The Westboro Baptist Church Thread

No he didn't. His perverted "preaching" warped the the Gospel message. Yes homosexual conduct is immoral and it is a serious sin at that. But even sinners must be given love, compassion and respect. Something that odious man was completely and utterly incapable of.

He is a peculiar brand of American religious. And it * me off. Christendom has 2,000 years of intellectual discourse behind it. Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory, Leo, Nicholas, Hilary, Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, John, Teresa, Eudes, de Montfort and Geuranger. Yet this is the man that's used by the media as its poster child.

Good Lord! save us.

 

Serious sin? Personally I believe if it doesn't hurt anyone physically or financially then it's not really a sin. Some of the friendliest, kindest and most caring people I've met are gay and I don't believe for a second that * would condemn them to * for eternity.

 

'* go to *' isn't much of a deviation from what the bible says at all,of course the language and tactics he used to get his point across were way over the top,but the first thing that these Westboro Baptist Church members do when questioned,is open up the bible and point out the word of *,which they try and follow down to a t.

 

Some of the friendliest, kindest, caring and loving people I have ever met, who possess all the natural virtues a man can, have been gay. But natural virtue does not avail you of a supernatural reward. There are three classes of sins. Sins against *, sins against our neighbours and sins against ourselves. You don't skate into Heaven by just not sinning against others.

Unrepentant sinners will go to *, without a shadow of a doubt. But that judgement isn't made until the very last instant of their life on this earth. Until then it's an open book. I'm not one to sit by and scoot the Holy Scriptures to one side for the sake of niceties. Yes I believe homosexuality to be disordered, yes I believe engaging in homosexual acts are mortally sinful—as are a host of other sins involving the sexual function such as masturbation—and yes I believe that if one actively engages in homosexual acts and dies unrepentant of their sins then they will go to *.

But as I said above, that judgement isn't made until the very end. Homosexuals must be shown all love and compassion. They have a hard cross to carry, we should be trying to help them carry it. Picketing the funerals of homosexuals does nothing for the soul of the deceased, it merely further wounds the hearts of those that loved them. Screaming in someone's face that * hates them, that they're dispicable human beings, etc., is itself sinful and does nothing but close off people's hearts to the Gospel.

The man was not a Christian, and the humanity in him is also greatly wanting.

 

Where in the bible does it say anything about showing homosexuals 'love and compassion'?

Do you accept that what he preached '* go to *',and that homosexuality is an 'abomination',among other things,is exactly what it says in the bible?

I've never heard of any passages that actually do require you to show sinners love and compassion,is this just a new thing because of the popes stance or what? I'm more familiar with the evil orders to go out and murder people who happen to be different,like this one:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."......Or the statement that those who 'lie with other men' 'will not inherit the kingdom of *'.

Is that open to interpretation,or is pretty unequivocal?

If there's a heaven,which there probably isn't,he'll be there.

There's lots of lovely quotes from gods manifesto on the WBC site,which confirm that * isn't all about peace and love man,he's as vicious,violent,vengeful and intolerant as they come and it's simply a * nonsense to claim otherwise.

 

Love thy neighbour and all that jazz. It is something I struggle with admittedly. The Church is full of (what I perceive to be) contradictions. Too easy to tar all religious people as "feg haters". The Church might say it's immoral but these people are still our brothers. I'd imagine the greater sin against * is hate.

Kudos to you, North. Eloquent response as always. Still hate ye though. :smiley-laughing002:

 

A thread I've been wanting to start for a while is "Is Catholicism compatible with left-wing politics?". Often find I have conflicting views to those of the Church. I believe in the fundamental elements of Catholicism but I'm not going to deny what I believe is right. Maybe you could fire me a PM, North. Suppose I've had a bit of a crise de foi.

 

I don't see why it shouldn't be. In some areas at least. Some of the things Jesus preached about it being difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven and the meek inheriting the earth would certainly fit in with left wing/socialist thinking.

Where Catholicism moves away from the left is on social issues and morality issues.

That philosophy fits in fine with me. Economically I am very left wing but when it comes to social issues I am quite conservative(with a small c).

 

No he just couldn't read

* Hates Figs

 

Rest in *

 

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (St Mark, 12, 31)

"But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest; for he is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you shall be forgiven. Give, and it shall be given to you: good measure and pressed down and shaken together and running over shall they give into your bosom. For with the same measure that you shall mete withal, it shall be measured to you again." (St Luke, 6, 35-38)

"But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins. Using hospitality one towards another, without murmuring, As every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another: as good stewards of the manifold grace of *." (1 St Peter, 4, 8-10)

Among others.

Homosexuality is an abomination and it is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. But this must be placed within the context of the merciful and loving sacrifice that Christ paid for us all. Yes practising homosexuals—those that actively and willfully engage in homosexual acts—who die in a state of non-repentance will go to *. Murderers that die in a state on non-repentance will go to tell. If you die having masturbated and do not repent you will go to *. Being homosexual, having the orientation of sexual attraction towards the same *, will not condemn you to *. Only your willful actions can do that.

You have made a fundamental error here, one that I addressed in another thread. The Bible cannot be isolated from Holy Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church.

Now for an example of showing love and compassion to sinners... the whole "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" scenario pops to mind.

The statement that those that engage in homosexual conduct will not inherit the kingdom of * is completely and utterly unequivocal. If one were to die in such a state of mortal sin then they will go to *. The law mandating their execution is less black and white. There are three "types" of law in the Old Law. The moral law, the ceremonial law and the judicial law. The ceremonial and judicial law have been superseded by the Church's laws and modern states. The moral law, however, the most important law of them all, is still in effect. So homosexuality is rightly still acknowledged as a disorder and engaging in homosexual acts an abomination, but the judicial law that grants authority to execute practising homosexuals does not have any binding authority.

The eternal punishment due immoral acts remains the same. But the temporal punishments are not set in stone. The penances of the early Church may be used as an example. You go into a confessional today you're liable to get "three Hail Marys" or "one Our Father, one Hail Mary and one Glory Be". However in the early church that could easily be "sit out on the street for 7 years wearing a sack clothe with ashes painted on your face". This, incidentally, is where Indulgences come in.

Was the punishment due the sin of homosexual actions as recorded in Leviticus chapter 20 immoral and unjust? Not at all. It was entirely moral and just. But it is no longer binding because the world is a different place today.

* willing he is in heaven! But I assure you it will be in spite of everything he is infamous for. May the Lord have mercy upon his soul.

I'll gladly send you off a PM detailing this and some other things. :icon_mrgreen: But contrary to what many think, I'm not an inexhaustible source of knowledge on all things Catholic. :smiley-laughing002: This discussion here has set me into a downward spiral of moral theology. Do you know how murky the waters are when you're trying to learn and understand exactly why the Old Law appears to stand in contradiction to the New Law? Och well, this is where faith comes in, and the sure knowledge that as always, the Church will answer my objections in all satisfaction. But I digress!

The answer to your question is no. Catholicism is not compatible with left wing politics. Justice, mercy, compassion, preferential options for the poor, etc., are not the sole reserve of the left wing. Social justice and the dignity of man has been the concern of the Church centuries before the "left" was born. The Church's economic and political positions can be summed up under the heading of "Catholic Social Teaching". Consider reading the encylicals of Pope Leo XIII and the words of G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to get a taste of them!

 

So did Hitler. No mixed emotions there?

 

Being serious for a minute, aren't most people clued in on the idea that this whole scheme is just a scam to make money?

Albert Snyder, the father of a US marine who was killed in Iraq took Phelps court for picketing his sons funeral.

He claimed for defamation, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.

At this point the WBC sprung into action, providing evidence that they had complied with all local ordinances and had obeyed police instructions. The picket was held in a location cordoned off by the police, approximately 1000 feet from the church, from which it could be neither seen nor heard.

The jury verdict went against Phelps, but the WBC launched an appeal which saw the jury verdict reversed.

In an interesting statement it was clarified that the signs used by the WBC at protests and the language used on their website was legally nothing more than "rhetorical hyperbole and figurative expression, rather than assertions of fact", so they were a form of protected speech in US law.

The court ruled that Snyder had to pay court costs to Phelps.

In this instance Phelps was actually helped out in the court case by the likes of "the American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and twenty-one other media organizations, including National Public Radio, Bloomberg L.P., the Associated Press, the Newspaper Association of America, and others", who all filed briefs in support of his case.

This one case is a perfect example of how these guys operate. The Courts final ruling included the following, which is telling;

"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."

"Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."

The company, Phelps Chartered, is essentially the legal arm of the "Church", which deals with all of their legal matters, including suing people who get so wound up that they physically lash out at WBC members, suing local administrations, police forces and suchlike who fail to provide safe environments for them to legally protest in and so on.

Their bread & butter is suing people and organisations for large sums of money, only to settle for a lesser amount, which is still pretty lucrative really.

There has been attempts at legislation in some states to prevent the WBC from doing what it does, but in many cases they haven't been successful, with Phelps getting help to overturn the decisions from the likes of The American Civil Liberties Union, who have filed lawsuits on his behalf in places like Missouri, and they have successfully sued the city of Topeka several times in the past.

On one occasion someone broke through police lines and attacked members of the WBC. He was charged with two counts of third-degree assault and one count of disorderly conduct.

Someone else was charged with criminal mischief and disorderly conduct after a tire on the Westboro group's rented van was slashed, and three other people were charged with criminal mischief and disorderly conduct after several counter-demonstrators threw rocks and bottles at a fire department vehicle carrying the Westboro protesters away from the scene, breaking several windows.

It's no coincidence that all but four of Phelp's children are trained and experienced lawyers, and three of the Phelp's children work as staff lawyers for the State of Kansas, one with the Juvenile Justice Department and two for the Department of Corrections.

And if you're wondering why they would use a Church to front this scam? It's tax free, isn't it? They enjoy the luxury of paying * all in tax, even though the WBC aren't affiliated with any Baptist denominations.

It's all a scam.

 

Feel a little guilty posting since there have been so many long and thoughtful posts in this thread and I don't have the time or energy this morning to write my own. Also I don't have anything to contribute to the theological debate since I'm not religious at all. Anyway:

The world is a better place without him. The best thing for humanity is to forget the * ever existed.

 

*. Another religious idiot that used the bible to try justify his homophobia. Hope it was a long and painful death.

 

May the Lord have mercy on his soul.

 

Didnt these shower of fuckwits not say the Clutha helicopter crash was our own fault?

Glad he's dead, * him

 

Homosexuality is an abomination? Is this the third century?

 

They say anything that they think will provoke a response.

 

Which is why I believe they lack any sincerity in their supposed Christian faith. I remember when the three wee cows were on Jeremy Kyle and that lassie in charge of them was grinning from ear to ear at the reactions they were generating.

They relish in all of this. If they even believe in *, they would love the idea of human souls going there. No serious Christian can enjoy that thought, that's why we try to convert others and bring them the Gospel. Even men and women that have lived disgusting and horrendous lives... a Christian cannot grin at the thought of their eternal damnation. I am sure you've heard the old carciature of the dour faced Catholic that whips themselves, the frightful penances of the monastics in their cells, those that fast on bread and water, etc. A common theme among the saints is that they took these penances upon themselves for others. They suffered for others that they may live. Those were acts of love. The saints wouldn't have been at the funeral of men and women with the sole intention of relishing in their possible damnation and mocking the deceased's loved ones.

This Westboro crowd really * * me off.