific fraud, punctuated only briefly with the occasional feel-good sermon. There are news networks devoted to advancing the same agendas, and they routinely decry any alternative perspectives.

and I can see why you are hostile to it.

How could anyone not be? One of my complaints is that the moderate believers, which demographic it seems you are a part of, do little to step up and call out the televangelists; the shysters; the frauds; the heinous and evil preachings of the Westboro psychotics; the Popes that hide their pedophile priests instead of exposing them to the same legal processing any "civilian" would get; the drug-addled, tax-evading preachers who participate in the same "extracurricular activities" they condemn from the pulpit. Instead, the moderate believers just navel-gaze and think kind thoughts (prayer = what people do when they can do nothing, but still want to feel like they contributed). That makes them, more or less, part of the problem.

My advice, if you care enough to take it, is to look to the true meaning of Christianity ( love thy neighbour, judge no one, salvation through Grace) and to read the NT without and preconceived notions of what you THINK it means.
May I suggest this website as a start:
www.biologos.org

See, here's the thing... You presume I haven't! It is reading the bible without preconceived notions (and that means in either direction - your notions presume the bible is valid; I'd challenge you to read the entire bible, OT and NT (since Jesus said OT law was still in effect, Matt. 5:18; and no apologetics about "Jesus 'fulfilled' the law," since laws aren't "fulfilled," they're obeyed...), without assumption of its validity... Biblical scholarship has done more to turn people to deism and atheism than anything else!

And if "grace" is what's required for salvation, since "grace" is given by God, cannot be earned through "works" (according to Paul), then whether I'm ever granted that gift is strictly up to God (not that I believe he exists, but for the sake of discussion). If he's the loving, devoted, caring sky-father that the feelgood-christianity tries to make him out to be, then he'll see that I've lived a moral, ethical life, I've loved my fellow man enough to place my own life on the line (I'm career military, two tours in Iraq so far - yes, there are atheists in foxholes, far, far, far more than anyone realizes), and I routinely go out of my way to help out others... All I haven't done is suborn my reason and intellect to believe for belief's sake. Even Thomas was given opportunities for proof. I'm waiting for just one...

Further, your argument just doesn't work... "All I'd ask is that you give real Nazi-ism a chance. Just read about it with an open mind..." "All I'd ask is that you give NAMBLA a chance. Just read about it with an open mind..." You can do that dance ad infinitum... It's a logical fallacy that all I have to do is approach a metaphysical worldview, the foundations of which are people made out of dirt, magic fruit and talking snakes, that espouses a polarized elitist mentality cloaked in feelgood language, and it'll all fall into place somehow.

I can get pretty stories with morals at the end from all sorts of places. I don't need to find them in the writings of bronze-age goat-herding desert tribes. George Lucas did a far better job of authoring a story about forgiveness, sacrifice, redemption, and love than Matt, Mark, Luke or John (or, more accurately, the many contributing ghost authors, revisionists, and plagiarizers who contributed to the books attributed to those four, likely non-existent, authors) did.

[Matt Stone]

Hate is held in the hearts and minds of many towards others.
Don't you think that is their right?

It is when people act on their hatred. They have no right to impose their hatred on who they hate. That is bringing harm.
They have the right to hold up hate signs in public.

Hate cripples the hater more than the hated.
So they have chosen a crippling path.

Their hatred isn't a right. They have a legal right to speak as they like. No laws shall be made to curtail their ability to speak publicly, freely, in whatever hate-filled speech they choose. That being said, I'm not talking about people making laws to prevent it. I'm calling for the "other" christians to take a public stand identifying these psychotics for the hate-mongers (and non-christians) they are. The moderate religious need to distance themselves from these people, take active steps to inform the public at large that this is not representative of their allegedly loving religion (though it really is fully in line with what's in the bible), and further marginalize these fringe fundies as the wackjobs they truly are.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Matt, you make far too many assumptions.
But then, so do I
yes I am a moderate, but I don't think I can be viewed as doing little to step up and curb or fight against the intolerances of fundies, as you call them.
Over the last few years I have done quite a bit trying to get people to not only understand the message of love that Jesus preached, but doing it without being a bible thumber and at times VS cults like the JW's and some more radical ones.
This is a MA forum, so not the place for discussion like this.

You obviously have decided that the bible holds "nothing" for you and question it's legitmacy and you are quite correct to do so.
The bible is a collection of works, written and edited by men that felt they were under divine inspiration and as such, must be taken as just that.
As a Christian, there is ONLY ONE word of God and that is Jesus Christ and not some book.
Nor does ANY organized religion or group speak for Jesus.

Grace is a gift and indeed, no works will make us anymore deserving of it, but it is a gift that must be received.
If you believe in Grace then, even without any conditions, there is THAT condition, it must be received.

There is a reason why no man is allowed to judge, because no one knows what is in the heart or another, only God does and he will Judge that heart and will do so with love and compassion.

We all find our path in life, for some it is a Christian path in Jesus for others it is a Christian path in Atheism , but for all, there is hope and faith and love and the greatest of these is love.

The only thing I can ask you Matt is to be open to the fact that you may be wrong, just as easily as you may be right, just as I am open to the fact that I may be wrong, just as easily as I may be right.

[Reality_Check]

The bible is a collection of works, written and edited by men that felt they were under divine inspiration and as such, must be taken as just that.
As a Christian, there is ONLY ONE word of God and that is Jesus Christ and not some book.

Not to take sides, but the only evidence for Jesus Christ and the word of (the Christian) God is that book (and the various non-cannonical works, e.g. Gospel of Thomas). So how can Jesus Christ be the "ONLY ONE word of God...not some book" when that very book that is the only evidence of his existence and his words in the first place?

I hope that made sense.