| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Westboro Baptist Church Thanks God; for London tube bombings | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 11 2005, 01:37 AM (3,076 Views) | |
| ivorythumper | Jul 11 2005, 11:56 AM Post #26 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Steve: I obviously don't agree with the sentiments, I already called it hyperbolic and stupid. No, it is not outrage -- I reserve that for more egregious instances than Falwell is guilty of -- such as the deliberate perpetration of terrorism and murder of innocents in the womb. I would like to think that even you share some sense of proportionality to distinguish between things that deserve simple condemnation from things that properly evoke outrage. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 11 2005, 12:20 PM Post #27 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Steve, what he said is not the same at all. He didn't say he was glad it happened. He didn't say he wish more had been killed. What Falwell said, which you conveniently left out, is that history has shown that when a nation turns away from God, He lifts his hand of protection. This has been shown time and time again in OT Israel, for example. This was his larger point, and by way of explanation he said that what we were doing wrong was the killing of babies via abortion, etc. You may not agree with him, but theologically he was sound. What Phelps said and what Falwell said are two entirely different things. Phelps was glad it happened. Falwell was not. |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jul 11 2005, 12:31 PM Post #28 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Which is the same as saying "God Hates Fags", although in Falwell's case it's more like "God Hates Fags and Abortionists". In fact, in this case I'll give a point to Phelps - at least he says what he means without dancing around. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 11 2005, 12:39 PM Post #29 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
God hates evil. There's a difference. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jul 11 2005, 12:56 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
The point that I and gryphon have mentioned, can in no sane way be construed as "God hates fags". Would you care to illuminate the logic of your leap? |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 11 2005, 01:09 PM Post #31 |
|
Futile, Jolly. Oh well. :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 11 2005, 01:11 PM Post #32 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Jesus died for "fags." He died for us all. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jul 11 2005, 01:25 PM Post #33 |
|
Amen!!
|
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 11 2005, 01:45 PM Post #34 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
No. [Kenny] Not fair. [/Kenny] You are ascribing things to Falwell that he did not say. You are saying that although Falwell didn't say he was glad 9/11 happened, you really know that is what he thought, he just wasn't honest enough to say it out loud. That's pretty low, Steve, certainly beneath you. I know you disagree with Falwell's position, and that's fine, but don't put words in the man's mouth. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 11 2005, 01:56 PM Post #35 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Bad form, Steve-- you are really losing me on this one. You are projecting wildly here, and trying to make connections that IMO simply don't exist. Again, you seem to paint all Christians and conservatives with the same broad brush. By doing so you are not only alienating folks, you are looking like a pretty narrow minded and undiscriminating person. I am not sure that you would even want to acknowledge the differences, perhaps because if you did so then you could not so cavelierly discount any argument from traditionally minded folks. Perhaps you could explain why you tend to lump so broadly. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jul 11 2005, 02:11 PM Post #36 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
It's not low - it's what he said. Falwell stated that people who support gays (and abortionists) are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people at the WTC. (God "lifted his hand of protection", as you say). He does not condemn the gays directly; I'll stand corrected there. Phelps told us that people who support gays brought on the deaths of inncocent civillians in Great Britain. He goes further - tells us that God Hates Fags. You might work these statements around to say that while God supports fags, (and Jesus died for their sins), He does not support those who would support them - in fact, He kills them in buildings and subway trains. Do I see this as prevailing Christian thought? Of course not. The statements are outrageous - disgraceful! Both of those guys are bat-shit crazy. But neither do I see here any real condemnation of what they say. No "outrage", if you will, and I have to wonder if Falwell is closer to the mainstream of Christianity than I thought. It's chilling to consider. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| LadyElton | Jul 11 2005, 02:14 PM Post #37 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Phelps is a nutcase. Falwell is a schmuck, as are the rest of that ilk. The attacks of 9/11 didn't happen because god was pissed off at the US, they happened because fanatical madmen hijacked 4 airplanes. They showed a glaring security hole and how ****ed up some groups really are. (Groups meaning al Qaeda, Taliban, other terrorist groups) The 9/11 attacks and last week's bombings in London, were not about a woman's right to choose or gay people wanting equal rights. |
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 11 2005, 03:05 PM Post #38 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Be so kind as to show me where in Catholic theology it says that. I'm not implying that there isn't some statement like that, I admit that my knowledge of Catholic theology is not comprehensive. But does it actually say that somewhere? Again, you want to reject the parts of the Old Testament that are inconvenient, but yet cling to the parts that you like. Sounds an awful lot like what you accuse "left wing" judges of doing. As for whether 9/11 is some sort of cosmic payback by God for our failings ... I'm finding it hard to believe that God would choose some al Qaeda loonies as his chosen instrument. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| greg | Jul 11 2005, 03:27 PM Post #39 |
![]()
Middle Aged Carp
|
anyone seen war of the worlds? earth's dilemma in that flick is more in line with my idea of divine punishment. |
| "What do you think it is, stupid? It's a string for my lute." | |
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 11 2005, 03:29 PM Post #40 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Steve, let's take this in two parts. Part 1: Phelps said he was happy that London was bombed, and he wishes more had been killed. You are ascribing equal comments to Falwell when he in fact made no such comments. This is wrong on your part. Part 2: You disagree with Falwell on his theology. That is fine. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jul 11 2005, 03:39 PM Post #41 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Jolly: "What Falwell expressed was what many of us (including me sometimes) thought about 9/11, and the punishment of America (the New Israel, perhaps?) by a just God. A bit too rooted in the Old Testament, perhaps, but certainly not looney bin material.... " I don't follow. Why is the fact that (a) you also sometimes thought what Falwell thought, imply (b) that this thought is not loony bin material? |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 11 2005, 04:10 PM Post #42 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Now, aren't you just the lovliest theologian ever? I'm with her. She's got it right!
|
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 11 2005, 04:16 PM Post #43 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Steve, In Catholic theology we are under the New Law not the Old Law. The OT rules of moral behavior still apply, but only in the way it reflects on NT understand of sin and it's consequences. So adultry is wrong--eating an amimal with the wrong sort of hoof--who cares? |
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 11 2005, 04:18 PM Post #44 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
LadyElton, if you want to argue Falwell's theology, perhaps you should argue it from a theological basis. Say, something like Biblical history shows that when God gets fed up, he doesn't just allow something small like an isolated terror attack, he allows whole countries to fall, sometimes entire civilizations to be wiped out. That would be a better argument IMO. Actually, you didn't make an argument, you simply stated your opinion backed up by, uh, your opinion. |
![]() |
|
| LadyElton | Jul 11 2005, 04:36 PM Post #45 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I do not know enough about theology so anything I say would be shot down. I am in the minority in that I would lose any debate about theology. The only counter arguments I can say when people quote the Bible regarding homosexuality are that not all translations of the Bible say that.
|
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 11 2005, 04:43 PM Post #46 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Fair enough. But then what you have is "he has his opinion, you have yours." One is just as valid as the other unless you can show where the other guy is wrong. |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Jul 11 2005, 04:58 PM Post #47 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That's why they have Baptist and they have Congregationalists. what does the bible really say? It's all a matter of interpretation. |
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jul 11 2005, 05:13 PM Post #48 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Your post doesn't address the argument, Tom. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jul 11 2005, 06:06 PM Post #49 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
That's a logical argument, but where does the Catholic Church say it? Recent stuff by the Catholic Church would seem to say the opposite. The recent attacks on evolution, for example. To the extent that creationism is in the Bible, it's in the Old Testament. And creationism has nothing to do with moral behavior, sin, or its consequences. So if your logical theory were correct, why would the Church be fighting the fight against evolution? It's an Old Testament thing, and since it isn't about moral behavior or sin, under your theory, "who cares?" |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jul 11 2005, 07:09 PM Post #50 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
If you are interested, you can start with Dei Verbum from Vatican Council Two, and also look at the Catholic Catechism, chap 2, esp art. 3. FWIW, it is neither a "recent attack" or backpeddling on JPII's teaching. If you want to do theology, you've got to get beyond the stultifying headline news version that the media gives us -- it is not even eligible as "Theology for Dummies". Creationism from the Catholic perspective (can't speak for the evangelicals) is not coterminous with Gen 1 and 2. It is only speaking to efficient and final causality (who made us and why), not material and formal causality, which is the proper discipline of the hard sciences. The question of creation is central though for morality. If there is no God, there is no objective morality. It would be all subjective (either to the individual or the collective -- it hardly matters). Nothing other than some imputed Social Contract theory and the threat of punishment from an organized force greater than the weaker to dictate what is acceptable or not acceptable human behavior. No real argument against murder or rape or child molestation if you can get away with it. After all, it would be all purely mechanical forces at work any way -- no such thing as true justice or human dignity apart from whatever the individual or collective ascribed it as. But conversely if there is a God who created with purpose and endowed humanity with a certain nature ordered toward the perfection of that nature (and a true telos), then morality comes into play. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |









8:55 AM Jul 13