Westboro "Church" wants to protest at Jobs' funeral

[gameandmatch]

This "church" amazes me. They don't follow half the things in bible, yet they are supposedly true Christians.....I know wishing death for them isn't right, but they are defiling God's name. Oh well, we will see what happens in the end.

 

[Foxi4]

*facepalm*

They don't need to hire lawyers to get put behind bars, they need to hire a hitman to do it discreetly.

Believe it or not, they are a form of religion. While they call themselves Christians, don't be confused with Christians you see today. Everyone who says this Church aren't true Christians need to realize one thing; Christianity was originated thousands of years ago (if not more), what do you know about true Christians?

You use the exact same argument in every single discussion - "How do you know they are wrong (if you are not a part of them)?". Last time you did it while discussing whether or not people would chop a person up, cook them and store them in refrigerating units as a part of a crude revenge for sexual assault, and whether or not it would be insane. You seem to advocate alot of crazy stuff without really getting into details - those people are nutjobs that don't really follow the teachings of their own holy book - I'd know, I'm a Christian, *I know the bible*. Do you?

Excuse me, but you don't sound credible at all. While they are a form of religion, they are certainly not true Christians and they *are* a bunch of wackos. Your efforts at being a contrarian in every controversional thread really make you look... silly, due to a lack of a better term.

Also, the Christian church started off after Jesus started teaching, so that'd be circa 20 A.D, that means it's a measily 1991 years old, +/-.

EDIT: Had to swap the R-word with Sexual Assault. Crrrazy word-filter.

 

[Zetta_x]

Sigh, Foxi Foxi Foxi...

I never once said they are true Christians. I'm criticizing those who pretend to know what "True Christians" are. I don't advocate the stuff, I just point out flaws in people's arguments. I'm not saying their argument is wrong, I'm saying their arguments are weak.

I'm not even making any arguments other than, No one is more of a true Christian the the founders of Christianity. Thousands of years later and with almost no knowledge what or who founded Christianity, people have the nerve to define what a True Christian is.

You say you know the bible, but prove that the bible you say you know is accurate to what we are calling true Christianity (thousands of years ago). You can't, and like I said, those are holes in your argument.

Once again, I'm not arguing for any sides, I'm just pointing out obvious gaping holes in people's arguments. If everyone was defending these lunatics, I would be able to find holes in their arguments to.

This has nothing to do with Christianity. The people protesting this are ass holes using Christianity for public attention obviously. They use terms such as Church coined by religious people to attract their attention. Talking about Christianity more is not only off-topic, but none of my interest. Unless you want to debate whether or not they are Christians, which we seem to both agree they are not, have a nice night (because if we continue this conversation; I'm pretty sure my soon to be drunkness is going to get me banned from this site).

 

[Foxi4]

Sigh, Foxi Foxi Foxi...

I never once said they are true Christians. I'm criticizing those who pretend to know what "True Christians" are. I don't advocate the stuff, I just point out flaws in people's arguments. I'm not saying their argument is wrong, I'm saying their arguments are weak.

I'm not even making any arguments other than, No one is more of a true Christian the the founders of Christianity. Thousands of years later and with almost no knowledge what or who founded Christianity, people have the nerve to define what a True Christian is.

You say you know the bible, but prove that the bible you say you know is accurate to what we are calling true Christianity (thousands of years ago). You can't, and like I said, those are holes in your argument.

Once again, I'm not arguing for any sides, I'm just pointing out obvious gaping holes in people's arguments. If everyone was defending these lunatics, I would be able to find holes in their arguments to.

This has nothing to do with Christianity. The people protesting this are ass holes using Christianity for public attention obviously. They use terms such as Church coined by religious people to attract their attention. Talking about Christianity more is not only off-topic, but none of my interest. Unless you want to debate whether or not they are Christians, which we seem to both agree they are not, have a nice night (because if we continue this conversation; I'm pretty sure my soon to be drunkness is going to get me banned from this site).

I can prove that what is in our contemporary Bible is more or less the same as it was in previous editions of it, simply because several other texts that are unrelated to Christianity directly contain the same stories (Old Testament is shared by many holy books, for example). Moreover, I do not think that "True Christianity" requires to follow rules that were made nearly 2000 years ago, simply because as with every other rules set, religion needs to change, it needs evolution as it grows, much like laws do. Nobody said that the rules set by a given religious body the first time have to be right - they need to be adjusted, re-interpreted, but without loosing the "core" of the religion. It's called adaptation.

I'm glad to hear that you're not advocating the actions of this bizzare group, it'd be borderline insane to support those people in any way.

I'm not going to debate whether they are Christians or not, they are not. What does bother me though is that you simplify everything you approach to your standards, which are not always correct and not always accepted by the majority. A little bit of open-mindedness would do you wonders, you never know what interesting stuff you might find if you let it sink in by analyzing an approach different to your own.

 

[Deleted User]

Well, Westboro Church.
Go and suck a dick.
/end

Well, Westboro Church.
Go and suck a dick.
/end

 

[DSGamer64]

Yeah, I'd be the first to volunteer for the firing squad that eliminates the entire Phelps family from existence. It's pretty sad that the US Constitution will protect ignorants and racists meanwhile anyone else doing the same sort of things would be thrown behind bars. Someone needs to get off their ass and change a few laws, the government tolerating their intolerance is a huge issue, and it's ironic that the whole organization tries to preach some bullshit about tolerance meanwhile they are intolerant themselves. Baptists the world over do a huge /facepalm every time the Westboro Baptist Church is in the news.

 

[Gahars]

Yeah, I'd be the first to volunteer for the firing squad that eliminates the entire Phelps family from existence. It's pretty sad that the US Constitution will protect ignorants and racists meanwhile anyone else doing the same sort of things would be thrown behind bars. Someone needs to get off their ass and change a few laws, the government tolerating their intolerance is a huge issue, and it's ironic that the whole organization tries to preach some bullshit about tolerance meanwhile they are intolerant themselves. Baptists the world over do a huge /facepalm every time the Westboro Baptist Church is in the news.

Because when you disagree with someone, it is totally acceptable to want to murder them.

Look, no one (outside of the WBC, of course) is going to argue that their views and actions are abhorrent. I think everyone would also agree that it would be nice if they just went away. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world, and annoying people don't just disappear. Saying that we should just revoke rights in cases like this is not the correct response. These people are basically trolls; they do whatever they can to get media attention. To react so drastically would merely be a boon to these nutjobs.

Besides, if you can take away the rights of one group of people, no matter how terrible they are, you are kind of opening a dangerous precedent. Sure, it starts with people like this, but on the slippery slope, where does it end?