Phelps cronies to protest our church on Sunday!

[Finella]

Just got the e-mail from our priest -- the whole West Boro wagon is running around the Philly area this weekend, and making four stops Sunday morning to four different Episcopal parishes. Thing is, they're arriving so early they likely won't even see any of our parishioners until they're about to leave. Fortunately the kids' service is much later and so hopefully they won't be victim to the smut these people display and yell.

Any ideas of how to deal with them? the e-mails are flying among the vestry; apparently there's gonna be plain-clothes police officers there ready to arrest anyone who trespasses on the property, and I'm suggesting we just avoid them and use back entrances to the church if possible.

I'm almost enjoying this. I think of it as an indicator that the church is doing the right thing. But, then ... there still could be some kids around who would have to see this crap. Bastards.

---,---'--{@

[AtheistArchon]

Any ideas of how to deal with them?

- Yes, but they're all illegal, and probably immoral.

- ...







- Um, still want to hear them? :)

[Finella]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon


- Yes, but they're all illegal, and probably immoral.

- ...







- Um, still want to hear them? :)

Well, as long as the illegal suggestions are labeled as such, sure. ;)

[Dancing David]

I would take the advice of Thich Naht Hahn, he wrote a lovge ltter to President Nixon during the Vietnam war.

I would say that a counter protest of love and acceptance would be the best.

A sign that says
"Jesus loves Bigots"
"Jesus died for the sins of the Bigots too"
"Jesus loves Fred Phelps and I am trying"

they convey the message but in a very confrontational and not very loving way.

"We may disagree but we are all folowers of jesus"
"Families can disagree and still love each other"
"Mathew Shepard was a child of god"
"Bless those who curse you."
Might be better.

Then you could use the smutty images of the Phelps himslf,
"Phelps is shafting the church"
"Get behind me satan, but use the lube."
But those would be evil in intent, and counter productive.

[Finella]

I love your suggestions, all of them, Dancing David... :)

I agree that the middle set are probably the most appropriate. Complete with Bible chapter and verse citations, for that matter. :D I'm hoping we can come up with a counterprotest in time, but no one else is bringing it up as a tactic yet.

---,---'--{@

[Abdul Alhazred]

Bear in mind that Phelps is so over the top that he calls Jerry Falwell a 'fag'. Why? Because Falwell says that gay people can repent and be saved.

This is not your average 'religious homophobe'. Phelps says that it's a sin to pray for America. Too far gone, you see. Thank God for 9-11 and all that.

Back in 1996, Phelps said that Bob Dole was Darth Vader because he didn't answer Phelps' challenge to denounce 'fags'.

Really.

I say ignore 'em.

[Hexxenhammer]

I bet Phelps lets his wife peg him every night and loves the feel of santorum running down his leg.

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I bet Phelps lets his wife peg him every night and loves the feel of santorum running down his leg.

OMG! Santorum! I love "Savage Love"
Thanks for the smile. (probably not the usual response to santorum)

[CaveatxEmptor]

You can't reason with or deter Fred Phelps. Resistance is futile.

[Finella]

Ha! Santorum! Oh, how apropos. Tee hee. :)

Another suggestion from my man: just have a few people (namely, the gay couples from the parish) similingly serve them coffee and tea that morning, all charm and kindness. Just doing what the Bible says...

Romans 12:20
Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

which is quoting
Proverbs 25:21
"If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink"

The rest of us ignore them and go on our merry way...

---,---'--{@

[Mercutio]

He was in our town a couple of weeks ago (made national news, of course). It turned out to be very low-key, with his supporters outnumbered at least 10 to 1. We were expecting some serious confrontations, but nothing really happened, for (IMHO) two reasons: first, the local protesters were very polite and low-key, which prevented escalation. Secondly, it rained. Not a big crowd shows up in the rain.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker


OMG! Santorum! I love "Savage Love"
Thanks for the smile. (probably not the usual response to santorum)

The word "santorum" must be spread far and wide. Just doing my part.

[Martin]

Originally posted by CaveatxEmptor
You can't reason with or deter Fred Phelps. Resistance is futile. Reason with? No. Deter? I'd like to take a shot at it. A decent-sized axe ought to do the trick.

[darling]

Originally posted by Martin
Reason with? No. Deter? I'd like to take a shot at it. A decent-sized axe ought to do the trick. Alternatively, I was thinking I should just hit on him...

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Finella
Any ideas of how to deal with them?

---,---'--{@ Here's an idea that I haven't heard mentioned yet.

In my line of work we call it a "honey pot". In a joke I heard once, it's called a "designated decoy".

Have someone, or a group of people, actually go and "listen" to Phelps and his cronies. Have them feign interest. Have them ask questions, admit that they have the same feelings but have been too ashamed to mention it to anyone else, etc. Basically, have them do and say whatever it takes to keep the protesters quiet and keep their signs down.

I bet it's an anti-protest tactic they're not used to...


I went to a performance of "The Laramie Project" that these guys were supposed to show up for, and they never did. I have never heard of a case where they actually appeared at any event they said they were going to appear at. I hope they continue this record of no-showing at your church too.

[LCBOY]

Finella,

Has anyone tried to sit down with Phelps and just have a dialogue with him? Or is that just not possible? What is he doing in Philly? Just respondsinghim with insults and stuff like that will gain nothing. I will pray for you and your church...

[neutrino_cannon]

Being the grumpy, angry person I am, I would suggest you counter signs with Leviticus 18:22 with a sign bearing all the other intelligent things the book of Leviticus has to say.

[CaveatxEmptor]

"Has anyone tried to sit down with Phelps and just have a dialogue with him? Or is that just not possible?"

On Fred Phelps webpage "godhatesfags.com" there were mp3 files of a debate between him and a man named Rankin. I don't know if they are still there. I have them on my hard-drive.

It's as close to a calm dialogue as Fred gets. It doesn't yield much. Rankin makes logical arguments about love defining hate and love therefore being greater than hate, and so on, but Fred is wrapped up tightly in a warm blanket of psychosis. He has no interesting in considering any view that is contrary to his.

[NightG1]

When was the last time the lawn was watered? Seriously. Nothing turns protesters off more than a good soak especially if its a nice brisk Eastern Pennsylvania fall day. In addition to DD's signage you coulld also have signs asking if Fred is still beating his kids.

Whatever you do, remember that you don't always have to turn the other cheek or play nice-nice. These people don't deserve it.

[DarkPrimus]

How about a sign that reads "Phelps doesn't love Jesus, because then he would be gay."

[calladus]

Fred Phelps has protest signs? Easy solution:

Paint Ball Guns

Get a group of die hard paint ball fanatics together inside the church. They can rush the line and render Phelps' messages unreadable.

The is probably the wrong thing to do on several levels -


But it would be soOOoo satisfying!

[Some Friggin Guy]

Just to show you know a bit of Phelps' history, you may want to have counter-protest signs petitioning for the beatification of both Matthew Shepperd and Debbie Valgos.

For those unanware, Debbie Valgos was the first finacee of Fred's oldest son who died of a drug overdose after being mentally abused by Phelps. Phelps later celebrated her death.

[Finella]

I love you all. You make me laugh! :D "Phelps doesn't love Jesus, because then he would be gay." ROTFL!

LCBOY, trust me, the man sets himself up to not be reasoned with. His while approach is confrontation, "shock and awe" in the most inappropriate way. Go look at his website and see for yourself. I know God loves him, but he's got to be pissed off by him.

I gather the plan for now is minimal notice, minimal response. Those who will be arriving early to prepare for the service will be notified, and I guess directing congregants to alternative routes to avoid the protesters.

(Oh, and they're prolly protesting the Episcopal Church in general because we recently consecrated the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, a few weeks ago. Our parish is openly gay/les/bi-friendly as well.)

I'll keep you all up to date as to what happens.

Paint ball would be so satisfying... tee hee...

---,---'--{@

[Graham]

Originally posted by Finella
I gather the plan for now is minimal notice, minimal response. Those who will be arriving early to prepare for the service will be notified, and I guess directing congregants to alternative
routes to avoid the protesters.

Yes, because God forbid the established chuirches should actually come out against the likes of Phelps.

So much better to take the higher ground and just let him continue to spout his hatred to the media and the world at large.

:rolleyes: and you wonder why people treat you all like fundies , , ,


(Oh, and they're prolly protesting the Episcopal Church in general because we recently consecrated the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, a few weeks ago. Our parish is openly gay/les/bi-friendly as well.)

{sarcasm] Wow, if it wasn't for responsible, reasonable Christians like you, why the world would be just, like, totally crappy . . . [/sarcasm]

You're open;y gay/les/bi friendly?

You allow people who are slightly different from you to share in your "services"? What do you want an award?

Graham

[Finella]

::blink::

Hello, Graham, my name is Finella. Nice to meet you.

---,---'--{@

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Martin
Reason with? No. Deter? I'd like to take a shot at it. A decent-sized axe ought to do the trick.

Whatever else he is, Phelps is a publicity hound. The best response is to ignore him. He has no history of violence, though it's good to have the cops on hand just in case.

Phelps used to be a very good guy a very long time ago. He came out in favor of racial integration in Kansas back when that took considerable courage.

My theory is that Phelps simply went insane, unfortunately taking the rest of his extended family with him. His "church" has no members who are not related to him.

[Ladewig]

The best response is to ignore him.
Perhaps a path more difficult than Christianity itself. Yet it does assure that no reporters write about him and no people on either side are arrested.

Have someone, or a group of people, actually go and "listen" to Phelps and his cronies. Have them feign interest. Have them ask questions, admit that they have the same feelings but have been too ashamed to mention it to anyone else, etc. Basically, have them do and say whatever it takes to keep the protesters quiet and keep their signs down.

I like this response also. The only way I can think of to better it is to have the listeners speak very little English. That will take even more of their time and energy.

Another approach is for your church to set up a clearly marked protest area. Place it far enough away from the entrance that those folks won't cause too much trouble, but near enough that they will consider staying behind the line.

Slightly more confrontational is placing all or part of the choir outside to sing loudly enough to drown out their yelling. Be sure to invite the Phelpsians to sing along.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Finella
Ha! Santorum! Oh, how apropos. Tee hee. :)

Another suggestion from my man: just have a few people (namely, the gay couples from the parish) similingly serve them coffee and tea that morning, all charm and kindness. Just doing what the Bible says...

Romans 12:20
Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

which is quoting
Proverbs 25:21
"If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink"

The rest of us ignore them and go on our merry way...

---,---'--{@
That's a great idea. Feed them (dung), give them something to drink (like gasoline), and don't forget to heap coals of fire on their heads.

But seriously, the paintball strategy might just work, except that it's really hard to be accurate with a paintball gun, so might I suggest lobbing paint filled water balloons at them instead.

[scribble]

Originally posted by c4ts

But seriously, the paintball strategy might just work, except that it's really hard to be accurate with a paintball gun, so might I suggest lobbing paint filled water balloons at them instead. [/B]

And you've got a lot less chance of getting arrested or someone mistaking your paintball gun for a dangerous weapon - not to mention the fact that your paintball gun around unprotected people would BE a dangerous weapon...

It's a funny idea and I liked hearing it a lot but for God's sake people don't take it seriously.

[Foofer]

If I ever get a terminal disease, I'm taking Fred Phelps out with me.

My husband is in Kansas this weekend and he made a special visit to Fred Phelp's church. He had his photo taken in front of it, flipping it off. He's not back yet, so I don't have the photo, but here's another one I quite like:

http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u25/uncleward/upload/14970827.GodHatesFagsW.jpg

[Foofer]

@#$%! I'll just attach it...arg.

[DarkPrimus]

Nice one. :D

[Finella]

Well, go figure, the protest went off very quietly, and basically no one at church today even knew it happened, since it had come and gone before the largest service of the day when most people would be around. Interestingly, the Phelps people got lost on their way and actually called the police for directions. One vestry member told me this and joked, "Give 'em to me, I'll tell 'em where to go!" When they arrived they had their signs and said their nasty things, but it was so early no one was even around the neighborhood to hear them. On top of that, they weren't even on the side of the church property where most people enter, so hardly anyone from the church would have had to deal with them anyway.

I just checked all the local media websites and there's absolutely no mention that the group was in Philly. There's no mention of him or his group period. So it looks to me as if he got no satisfaction at all from this visit. Hurrah.


Thanks for all the creative suggestions -- even if not all of them were for practical use, it still is fun to imagine what one could do. :D
---,--'--{@

[jimmygun]

At the risk of being run out of town on a rail, may I suggest that Finella and all others of the "Bible" set really should not protest anything Phelps or anyone else says in the name of god. It is simply their way of dancing to the same band that all bible believers listen to. Who are you to pick and choose what is acceptable from the 'good book' and deny others that choice?

The real victims of Phelps are the gay community and their families and friends. To claim to be a victim because you are what-ever- sect- you choose is blowing smoke.

[darling]

Originally posted by jimmygun
The real victims of Phelps are the gay community and their families and friends. To claim to be a victim because you are what-ever- sect- you choose is blowing smoke. What makes you think Finella doesn't fall under the first catagory?

[jimmygun]

What makes you think Finella doesn't fall under the first catagory?

Well, she started the topic saying that Phelps was coming to her church. Seems to me she is talking about her church life rather than her sex life.

If she is in anyway connected to the gay community then she has a legitimate beef. Barking about one church picketing another church is pretty lame considering.

[Foofer]

My hubby, Clark Adams, was in Kansas over the weekend giving speeches at Kansas State and KU Lawrence. He made a trip to Topeka to flip off the Westboro Baptist Church. The banner on the church reads "Godhatesamerica.com"

[TheEvilBob]

I'm a new poster here, although I've lurked for some time. Phelps and his fellow bigots for Christ were here in Des Moines, Iowa a while back protesting a gay student who was graduating from high school. The fellow had received a Matthew Shepherd Scholarship.

A gay lawyer organized the local protest. He decided to make the best of it by turning Phelp's hatemongering into a fundraiser. He started taking pledges from members of the local community who would donate money for every minute Phelps and Co. stood outside the school protesting. I thought it was one of the most effective responses to Fred Phelps that I have ever seen.

[Finella]

Originally posted by jimmygun
At the risk of being run out of town on a rail, may I suggest that Finella and all others of the "Bible" set really should not protest anything Phelps or anyone else says in the name of god. It is simply their way of dancing to the same band that all bible believers listen to. Who are you to pick and choose what is acceptable from the 'good book' and deny others that choice?

The real victims of Phelps are the gay community and their families and friends. To claim to be a victim because you are what-ever- sect- you choose is blowing smoke.
and
What makes you think Finella doesn't fall under the first catagory?

Well, she started the topic saying that Phelps was coming to her church. Seems to me she is talking about her church life rather than her sex life.

If she is in anyway connected to the gay community then she has a legitimate beef. Barking about one church picketing another church is pretty lame considering.

Do I really have to spell out how this affects me, my family, and my close friends? Or even how it affects us as human beings?

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Finella
Do I really have to spell out how this affects me, my family, and my close friends? Or even how it affects us as human beings?

No. You don't. In the past Jimmygun has said that he is opposed to gay marriage but hasn't to my knowledge ever said why. If he doesn't have to say, then neither do you.

Glad Phelps was a big flop by the way.

[jimmygun]

Finella...I was merely pointing out the hypocritical complaints of one sect about another. That was my understanding of your original post, that one group of religious people were picketing another group of religious people. To me it is the war between the big-enders and the small-enders.

As was pointed out, I am against same sex marriages. I am not against same sex unions nor am I against homosexuality. This is as far as I am going on that subject in this topic.

My original observation is that if two groups pick and choose what they want to believe from the same bible then they have no right to complain if someone picks a part that doesn't agree with them. Phelps is one of the lowest of the low, but in my opinion he is still in the same coral as the others, from Jerry Falwel to Billy Graham. It is only a matter of degree.

[Loki]

Finella,

I sort of agreeing with jimmygun here...despite the total difference in conclusions between you and Phelps, you're both working from the same script. Earlier in this thread you posted :

Another suggestion from my man: just have a few people (namely, the gay couples from the parish) similingly serve them coffee and tea that morning, all charm and kindness. Just doing what the Bible says...

Romans 12:20
Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."

which is quoting
Proverbs 25:21
"If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink".
So you've found a 'course of action' from the Bible to counter someone who's taken his 'course of action' from the Bible. Why is your interpretation better than Phelps? I personally find yours *much* more acceptable, but doesn't that make the Bible somewhat 'relative' as a moral authority?

[Finella]

Originally posted by Loki

So you've found a 'course of action' from the Bible to counter someone who's taken his 'course of action' from the Bible. Why is your interpretation better than Phelps? I personally find yours *much* more acceptable, but doesn't that make the Bible somewhat 'relative' as a moral authority?

Yes. Yes, it does.

And this is what separates me from Phelps.

---,---'--{@

[DarkPrimus]

Originally posted by jimmygun

As was pointed out, I am against same sex marriages. I am not against same sex unions nor am I against homosexuality.


"I am against integration. I am not against the 'seperate but equal' policy nor am I against black people."

[DarkPrimus]

Double post.

[jimmygun]

Finella...Does your bible contain Leviticus 18 verse 22? Or have you taken that verse out? Do you interpret it differently than Phelps? If so what is your authority? By what measure do you hold yourself higher than Phelps?

It seems to me that the god of the bible has spoken very clearly in Leviticus on several issues.

[darling]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Finella...Does your bible contain Leviticus 18 verse 22? Or have you taken that verse out? Do you interpret it differently than Phelps? If so what is your authority? Probably by the same authority that allows her to ignore Leviticus 19:19 and wear cotton/wool blends.

It seems to me that the god of the bible has spoken very clearly in Leviticus on several issues. This would be a great argument to present against a biblical fundamentalist literalist, but against someone who's not a literalist it's kind of pointless, don't you think?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Finella
I just checked all the local media websites and there's absolutely no mention that the group was in Philly. There's no mention of him or his group period. So it looks to me as if he got no satisfaction at all from this visit. Hurrah.


{Nelson Muntz}

Hah! Hah!

[/Nelson Muntz}

Glad to hear that.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Finella...Does your bible contain Leviticus 18 verse 22? Or have you taken that verse out? Do you interpret it differently than Phelps? If so what is your authority? By what measure do you hold yourself higher than Phelps?

It seems to me that the god of the bible has spoken very clearly in Leviticus on several issues.
I think the reasoning goes like this; for Christians Jesus Christ is the supreme revelation of the nature of God with his teachings and actions being the core of Christianity. Eg "Love God with all heart, mind and soul stuff" and "Love your neighbour as yourself".
In Acts there is the dream of Peter in which God said that nothing was unclean for Christians to eat. Paul teaches that Christians need not be circumcised etc.
The teaching of most Christians is that we are not bound by the laws of the Hebrew Scriptures.

[jimmygun]

The Church of Roy Clark... "I'm a pickin!!"

The Church of Buck Owens..."And I'm a choosin'!"

:)

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by jimmygun
The Church of Roy Clark... "I'm a pickin!!"

The Church of Buck Owens..."And I'm a choosin'!"

:) ?

[jimmygun]

Just an obscure reference to 'Hee Haw', a country humour show from the sixties.:)

[Hexxenhammer]

So, by your logic jimmygun, liberal and tolerant Christians don't have the moral high-ground to protest other religions since they all spring from the same book?

Does that mean mainstream churches shouldn't protest churches like Christian Identity, the church of neo-nazis and kkk members all over the US and Canada?

[jimmygun]

Who is the most moral? Phelps and his gay bashers or the Right to lifers that firebomb abortion clinics and murder doctors?

I simply asked what criteria gives any bible banger the moral high ground over another bible banger? If the bible is so subjective and open to the whims of anyone's interpretations then it cannot be used as fodder for any argument between different sects. All religious views have the same weight if they come from the same authority.

Is Phelps wrong? Absolutely! Are the anti-abortionists that murder in the name of life wrong? Absolutely! Do they all get their clearance for their actions from the bible? Absolutely!

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Who is the most moral? Phelps and his gay bashers or the Right to lifers that firebomb abortion clinics and murder doctors?

I simply asked what criteria gives any bible banger the moral high ground over another bible banger? If the bible is so subjective and open to the whims of anyone's interpretations then it cannot be used as fodder for any argument between different sects. All religious views have the same weight if they come from the same authority.

Is Phelps wrong? Absolutely! Are the anti-abortionists that murder in the name of life wrong? Absolutely! Do they all get their clearance for their actions from the bible? Absolutely! Comparing Finella's gay-friendly Episcopal church to Phelps church or abortion clinic bombing fundies is ridiculous. Nothing in any of what Finella has written says "Bible banger" to me. All we know from this thread is that Finella goes to church. Lots of people go to church. True, I would agree that 2 churches throwing opposing Bible quotes at each other is stupid. That's what I do when someone throws them at me, I throw an opposing one back to make the contradictions in the bible obvious. That doesn't mean the bible is the only moral authority that Finella can argue from. I would argue it from common human decency.

[jimmygun]

Human decency? Absolutely! But why use the bible for authority if decency is the reason for moral high ground? To use the bible is to offer it to your foes for their use too.

If you argue that Phelps is wrong from a human decency perspective then he has no rebuttal. If you argue that it comes from the bible then he has every right to quote the same bible for his own use and I say that it carries the same weight as any bible quote (none).

As you say, you can quote verse back and forth with bible bangers but all that does is show that the bible is irrelevant in anyone's argument.

Once again I will try to clear up what I am saying. The original post seemed to me to be one sect barking about another sect and claiming higher ground of the basis of their interpretation of biblical text.

[Mr Clingford]

Jimmy, what do you think of my above post? I can expand on it, if you like

[jimmygun]

How does the interpretations of Peter's dream differ from the interpretations of Phelps'? If some sects are willing to believe what is written by Paul and Peter and some are willing to ignore it where is the authority to claim higher moral ground? It obviously does not rest in the verses of the bible.

The bible is full of blatant contradictions to begin with. (http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/bible-a.htm). To further muddying the water by claiming interpretation is rediculous.

If you are telling me that the basis of Christianity and their interpretations lie in the strengths of a reported dream then the foundations are shakier than that of the claim of bible infalibility, but no less frivolous.

I hold that the bible is the last place to look for for moral highground, no matter what moral ground you are espousing.

[Loki]

Mr Clingford,

Jimmy, what do you think of my above post? I can expand on it, if you like
Although you addressed this to Jimmy, I'll offer a comment. You said :

for Christians Jesus Christ is the supreme revelation of the nature of God with his teachings and actions being the core of Christianity.
...
The teaching of most Christians is that we are not bound by the laws of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The issue here is "how to interprete the bible". Your point is that it is a common christian opinion that "later books/writings override/refine earlier books/writings" - in other words, the new testament overrides the old testament. One problem I have with this is "why stop there".

Taking the christian mythology at face value, Jesus didn't create the bible. There's 100% agreement that the gospels were written after his death (there's no real agreement about exactly how much after). There's also agreement that the Bible was not formalised as a single book until around 300 AD, and that numerous other 'books' were rejected for inclusion. Since then, various sects have refined the canon to remove additional books (ie protestantism) or add books (Mormons) or add additional teachings (Roman Catholicism - encyclicals, etc). There's 100% agreement that about 630 AD, the prophet Mohammad added a further set of additional writings and interpretations (the Quran - currently accepted as accurate by 900 million people).

So why draw the line at "the New testament"? Why draw the line any particular place? In short, aren't we forced to go outside the writings to judge them? So these writings, in fact, act to reinforce our existing moral framework, rather than to create it?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by jimmygun
How does the interpretations of Peter's dream differ from the interpretations of Phelps'? If some sects are willing to believe what is written by Paul and Peter and some are willing to ignore it where is the authority to claim higher moral ground? It obviously does not rest in the verses of the bible.

The bible is full of blatant contradictions to begin with. (http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/bible-a.htm). To further muddying the water by claiming interpretation is rediculous.

If you are telling me that the basis of Christianity and their interpretations lie in the strengths of a reported dream then the foundations are shakier than that of the claim of bible infalibility, but no less frivolous.

I hold that the bible is the last place to look for for moral highground, no matter what moral ground you are espousing.
Well, Peter was right and Phelps is wrong!
You write "some sects" which is inaccurate; Phelps may be a sect, but the vast majority of the Xtian is not a sect.

i had a quick look at the link. I am not a biblical literalist or inerrantist and agree that there are contradictions etc, but some of the examples in the link where stupid and facile.

I did not say that the basis of Xtianity lies in the strengths of a REPORTED DREAM BUT IN THE LIFE (ARSE, HIT CAPS LOCK) and words of Jesus.

[Mr Clingford]

So why draw the line at "the New testament"? Why draw the line any particular place? In short, aren't we forced to go outside the writings to judge them? So these writings, in fact, act to reinforce our existing moral framework, rather than to create it? you make some good points and I agree somewhat. I think i make decisions based on the bible, science, church teaching and rational thought

[jimmygun]

Mr Clingford...Peter was right and Phelps was wrong? Do you have anything to back that statement up other than your interpretation of the verse?

You say you make decisions based on what I consider mutually exclusive criteria...the bible and science, church teaching and rational thought. Where do you draw the line when science is in direct opposition to the bible? When rational thought demands you question church teachings? And by the way...who's church? Phelps'? Jim Jones'? David Koresh's? Jimmy Swaggart's? Pat Robertson's? Billy Graham'? And the list goes on and on.

There are myriads of 'sects' claiming to be Christian out there. Are you using the 'True Scotsman' logic argument? Perhaps your church is the only true religion. Is that the case?

[Roadtoad]

I need to digest this one.

You have my sympathies, Finella.

[Finella]

Okay, in the interest of my sanity and our upcoming holiday, let's be brief.

If I understand you correctly, Jimmygun, you don't feel anyone claiming to be Christian (and, in your words, a "bible banger") can use the Bible in order to make moral arguments, right?

I don't use the Bible as my sole moral authority -- Hexenhammer reads me correctly. Actually, I quoted it earlier in regards to Phelps with a hint of sarcasm, a regrettable flaw in online communication. I made such a quote because people such as Phelps would only understand a Bible quote to bolster their actions and arguments.

By your logic, one interpretation of the bible: "God says 'be excellent to one another'" is as valid as "God says 'slap one another on the cheeks with a wet kipper.'" Clearly this is ridiculous, which is why one is able to at least come to a broad consensus on what the bible does or does not say.

The same is true for science and history -- each 'interpretation' of the evidence is not equally valid. We might not agree on the finer details of evolution, but there is consensus on the broader aspects. Since Phelps is considered a nutcase by even fundamentalist conservatives it's safe to say he's on dodgy theological ground.

Unlike Phelps, I would not be dogmatic about my Biblical interpretations, but I am willing to shown another interpretation.

As it is, we did nothing to impede Phelps, we allowed him to protest and gave him no special attention whatsoever. We did not confront him nor did we paintball him. He was permitted to say what he wanted to say, in the most indecent way that he said it, and go on his merry way. So, honestly, I don't see what you're getting your panties in a wad about.

Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate it... :)

---,---'--{@

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Mr Clingford...Peter was right and Phelps was wrong? Do you have anything to back that statement up other than your interpretation of the verse?

You say you make decisions based on what I consider mutually exclusive criteria...the bible and science, church teaching and rational thought. Where do you draw the line when science is in direct opposition to the bible? When rational thought demands you question church teachings? And by the way...who's church? Phelps'? Jim Jones'? David Koresh's? Jimmy Swaggart's? Pat Robertson's? Billy Graham'? And the list goes on and on.

There are myriads of 'sects' claiming to be Christian out there. Are you using the 'True Scotsman' logic argument? Perhaps your church is the only true religion. Is that the case? Rational thought always means questioning church teachings.
I do not see the bible as a science textbook.
My church - the 'liberal' non-fundamentalist aspect of the Anglican Church, of which the personal faith of the Archbishop of Canterbury is a good example.
Finella's pointThe same is true for science and history -- each 'interpretation' of the evidence is not equally valid. We might not agree on the finer details of evolution, but there is consensus on the broader aspects. Since Phelps is considered a nutcase by even fundamentalist conservatives it's safe to say he's on dodgy theological ground is good. Good Science is meant to be peer reviewed.

Phelps is a nobody who courts publicity and is not in the Bible. Peter is in the Bible and his letters are in it, was a disciple of Jesus and was part of the founding of the worldwide church

[jimmygun]

Finella...Let me clarify if I may...I use the term 'bible banger' to identify Christians as opposed to Muslims (koran bangers) or Jews (torah bangers).

My point is that anyone can make an argument based on the bible. Because of that, one quote in the bible holds no authority over another. What difference does it make if the majority interpret a verse one way? Does it prove the minority wrong?

Does't majority consensus change over time? At one time it was customary that Catholics not eat meat on Friday. Now it is different. Today it is forbidden for those Catholics to get abortions, who knows what tomorrow will bring? I imagine that at one time putting homosexuals to death had popular support among bible bangers.

If god says to be nice to each other are you not commanded to be nice? If god says to slay the women and children are you not commanded to do so? If god says go out and get me something to eat, you choose, then you have some leeway but if he says go out and get me some fries and a coke, he is pretty specific. Everyone getting together and voting on what god wants seems to me to be a bit uppity.

Once again...I am not defending Phelps for one second here. I just don't think using the bible against itself is a rational argument.

Happy Thanksgiving. It is my favourite holiday and I wish I had dual citizenship so I could celebrate here in October and in the States in November.