FREE TAPATALK APP

saizai · 22nd August 2007, 02:09 AM

See http://saizai.livejournal.com/858527.html since copying it over here prettily isn't working well. Discussion here is fine, though.

Jekyll · 22nd August 2007, 03:31 AM

Thanks, I enjoyed that.
It does seem strange to me that they hope to go to heaven when they see everyone as pawns. Somehow it just doesn't make sense to me.

MRC_Hans · 22nd August 2007, 03:36 AM

Noticed this:

Quote:

Humans are the clay and God is the potter. The clay has no free will or power to influence the potter in any way.

Obviously, that person has never tried her hand at pottery, or she would speak more respectfully of the clay.

Hans

jon · 22nd August 2007, 05:06 AM

interesting interview. What's the service you used, btw - you type an IM chat, and someone else talks to the party on the line?

volatile · 22nd August 2007, 05:30 AM

I'm just reading the freewill / predestiny argument - and it makes no sense whatsoever. They preach hatred against people god made gay?

The stupid makes my eyes burn - it's as though they can't even realise that their entire belief system isn't even internally consistent.

jon · 22nd August 2007, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by volatile

I'm just reading the freewill / predestiny argument - and it makes no sense whatsoever. They preach hatred against people god made gay?

The stupid makes my eyes burn - it's as though they can't even realise that their entire belief system isn't even internally consistent.

To be fair, I think it is internally consistent. If you're going to believe in a God that's by definition both omnipotent, omniscient and good, it's quite consistent to believe that God might create people who are predetermined to act in ways that He views as wrong, for His own purposes. From God's point of view, it might be a good thing overall if a few billion people are predetermined to burn in hell.

Not a particularly appealing belief system, but consistent.

volatile · 22nd August 2007, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by jon

To be fair, I think it is internally consistent. If you're going to believe in a God that's by definition both omnipotent, omniscient and good, it's quite consistent to believe that God might create people who are predetermined to act in ways that He views as wrong, for His own purposes. From God's point of view, it might be a good thing overall if a few billion people are predetermined to burn in hell.

Not a particularly appealing belief system, but consistent.

Hmmm... well, Ms Phelps wasn't exactly lucid in stating that. It seemed to me that she was arguing that they wanted homosexuals to stop their homosexual ways, and preached as such, when the homosexuals had no control over whether they stopped anyway. This is particularly obvious when you think about things like the whole "God Hates Sweden" farce - they call for a boycott of Swedish goods because of Swedish condemnation of a homophobic pastor, when, in their world view, no-one had any choice about these actions in the first place.

Also, it struck me that they were condemning (by proxy?) homosexuals for something they have no control over, whilst at the same time praising God for his wisdom. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

theBigShagboski · 22nd August 2007, 06:12 AM

I really enjoy the argument that God hates homosexuals for being homosexuals, but hated them so much FIRST that he made them homosexual so that he could hate them more. Or is it all just a big circle of "I hate you because I know I will make you into something I hate." If God is the only one who has free will, I guess preordaining someone to be something you hate contradicts a loving, just and good God, no?

And the Westboro clan is just doing what they were preordained to do: hate everyone but themselves. I wonder if they've conceived that perhaps they're the ones God hates, and that's why they spread such intolerance?

jon · 22nd August 2007, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by volatile

Hmmm... well, Ms Phelps wasn't exactly lucid in stating that. It seemed to me that she was arguing that they wanted homosexuals to stop their homosexual ways, and preached as such, when the homosexuals had no control over whether they stopped anyway. This is particularly obvious when you think about things like the whole "God Hates Sweden" farce - they call for a boycott of Swedish goods because of Swedish condemnation of a homophobic pastor, when, in their world view, no-one had any choice about these actions in the first place.

Also, it struck me that they were condemning (by proxy?) homosexuals for something they have no control over, whilst at the same time praising God for his wisdom. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.

hm, Phelps did say that "God created some vessels of mercy - those are the people he loves - he created others as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction...He hates them because it is his good will and pleasure to do so". If God is by definition good, His good will might be to create some people just so that He can hate and punish. Equally, God might decide that it is good for some people to be punished on earth for being the way that He created them - e.g. for those he predetermined to be gay to be executed for the 'crime'.

Having a God to ground morality in lets you do a lot in terms of consistency imo... Obviously, I'm not saying that this type of position is appealing.

theBigShagboski · 22nd August 2007, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by jon

hm, Phelps did say that "God created some vessels of mercy - those are the people he loves - he created others as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction...He hates them because it is his good will and pleasure to do so". If God is by definition good, His good will might be to create some people just so that He can hate and punish. Equally, God might decide that it is good for some people to be punished on earth for being the way that He created them - e.g. for those he predetermined to be gay to be executed for the 'crime'.

In other words, the greatest good that he can do FOR those he created as "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" is to punish them, since forgiving them and treating them well would be contrary to the way they were made? So he punishes them knowing that, as these vessels of badness, the fairest result is punishment and damnation.

Huh... you're right, it CAN be consistent. Frightening, but consistent.

saizai · 22nd August 2007, 12:18 PM

The service I used is called "IP relay". Wikipedia has good articles. Also see sprintip.com et al.

I think that the Phelps are actually remarkably consistent, more so than many other Christians. There are a few weaknesses - e.g. why does god originally hate someone and therefore condemn them (to be gay and therefore anger him and go to hell)? 'cause he wants to. Why are the Phelps going to heaven? Well they're not certain but they think they are... but that's the same claim other Christians make.

Some of their behavior does appear to be modification-oriented, e.g. calling for a boycott etc., so I think they are somewhat inconsistent about the claim to not believe in free will. But you can't fault them for not taking the "preach loudly" commandment to heart.

Tanstaafl · 22nd August 2007, 01:18 PM

Wow! First the Way of the Master and now the Phelps clan. My hat's off to you, saizai. I think such a combination of stupidity and insanity would make my head explode if I tried to communicate with these people.

IMST · 22nd August 2007, 02:03 PM

You come off as rediculously calm and polite. I'd be reaching through the phone to do violence.
On the other hand, every time I hear these people all I can think is if God made me to be gay specifically to hate me and condemn me, then I'm better have a REALLY good time while I'm here. I might just have to get to a gay bar to do some sinnin' tonight. Thanks, the Phleps!

Marquis de Carabas · 22nd August 2007, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by saizai

Some of their behavior does appear to be modification-oriented, e.g. calling for a boycott etc., so I think they are somewhat inconsistent about the claim to not believe in free will.

Not really. They were pre-ordained to call for those boycotts, after all.

ksbluesfan · 22nd August 2007, 02:56 PM

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church should be ignored. They're attention whores of the highest order.

Wolfman · 22nd August 2007, 06:16 PM

One argument used in the predestination debate goes as follows:

God exists outside of time and space; while we see things in terms of a progression of events, God would have seen everything that I have ever done and ever will do at the same time that he was creating the world. God knew every choice I would make, every action I would take. It is impossible that I could act in any way other than the way he already saw, since if I did so, that would mean he was not omniscient.

Besides being omniscient, god is also omnipotent...nothing can happen without him declaring that it should happen. So, by "knowing" what I will do, and by creating me to do it, god has effectively predestined me to act in exactly that manner.

You might think of it in terms of quantum theory, the whole Schroedinger's Cat paradox. On a quantum level, matter can exist in different states simultaneously, until the act of observation 'forces' it into one particular state. Well, you could argue that so long as matter is not being observed in this manner, it has "free will"...it can do whatever it wants. But once observed, it is "locked" into a particular state, and is now "predestined" to be in that state.

Well, god observed every subatomic particle from the beginning of time; and the simple act of observation meant that even if those actions would have been a result of free will, because it was observed and known by god, it became "locked" in place, and that person had no choice to act in any way other than the way in which they do act.

It is fun using something like quantum physics to explain predestination, and I know that it has flaws...but this essentially unites "free will" and "predestination" into one argument.

Gregoire · 22nd August 2007, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by theBigShagboski

I really enjoy the argument that God hates homosexuals for being homosexuals, but hated them so much FIRST that he made them homosexual so that he could hate them more. Or is it all just a big circle of "I hate you because I know I will make you into something I hate." If God is the only one who has free will, I guess preordaining someone to be something you hate contradicts a loving, just and good God, no?

And the Westboro clan is just doing what they were preordained to do: hate everyone but themselves. I wonder if they've conceived that perhaps they're the ones God hates, and that's why they spread such intolerance?

I I have talked to Calvinists in the past and never found them to be so vehemently anti-homosexual as Phelps. Oh, I am sure if pressed that they would claim God hates homosexuals, but it was more important to them to tell me about all the other things God hates, including how he hates "supposed Christians who don't honor the Sabbath." It often seemed like the Calvinists I talked to hated other fundamentalist sects more than they hated nonbelievers.

Essentially, the doctrine of Predestination turns the words of contemporary Christianity on their head. God is "loving", but only in the context of those whom he has "chosen". God is "just" but only by definition. Everything he does is by definition "right" because he is the one who determines what is "right" in the first place.

I do see Calvinists' beliefs as very consistent especially with the "Old Testament" where the character known as god goes around killing or having others kill for him. And believing god only "saves" the "elect" or "chosen" seems to be just what he is alleged to have done with the Israelites when he supposedly "chose" them.

Of course, it has been documented that these ancient texts referred to as the "Bible" have changed over the years. And the beginning of the "New Testament" was written long after those alleged events supposedly occured (and are thus mutually contradictory). So it is probably anyone's guess what the original messages of the various authors really were?

arthwollipot · 23rd August 2007, 01:07 AM

These people frighten me. I'm very glad that most Christians believe as we do that they are a bunch of nutcases. I woudn't be suprised if they all do themselves in (a la Peoples Temple) sometime in the future.

Although I hesitate to say it, the world would be better off.

saizai · 23rd August 2007, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Tanstaafl

Wow! First the Way of the Master and now the Phelps clan. My hat's off to you, saizai. I think such a combination of stupidity and insanity would make my head explode if I tried to communicate with these people.

Originally Posted by In My Spare Time

You come off as rediculously calm and polite. I'd be reaching through the phone to do violence.

Thank you. I'm surprised you remembered my WotM bit.

Using IP relay does make it rather easier to stand back and see it analytically. You should thank your local relay operator - they have to deal with this sort of thing day in day out.

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Not really. They were pre-ordained to call for those boycotts, after all.

Certainly. But for what purpose?

Indeed, the question of 'purpose' is somewhat central if you take this seriously; if they do not believe that others have free will, then there is no 'purpose' to their actions; they do things simply because that's their part in the play.

FWIW, it reminds me a lot of the end of Story of Your Life (a most excellent short scifi story which I strongly recommend you all read). Don't skip ahead (it's very short and worth the time to not spoil), but note the part about those who read from the Book of Life.

Originally Posted by Wolfman

(snip)...but this essentially unites "free will" and "predestination" into one argument.

You reiterate the usual determinism argument.

FWIW, I am a compatibilist. I believe that we are indeed deterministic (at least at the non-sub-atomic level, which is all that is relevant to us), and that if there is an omniscient god, it must certainly realize this.

I believe that "free will" is actually a shortcut for saying "the *experience* of free will". That is certainly something that Really Exists. And indeed, we probably can't ever know enough to run a complete deterministic modeling, so to our experience, the world is nondeterministic. I don't however believe that one can characterize the existence of the experience of free will as *needing* some sort of "real" free will - for what would such a thing even mean? That you can 'freely' choose to do something... free of what, hmm? It only makes sense if contrasted against some sort of compelling force, and no such force that we know of has ever been shown to be nondeterministc at the non-sub-atomic scale. (E.g. that of the neuron, brain, or body...)

What is important is that you don't *experience* those compelling forces. Just like you don't usually *experience* the force of past advertising (or 'priming' as the psychs call it) on present decisions, but it's definitely still there...

I would not be surprised if this *expierence* of free will could eventually be characterized by some set of neural activity. After all, there are lesion and psychotic cases where people experience a *lack* of free will over their actions (as if they are "forced" to do something). Compare them, distill it (ah, there's the 'nontrivial' part), and there's your answer.

Originally Posted by Gregoire

I I have talked to Calvinists in the past and never found them to be so vehemently anti-homosexual as Phelps. Oh, I am sure if pressed that they would claim God hates homosexuals, but it was more important to them to tell me about all the other things God hates, including how he hates "supposed Christians who don't honor the Sabbath." It often seemed like the Calvinists I talked to hated other fundamentalist sects more than they hated nonbelievers.

I do wonder about that one. Supposedly Jesus said that thing about not working on the sabbath wasn't all *that* important, that you're just supposed to 'keep it holy' (i.e. engage in religion regularly). *shrug*

Quote:

Essentially, the doctrine of Predestination turns the words of contemporary Christianity on their head. God is "loving", but only in the context of those whom he has "chosen". God is "just" but only by definition. Everything he does is by definition "right" because he is the one who determines what is "right" in the first place.

Yup. A lot of that (i.e. minus the loving bit) is accepted by somewhat more mainstream Christians also, e.g. evangelicals... that God is just and right by definition. It's quite mainstream-Christian to claim that morality is *defined by* God, not merely *exemplified*.

Quote:

So it is probably anyone's guess what the original messages of the various authors really were?

Let's please not open that bucket of worms on this thread.

Madalch · 23rd August 2007, 10:44 AM

Jacob and Aesop? Surely she meant Esau- was she the one typing this, or did someone else do the transcription?

Hokulele · 23rd August 2007, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

These people frighten me. I'm very glad that most Christians believe as we do that they are a bunch of nutcases. I woudn't be suprised if they all do themselves in (a la Peoples Temple) sometime in the future.

Although I hesitate to say it, the world would be better off.

Nah, death is too kind for someone like Fred Phelps, and Hell is too cruel.

I would prefer to have him subjected to eternal public humiliation by pudwapping.

saizai · 23rd August 2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Madalch

Jacob and Aesop? Surely she meant Esau- was she the one typing this, or did someone else do the transcription?

The person typing was the relay operator. I cleaned it up somewhat, but I admit I didn't know what that one was supposed to be so I left it as the RO wrote it.

Fixed, anyway.

Tanstaafl · 23rd August 2007, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by saizai

Thank you. I'm surprised you remembered my WotM bit.

Gee, I didn't realize my failing memory was so well known in cyberspace...

c4ts · 23rd August 2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Homosexuality is a behavior voluntarily engaged in.

Quote:

Because humans do not have free will.

But... how... voluntary... argh...

Quote:

I can tell you that God by definition is just and righteous and everything is by definition just and righteous.

Oh, well, the complete lack of morals explains everything.

arthwollipot · 24th August 2007, 12:04 AM

Don't try to analyse. That way lies madness.

saizai · 24th August 2007, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Tanstaafl

Gee, I didn't realize my failing memory was so well known in cyberspace...

That was modesty, not an insult.

saizai · 25th August 2007, 02:55 PM

FYI, Nate Phelps (son of the Fred Phelps Sr.) replied to my post on LJ (link in OP). Interesting comments.

ansuzmannaz · 25th August 2007, 05:59 PM

This god can't be, by definition, good, for his actions are malicious and evil by any sensible definition of good. The sense of the general definition of "good" is "that which is beneficial to life." Good in the moral sense is characterized by a concern for the wellbeing for other life, as well as their freedom and happiness. This god does not fit the criteria.

The only way to make this consistent is to define "good" as "whatever God says it is." This, however, runs contrary to the true concept of good as innately understood by humans.

I have to say, though, now I finally understand what makes the Phelpses tick. They want to believe that they are the only ones worth anything in the world, and the maintain the delusion by hating everyone else. This makes me doubt that any of the Phelps family are "good" people, if they accept this doctrine. At best they are moral cowards.

saizai · 26th August 2007, 11:11 PM

ansuzmannaz - Unfortunately, the definition of good in their worldview - and that of many other theists - is "whatever god says we should do".

By that definition, they try to be good people. God says preach, they preach. God says hate, they hate. God says love... they prefer the 'tough love' approach.

22nd August 2007, 02:09 AM	#1
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	Talking to a Phelps See http://saizai.livejournal.com/858527.html since copying it over here prettily isn't working well. Discussion here is fine, though.
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	__________________ Friendly advice: if in an argument with me, don't make tons of fallacies or you'll just embarass yourself when I call you on 'em. Kthx! See my Youtube videos for more good argument, as well as bits about my various other interests, like ASL, cogsci, neurosci, meditation, cooking, etc.

22nd August 2007, 03:31 AM	#2
Jekyll Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: The other other place Posts: 1,589	Thanks, I enjoyed that. It does seem strange to me that they hope to go to heaven when they see everyone as pawns. Somehow it just doesn't make sense to me.
	__________________ And I looked. And behold a green horse, and his name that sat on him was death. ~Tyndale New Testament

22nd August 2007, 03:36 AM	#3
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	Noticed this: Quote: Humans are the clay and God is the potter. The clay has no free will or power to influence the potter in any way. Obviously, that person has never tried her hand at pottery, or she would speak more respectfully of the clay. Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

22nd August 2007, 05:06 AM	#4
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	interesting interview. What's the service you used, btw - you type an IM chat, and someone else talks to the party on the line?
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	__________________ Holford Watch: the truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist.

22nd August 2007, 05:30 AM	#5
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	I'm just reading the freewill / predestiny argument - and it makes no sense whatsoever. They preach hatred against people god made gay? The stupid makes my eyes burn - it's as though they can't even realise that their entire belief system isn't even internally consistent.
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

22nd August 2007, 05:52 AM	#6
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	Originally Posted by volatile I'm just reading the freewill / predestiny argument - and it makes no sense whatsoever. They preach hatred against people god made gay? The stupid makes my eyes burn - it's as though they can't even realise that their entire belief system isn't even internally consistent. To be fair, I think it is internally consistent. If you're going to believe in a God that's by definition both omnipotent, omniscient and good, it's quite consistent to believe that God might create people who are predetermined to act in ways that He views as wrong, for His own purposes. From God's point of view, it might be a good thing overall if a few billion people are predetermined to burn in hell. Not a particularly appealing belief system, but consistent.
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	__________________ Holford Watch: the truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist.

22nd August 2007, 05:58 AM	#7
volatile Scholar and a Gentleman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: The Uncanny Valley Posts: 6,730	Originally Posted by jon To be fair, I think it is internally consistent. If you're going to believe in a God that's by definition both omnipotent, omniscient and good, it's quite consistent to believe that God might create people who are predetermined to act in ways that He views as wrong, for His own purposes. From God's point of view, it might be a good thing overall if a few billion people are predetermined to burn in hell. Not a particularly appealing belief system, but consistent. Hmmm... well, Ms Phelps wasn't exactly lucid in stating that. It seemed to me that she was arguing that they wanted homosexuals to stop their homosexual ways, and preached as such, when the homosexuals had no control over whether they stopped anyway. This is particularly obvious when you think about things like the whole "God Hates Sweden" farce - they call for a boycott of Swedish goods because of Swedish condemnation of a homophobic pastor, when, in their world view, no-one had any choice about these actions in the first place. Also, it struck me that they were condemning (by proxy?) homosexuals for something they have no control over, whilst at the same time praising God for his wisdom. That seems pretty inconsistent to me.
	__________________ - ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.

22nd August 2007, 06:12 AM	#8
theBigShagboski New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 11	I really enjoy the argument that God hates homosexuals for being homosexuals, but hated them so much FIRST that he made them homosexual so that he could hate them more. Or is it all just a big circle of "I hate you because I know I will make you into something I hate." If God is the only one who has free will, I guess preordaining someone to be something you hate contradicts a loving, just and good God, no? And the Westboro clan is just doing what they were preordained to do: hate everyone but themselves. I wonder if they've conceived that perhaps they're the ones God hates, and that's why they spread such intolerance?
theBigShagboski New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 11

22nd August 2007, 06:14 AM	#9
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	Originally Posted by volatile Hmmm... well, Ms Phelps wasn't exactly lucid in stating that. It seemed to me that she was arguing that they wanted homosexuals to stop their homosexual ways, and preached as such, when the homosexuals had no control over whether they stopped anyway. This is particularly obvious when you think about things like the whole "God Hates Sweden" farce - they call for a boycott of Swedish goods because of Swedish condemnation of a homophobic pastor, when, in their world view, no-one had any choice about these actions in the first place. Also, it struck me that they were condemning (by proxy?) homosexuals for something they have no control over, whilst at the same time praising God for his wisdom. That seems pretty inconsistent to me. hm, Phelps did say that "God created some vessels of mercy - those are the people he loves - he created others as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction...He hates them because it is his good will and pleasure to do so". If God is by definition good, His good will might be to create some people just so that He can hate and punish. Equally, God might decide that it is good for some people to be punished on earth for being the way that He created them - e.g. for those he predetermined to be gay to be executed for the 'crime'. Having a God to ground morality in lets you do a lot in terms of consistency imo... Obviously, I'm not saying that this type of position is appealing.
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	__________________ Holford Watch: the truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist.

22nd August 2007, 10:22 AM	#10
theBigShagboski New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 11	Originally Posted by jon hm, Phelps did say that "God created some vessels of mercy - those are the people he loves - he created others as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction...He hates them because it is his good will and pleasure to do so". If God is by definition good, His good will might be to create some people just so that He can hate and punish. Equally, God might decide that it is good for some people to be punished on earth for being the way that He created them - e.g. for those he predetermined to be gay to be executed for the 'crime'. In other words, the greatest good that he can do FOR those he created as "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" is to punish them, since forgiving them and treating them well would be contrary to the way they were made? So he punishes them knowing that, as these vessels of badness, the fairest result is punishment and damnation. Huh... you're right, it CAN be consistent. Frightening, but consistent.
theBigShagboski New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 11

22nd August 2007, 12:18 PM	#11
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	The service I used is called "IP relay". Wikipedia has good articles. Also see sprintip.com et al. I think that the Phelps are actually remarkably consistent, more so than many other Christians. There are a few weaknesses - e.g. why does god originally hate someone and therefore condemn them (to be gay and therefore anger him and go to hell)? 'cause he wants to. Why are the Phelps going to heaven? Well they're not certain but they think they are... but that's the same claim other Christians make. Some of their behavior does appear to be modification-oriented, e.g. calling for a boycott etc., so I think they are somewhat inconsistent about the claim to not believe in free will. But you can't fault them for not taking the "preach loudly" commandment to heart.
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	__________________ Friendly advice: if in an argument with me, don't make tons of fallacies or you'll just embarass yourself when I call you on 'em. Kthx! See my Youtube videos for more good argument, as well as bits about my various other interests, like ASL, cogsci, neurosci, meditation, cooking, etc.

22nd August 2007, 01:18 PM	#12
Tanstaafl Unindicted Co-conspirator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 5,622	Wow! First the Way of the Master and now the Phelps clan. My hat's off to you, saizai. I think such a combination of stupidity and insanity would make my head explode if I tried to communicate with these people.
	__________________ To forgive is human, to condemn for eternity is divine. -- AudioFreak Truth is where evidence comes from, not where belief leads to. --yy2bggggs Expelled exposed! Sylvia Browne

22nd August 2007, 02:03 PM	#13
IMST If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a Whole Lot of Dead Copycats Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 6,133	You come off as rediculously calm and polite. I'd be reaching through the phone to do violence. On the other hand, every time I hear these people all I can think is if God made me to be gay specifically to hate me and condemn me, then I'm better have a REALLY good time while I'm here. I might just have to get to a gay bar to do some sinnin' tonight. Thanks, the Phleps!

22nd August 2007, 02:39 PM	#14
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,110	Originally Posted by saizai Some of their behavior does appear to be modification-oriented, e.g. calling for a boycott etc., so I think they are somewhat inconsistent about the claim to not believe in free will. Not really. They were pre-ordained to call for those boycotts, after all.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

22nd August 2007, 02:56 PM	#15
ksbluesfan Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,384	Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church should be ignored. They're attention whores of the highest order.

22nd August 2007, 06:16 PM	#16
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,854	One argument used in the predestination debate goes as follows: God exists outside of time and space; while we see things in terms of a progression of events, God would have seen everything that I have ever done and ever will do at the same time that he was creating the world. God knew every choice I would make, every action I would take. It is impossible that I could act in any way other than the way he already saw, since if I did so, that would mean he was not omniscient. Besides being omniscient, god is also omnipotent...nothing can happen without him declaring that it should happen. So, by "knowing" what I will do, and by creating me to do it, god has effectively predestined me to act in exactly that manner. You might think of it in terms of quantum theory, the whole Schroedinger's Cat paradox. On a quantum level, matter can exist in different states simultaneously, until the act of observation 'forces' it into one particular state. Well, you could argue that so long as matter is not being observed in this manner, it has "free will"...it can do whatever it wants. But once observed, it is "locked" into a particular state, and is now "predestined" to be in that state. Well, god observed every subatomic particle from the beginning of time; and the simple act of observation meant that even if those actions would have been a result of free will, because it was observed and known by god, it became "locked" in place, and that person had no choice to act in any way other than the way in which they do act. It is fun using something like quantum physics to explain predestination, and I know that it has flaws...but this essentially unites "free will" and "predestination" into one argument.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

22nd August 2007, 07:31 PM	#17
Gregoire Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: DFW, Texas Posts: 534	Originally Posted by theBigShagboski I really enjoy the argument that God hates homosexuals for being homosexuals, but hated them so much FIRST that he made them homosexual so that he could hate them more. Or is it all just a big circle of "I hate you because I know I will make you into something I hate." If God is the only one who has free will, I guess preordaining someone to be something you hate contradicts a loving, just and good God, no? And the Westboro clan is just doing what they were preordained to do: hate everyone but themselves. I wonder if they've conceived that perhaps they're the ones God hates, and that's why they spread such intolerance? I I have talked to Calvinists in the past and never found them to be so vehemently anti-homosexual as Phelps. Oh, I am sure if pressed that they would claim God hates homosexuals, but it was more important to them to tell me about all the other things God hates, including how he hates "supposed Christians who don't honor the Sabbath." It often seemed like the Calvinists I talked to hated other fundamentalist sects more than they hated nonbelievers. Essentially, the doctrine of Predestination turns the words of contemporary Christianity on their head. God is "loving", but only in the context of those whom he has "chosen". God is "just" but only by definition. Everything he does is by definition "right" because he is the one who determines what is "right" in the first place. I do see Calvinists' beliefs as very consistent especially with the "Old Testament" where the character known as god goes around killing or having others kill for him. And believing god only "saves" the "elect" or "chosen" seems to be just what he is alleged to have done with the Israelites when he supposedly "chose" them. Of course, it has been documented that these ancient texts referred to as the "Bible" have changed over the years. And the beginning of the "New Testament" was written long after those alleged events supposedly occured (and are thus mutually contradictory). So it is probably anyone's guess what the original messages of the various authors really were?
	__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..” Voltaire "The crows seem to be calling my name", thought Caw.

23rd August 2007, 01:07 AM	#18
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,253	These people frighten me. I'm very glad that most Christians believe as we do that they are a bunch of nutcases. I woudn't be suprised if they all do themselves in (a la Peoples Temple) sometime in the future. Although I hesitate to say it, the world would be better off.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

23rd August 2007, 01:55 AM	#19
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	Originally Posted by Tanstaafl Wow! First the Way of the Master and now the Phelps clan. My hat's off to you, saizai. I think such a combination of stupidity and insanity would make my head explode if I tried to communicate with these people. Originally Posted by In My Spare Time You come off as rediculously calm and polite. I'd be reaching through the phone to do violence. Thank you. I'm surprised you remembered my WotM bit. Using IP relay does make it rather easier to stand back and see it analytically. You should thank your local relay operator - they have to deal with this sort of thing day in day out. Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas Not really. They were pre-ordained to call for those boycotts, after all. Certainly. But for what purpose? Indeed, the question of 'purpose' is somewhat central if you take this seriously; if they do not believe that others have free will, then there is no 'purpose' to their actions; they do things simply because that's their part in the play. FWIW, it reminds me a lot of the end of Story of Your Life (a most excellent short scifi story which I strongly recommend you all read). Don't skip ahead (it's very short and worth the time to not spoil), but note the part about those who read from the Book of Life. Originally Posted by Wolfman (snip)...but this essentially unites "free will" and "predestination" into one argument. You reiterate the usual determinism argument. FWIW, I am a compatibilist. I believe that we are indeed deterministic (at least at the non-sub-atomic level, which is all that is relevant to us), and that if there is an omniscient god, it must certainly realize this. I believe that "free will" is actually a shortcut for saying "the experience of free will". That is certainly something that Really Exists. And indeed, we probably can't ever know enough to run a complete deterministic modeling, so to our experience, the world is nondeterministic. I don't however believe that one can characterize the existence of the experience of free will as needing some sort of "real" free will - for what would such a thing even mean? That you can 'freely' choose to do something... free of what, hmm? It only makes sense if contrasted against some sort of compelling force, and no such force that we know of has ever been shown to be nondeterministc at the non-sub-atomic scale. (E.g. that of the neuron, brain, or body...) What is important is that you don't experience those compelling forces. Just like you don't usually experience the force of past advertising (or 'priming' as the psychs call it) on present decisions, but it's definitely still there... I would not be surprised if this expierence of free will could eventually be characterized by some set of neural activity. After all, there are lesion and psychotic cases where people experience a lack of free will over their actions (as if they are "forced" to do something). Compare them, distill it (ah, there's the 'nontrivial' part), and there's your answer. Originally Posted by Gregoire I I have talked to Calvinists in the past and never found them to be so vehemently anti-homosexual as Phelps. Oh, I am sure if pressed that they would claim God hates homosexuals, but it was more important to them to tell me about all the other things God hates, including how he hates "supposed Christians who don't honor the Sabbath." It often seemed like the Calvinists I talked to hated other fundamentalist sects more than they hated nonbelievers. I do wonder about that one. Supposedly Jesus said that thing about not working on the sabbath wasn't all that important, that you're just supposed to 'keep it holy' (i.e. engage in religion regularly). shrug Quote: Essentially, the doctrine of Predestination turns the words of contemporary Christianity on their head. God is "loving", but only in the context of those whom he has "chosen". God is "just" but only by definition. Everything he does is by definition "right" because he is the one who determines what is "right" in the first place. Yup. A lot of that (i.e. minus the loving bit) is accepted by somewhat more mainstream Christians also, e.g. evangelicals... that God is just and right by definition. It's quite mainstream-Christian to claim that morality is defined by God, not merely exemplified. Quote: So it is probably anyone's guess what the original messages of the various authors really were? Let's please not open that bucket of worms on this thread.
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	__________________ Friendly advice: if in an argument with me, don't make tons of fallacies or you'll just embarass yourself when I call you on 'em. Kthx! See my Youtube videos for more good argument, as well as bits about my various other interests, like ASL, cogsci, neurosci, meditation, cooking, etc. Last edited by saizai; 23rd August 2007 at 02:01 AM.

23rd August 2007, 10:44 AM	#20
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The wet coast. Posts: 8,751	Jacob and Aesop? Surely she meant Esau- was she the one typing this, or did someone else do the transcription?
	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

23rd August 2007, 10:57 AM	#21
Hokulele Official Nemesis Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats. Posts: 27,349	Originally Posted by arthwollipot These people frighten me. I'm very glad that most Christians believe as we do that they are a bunch of nutcases. I woudn't be suprised if they all do themselves in (a la Peoples Temple) sometime in the future. Although I hesitate to say it, the world would be better off. Nah, death is too kind for someone like Fred Phelps, and Hell is too cruel. I would prefer to have him subjected to eternal public humiliation by pudwapping.
	__________________ Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" Some person: "Why did you shoot that?" Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!" - Tragic Monkey

23rd August 2007, 11:51 AM	#22
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	Originally Posted by Madalch Jacob and Aesop? Surely she meant Esau- was she the one typing this, or did someone else do the transcription? The person typing was the relay operator. I cleaned it up somewhat, but I admit I didn't know what that one was supposed to be so I left it as the RO wrote it. Fixed, anyway.
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	__________________ Friendly advice: if in an argument with me, don't make tons of fallacies or you'll just embarass yourself when I call you on 'em. Kthx! See my Youtube videos for more good argument, as well as bits about my various other interests, like ASL, cogsci, neurosci, meditation, cooking, etc.

23rd August 2007, 03:34 PM	#23
Tanstaafl Unindicted Co-conspirator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 5,622	Originally Posted by saizai Thank you. I'm surprised you remembered my WotM bit. Gee, I didn't realize my failing memory was so well known in cyberspace...
	__________________ To forgive is human, to condemn for eternity is divine. -- AudioFreak Truth is where evidence comes from, not where belief leads to. --yy2bggggs Expelled exposed! Sylvia Browne

23rd August 2007, 05:53 PM	#24
c4ts Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Your base Posts: 8,427	Quote: Homosexuality is a behavior voluntarily engaged in. Quote: Because humans do not have free will. But... how... voluntary... argh... Quote: I can tell you that God by definition is just and righteous and everything is by definition just and righteous. Oh, well, the complete lack of morals explains everything.
	__________________ Ha ha ha ha.... Stupid signature size limit.

24th August 2007, 12:04 AM	#25
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,253	Don't try to analyse. That way lies madness.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

24th August 2007, 12:05 PM	#26
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	Originally Posted by Tanstaafl Gee, I didn't realize my failing memory was so well known in cyberspace... That was modesty, not an insult.
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	__________________ Friendly advice: if in an argument with me, don't make tons of fallacies or you'll just embarass yourself when I call you on 'em. Kthx! See my Youtube videos for more good argument, as well as bits about my various other interests, like ASL, cogsci, neurosci, meditation, cooking, etc.

25th August 2007, 02:55 PM	#27
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	FYI, Nate Phelps (son of the Fred Phelps Sr.) replied to my post on LJ (link in OP). Interesting comments.
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	__________________ Friendly advice: if in an argument with me, don't make tons of fallacies or you'll just embarass yourself when I call you on 'em. Kthx! See my Youtube videos for more good argument, as well as bits about my various other interests, like ASL, cogsci, neurosci, meditation, cooking, etc.

25th August 2007, 05:59 PM	#28
ansuzmannaz New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2	This god can't be, by definition, good, for his actions are malicious and evil by any sensible definition of good. The sense of the general definition of "good" is "that which is beneficial to life." Good in the moral sense is characterized by a concern for the wellbeing for other life, as well as their freedom and happiness. This god does not fit the criteria. The only way to make this consistent is to define "good" as "whatever God says it is." This, however, runs contrary to the true concept of good as innately understood by humans. I have to say, though, now I finally understand what makes the Phelpses tick. They want to believe that they are the only ones worth anything in the world, and the maintain the delusion by hating everyone else. This makes me doubt that any of the Phelps family are "good" people, if they accept this doctrine. At best they are moral cowards.
ansuzmannaz New Blood Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2

26th August 2007, 11:11 PM	#29
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	ansuzmannaz - Unfortunately, the definition of good in their worldview - and that of many other theists - is "whatever god says we should do". By that definition, they try to be good people. God says preach, they preach. God says hate, they hate. God says love... they prefer the 'tough love' approach.
saizai Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,374	__________________ Friendly advice: if in an argument with me, don't make tons of fallacies or you'll just embarass yourself when I call you on 'em. Kthx! See my Youtube videos for more good argument, as well as bits about my various other interests, like ASL, cogsci, neurosci, meditation, cooking, etc.