Happy Atheist Forum

http://godhatesfags.com/reports/2006033 ... ne-lie.pdf (http://godhatesfags.com/reports/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf)

If there's one thing that most atheists and the Westboro Baptist Church can agree upon, it's that the God of the Bible is a cruel, sadistic, hateful, wrathful being who hates most of his creation. The only difference is, they actually believe in him   .

The WBC is regarded as a fringe group, with pretty much Fred Phelp's family being the only members (along with a few other crazies), but I think they're one of the only, if not the only, Christian sect following God's word the closest.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"http://godhatesfags.com/reports/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf

If there's one thing that most atheists and the Westboro Baptist Church can agree upon, it's that the God of the Bible is a cruel, sadistic, hateful, wrathful being who hates most of his creation. The only difference is, they actually believe in him   .

The WBC is regarded as a fringe group, with pretty much Fred Phelp's family being the only members (along with a few other crazies), but I think they're one of the only, if not the only, Christian sect following God's word the closest.

I can't believe it's taken Atheism so long to figure this out.  To think, it only took one crazy family to bring this about.
Good for you, LS.

In WBC's collective mind, they are the only Christian church. Seriously. They despise anyone, including all other Christians, who do not believe EXACTLY as they do. It is in their own literature and published tenets.

They no more represent Christianity than an atheist does. One thing most atheists need to keep in mind is that people are people everywhere, and that Christians are, for the vast majority, just people who happen to have certain beliefs in matters spiritual and that they are good people. Humanity is humanity everywhere. You have individuals who can lead people away from ethical and moral stability. WBC has leaders that have done that. World leaders have done that. Atheists, Christians, Pagans, Muslims, and unclassifiable leaders have done that.

WBC makes me sick to my stomach, but believe me, they make everyone sick, including Christians.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I can't believe it's taken Atheism so long to figure this out.  To think, it only took one crazy family to bring this about.
Good for you, LS.

Figure what out?

Quote from: "McQ"In WBC's collective mind, they are the only Christian church. Seriously. They despise anyone, including all other Christians, who do not believe EXACTLY as they do. It is in their own literature and published tenets.

They no more represent Christianity than an atheist does. One thing most atheists need to keep in mind is that people are people everywhere, and that Christians are, for the vast majority, just people who happen to have certain beliefs in matters spiritual and that they are good people. Humanity is humanity everywhere. You have individuals who can lead people away from ethical and moral stability. WBC has leaders that have done that. World leaders have done that. Atheists, Christians, Pagans, Muslims, and unclassifiable leaders have done that.

WBC makes me sick to my stomach, but believe me, they make everyone sick, including Christians.

i agree. What I'm saying is that, from what I can tell, the WBC is following the Bible more closely than any other group of Christians.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "McQ"In WBC's collective mind, they are the only Christian church. Seriously. They despise anyone, including all other Christians, who do not believe EXACTLY as they do. It is in their own literature and published tenets.

They no more represent Christianity than an atheist does. One thing most atheists need to keep in mind is that people are people everywhere, and that Christians are, for the vast majority, just people who happen to have certain beliefs in matters spiritual and that they are good people. Humanity is humanity everywhere. You have individuals who can lead people away from ethical and moral stability. WBC has leaders that have done that. World leaders have done that. Atheists, Christians, Pagans, Muslims, and unclassifiable leaders have done that.

WBC makes me sick to my stomach, but believe me, they make everyone sick, including Christians.

i agree. What I'm saying is that, from what I can tell, the WBC is following the Bible more closely than any other group of Christians.

*my emphasis above*
Figured what out?  I can't believe you figured out our (Christian's) little secret.  Damn...now we'll have to think of a new one.
Kudos to you, though.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"*my emphasis above*
Figured what out?  I can't believe you figured out our (Christian's) little secret.  Damn...now we'll have to think of a new one.
Kudos to you, though.

What secret? I figured out a secret? Huh. Cool.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"*my emphasis above*
Figured what out?  I can't believe you figured out our (Christian's) little secret.  Damn...now we'll have to think of a new one.
Kudos to you, though.

What secret? I figured out a secret? Huh. Cool.

Yes you did!  You single-handedly figured out that WBC is the flagship of all Christianity.  And here we thought no Atheist would see this, at least for a few more decades.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yes you did!  You single-handedly figured out that WBC is the flagship of all Christianity.  And here we thought no Atheist would see this, at least for a few more decades.

No. I said they follow the Bible better.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Yes you did!  You single-handedly figured out that WBC is the flagship of all Christianity.  And here we thought no Atheist would see this, at least for a few more decades.

No. I said they follow the Bible better.

...from what you can tell.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"...from what you can tell.

Is your opinion somehow better than mine?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"...from what you can tell.

Is your opinion somehow better than mine?

On what subject?

From this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6602&start=105) thread.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And you insist on emphasizing that you perceive that I emphasized that Christians are hypocrites. Interesting.

I do believe that Christians are deluded. They're not all without logic, obviously.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Just the ones that don't belong to the WBC...then?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Stop making straw men.

In light of this thread, how have I misrepresented your position?

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"From this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6602&start=105) thread.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"And you insist on emphasizing that you perceive that I emphasized that Christians are hypocrites. Interesting.

I do believe that Christians are deluded. They're not all without logic, obviously.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Just the ones that don't belong to the WBC...then?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Stop making straw men.

In light of this thread, how have I misrepresented your position?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6602&start=105#p100138 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6602&start=105#p100138)

Apparently, both Fred Phelps and Terry Jones have been banned from the UK:
http://www.gainesville.com/article/2011 ... l&tc=pgall (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20110119/ARTICLES/110119365/1109/sports?p=all&tc=pgall)

QuoteTerry Jones, the pastor at the 30-member Dove World Outreach Center in northwest Gainesville, is banned from entering the United Kingdom, where he was scheduled to hold anti-Islam rallies next month, the British government announced Wednesday.

...

Last year, the BBC reported that Fred Phelps and his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, from the controversial Westboro Baptist Church, were also banned from Britain.

"Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities," a government spokesman said at the time.

Hmmm.... ok, so how can we ban them in the US?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It isn't my creation...

I think the WBC is a group of hateful, ignorant fuckwits, but I do believe they are taking the Bible literally, and following its words and the example it sets better than any other group of Christians. I don't think they're more logical.

...from what I can tell, the WBC is following the Bible more closely than any other group of Christians.

Really...and which part says "God hates fags"...does the WBC also take the Bible literally by following;

Quote from: "1 Corinthians 13:4-7  NIV"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

...and the God they "follow" is Love?

What else is "from what I can tell" that they do that indicates they follow the Bible closest?.  It seems you've not read much at all of the book you claim the WBC follows literally/closest.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"It isn't my creation...

I think the WBC is a group of hateful, ignorant fuckwits, but I do believe they are taking the Bible literally, and following its words and the example it sets better than any other group of Christians. I don't think they're more logical.

...from what I can tell, the WBC is following the Bible more closely than any other group of Christians.

Really...and which part says "God hates fags"...does the WBC also take the Bible literally by following;

Quote from: "1 Corinthians 13:4-7  NIV"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

...and the God they "follow" is Love?

No.

QuoteWhat else is "from what I can tell" that they do that indicates they follow the Bible closest?.  It seems you've not read much at all of the book you claim the WBC follows literally/closest.

Mostly the fact that they say that God is, basically, evil. That's apparent when you read the Bible. Even the New Testament.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"No.   Mostly the fact that they say that God is, basically, evil. That's apparent when you read the Bible. Even the New Testament

The "fact" that THEY say.
"That's apparent"...yet you cannot give the "God hates fags" text.

Ok.  Again, your proof and logic is overwhelming here.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Most "bad things" that people do have no direct relation to religion, even if it has to do with religion. But religions are ideologies, and that mean they can influence people to do "bad things".

For example, a lot of what is contributing to the hate of gays in America is religion. Yes, gay bigotry would exist without religion (probably), but there's no denying that religion is a significant factor.
*from this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6653) thread*

I don't know how to link to a specific post on another thread...

Your logic is legendary.  If "most" is no direct relation, then logic says religion plays the lesser "significant" part...and furthermore, if gay bigotry would still exist, then religion is not the main culprit of gay bigotry.  IT STILL EXISTS!

Make up your mind, LegendarySandwich...is WBC the closest thing to following the Bible/religion or not?  What's the website you posted called?  Most people, including Atheists and Christians alike, would call the WBC a "bad thing".  I think McQ established that very well early on.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I don't know how to link to a specific post on another thread...

Go to the post that you want to link to and click on the post title (usually something like "Re: XXX XXXX").  Then cut and paste the address in your address bar, and link to it. As an example, to link directly to the post to which I'm now replying, I would use the following:

 [url]http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6675&start=15#p100183[/url]Or alternately:

[url=http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6675&start=15#p100183]this post[/url]For what it's worth, although I agree with LegendarySandwich that YHVH is generally a hateful supernatural thug, Jesus is much more human. I wouldn't agree with him that the WBC is the truest to the spirit of Christianity of any Christian church.  I don't think that any Christian church really represents what Jesus supposedly taught as related in the Bible, but WBC is clearly motivated by bigotry and hatred, and is only using their particular interpretation of Christianity as a beard, so to speak.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Your logic is legendary.

Thank you. I am "LegendarySandwich" after all.

QuoteIf "most" is no direct relation, then logic says religion plays the lesser "significant" part

No.

Quote...and furthermore, if gay bigotry would still exist, then religion is not the main culprit of gay bigotry.  IT STILL EXISTS!

No.

QuoteMake up your mind, LegendarySandwich...is WBC the closest thing to following the Bible/religion or not?

When did I say it wasn't?

Maybe I misspoke. The WBC represents best all the bad parts of the Bible (of which there are many). So I guess I'm changing my stance now.

QuoteWhat's the website you posted called?

http://www.godhatesfags.com (http://www.godhatesfags.com). Although I think that was a rhetorical question.

QuoteMost people, including Atheists and Christians alike, would call the WBC a "bad thing".  I think McQ established that very well early on.

Why is that relevant?

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"I don't know how to link to a specific post on another thread...

Go to the post that you want to link to and click on the post title (usually something like "Re: XXX XXXX").  Then cut and paste the address in your address bar, and link to it. As an example, to link directly to the post to which I'm now replying, I would use the following:

Son of a Glitch!  Thank you so much!

Quote from: "Recusant"For what it's worth, although I agree with LegendarySandwich that YHVH is generally a hateful supernatural thug, Jesus is much more human. I wouldn't agree with him that the WBC is the truest to the spirit of Christianity of any Christian church.  I don't think that any Christian church really represents what Jesus supposedly taught as related in the Bible, but WBC is clearly motivated by bigotry and hatred, and is only using their particular interpretation of Christianity as a beard, so to speak.

Appreciated.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Your logic is legendary.

Thank you. I am "LegendarySandwich" after all.

Yes, yes you are.  ;)  (I wonder if you even understand the joke...hah.  I hope so, I think it's a good one.)

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteMost people, including Atheists and Christians alike, would call the WBC a "bad thing".  I think McQ established that very well early on.

Why is that relevant?

It's relevant directly to your bad things (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6675&start=15#p100183) quote above.  It shows directly how you're not very consistent in thinking at best, and or simply not logical otherwise.
Thank you again, Recusant. This was so much easier.

I have to say that I agree with the more clarified version of your statement, Legendary Sandwich. WBC really only represents their version of Christianity, which you have to separate out from the bible as a whole. Although almost all christian churches utilize the entire bible in some way, many only emphasize the New Testament. Christianity is really a New Testament religion, with ties to the Old Testament.

Having said that, I will undoubtedly get many people who disagree. That's ok, because the fact is that many christian churches also disagree on how much of the Old Testament they "adhere to". It's not really important how many, or why, but the point is that it's really the New Testament that separates and defines christianity from other Abrahamic religions.

The thing with WBC is that they cherry pick the things that one man likes (Fred Phelps) and disregard and/or misrepresent the rest. They don't like Jesus "turning the other cheek", or forgiving enemies, and loving everyone.

All in all, I would not say they stick to the bible any better than other churches, having been a member of three major denominations myself: Roman Catholic, United Methodist, and Southern Baptist. But the funny thing is that all of those, and about 99% of all denominations all think that they each stick closest to the bible and that the others are not as close to biblical truth as they are. Funny, isn't it?

You should see the catholics and baptists go at it. I know baptists who think catholics are as bad as atheists, and a few the other way around too! Lol!

So I guess my perspective, based on my own christian upbringing, is that WBC is waaaaay off the mark.

This is a good topic. It's generating some actual thought and discourse on the nature of what christianity is.

This really old AmazingAtheist video may have some relevance to this topic (it's kind of long).
[youtube:x3t99a3u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSvY2Up2EA[/youtube:x3t99a3u]

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You may, then, need to retract your bad things (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6675&start=15#p100183) statement above.

I would change "most" to "a lot", but no, I'm not going to retract it. It doesn't follow logically that if religion doesn't have any direct relation to most "bad things", that it must necessarily have a small role in gay bigotry.

QuoteI suppose you are, but you may be missing a few words or at least one to make it more clear.

And what would those be?

QuoteYou are Bright...no pun intended.  :shake:

QuoteIt's relevant directly to your bad things (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6675&start=15#p100183) quote above.  It shows directly how you're not very consistent in thinking at best, and or simply not logical otherwise.

Not, it doesn't, as noted above.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"This really old AmazingAtheist video may have some relevance to this topic (it's kind of long).

I won't be able to view this until later.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You may, then, need to retract your bad things (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6675&start=15#p100183) statement above.

I would change "most" to "a lot", but no, I'm not going to retract it. It doesn't follow logically that if religion doesn't have any direct relation to most "bad things", that it must necessarily have a small role in gay bigotry.

Notice I didn't say "small" but smaller.  Define "a lot".  To the person at the freeway exit asking for handouts, a $10.00 handout is a lot.  To Donald Trump, giving that man $10.00 is not "a lot", possibly excessive as most wouldn't give the guy that much, but it is quite insignificant considering Trump and his worth.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteI suppose you are, but you may be missing a few words or at least one to make it more clear.

And what would those be?

The sentence simply didn't make sense to me and seemed to be missing some words.  I sometimes type and my mind is moving faster than my fingers so I miss words in typing while they did pass through my mind for the thought.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteYou are Bright...no pun intended.  :shake:

Damn.  I thought it was funny.  Oh well.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteIt's relevant directly to your bad things (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6675&start=15#p100183) quote above.  It shows directly how you're not very consistent in thinking at best, and or simply not logical otherwise.

Not, it doesn't, as noted above.

Since you acknowledge, even a simple change, then it is relevant.  Especially since most and a lot are mutually exclusive.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"Notice I didn't say "small" but smaller.

Even then, it still doesn't logically follow that it would have to have less significance.

QuoteDefine "a lot".  To the person at the freeway exit asking for handouts, a $10.00 handout is a lot.  To Donald Trump, giving that man $10.00 is not "a lot", possibly excessive as most wouldn't give the guy that much, but it is quite insignificant considering Trump and his worth.

I'm not sure.

QuoteThe sentence simply didn't make sense to me and seemed to be missing some words.  I sometimes type and my mind is moving faster than my fingers so I miss words in typing while they did pass through my mind for the thought.

The included "best" I put into it is probably messing up your brain, but I assure you that it's grammatically accurate.

QuoteSince you acknowledge, even a simple change, then it is relevant.

...What? That makes no sense.

QuoteEspecially since most and a lot are mutually exclusive.

...How?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteEspecially since most and a lot are mutually exclusive.

...How?

I think MOST people would agree (haha) that most implys more than 50%.  A lot has no implication of a certain percentage other than simply A percentage.  That percentage could be as little as 1% and as much or even up to 99%.  It couldn't be zero (that would be NONE), nor could it be 100% (that would be ALL). So then most is limited at least to above 50%.  Of course I'm speakin of two pieces.  When you break it up to more than 2, most isn't necessarily more than 50%.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

QuoteEspecially since most and a lot are mutually exclusive.

...How?

I think MOST people would agree (haha) that most implys more than 50%.  A lot has no implication of a certain percentage other than simply A percentage.  That percentage could be as little as 1% and as much or even up to 99%.  It couldn't be zero (that would be NONE), nor could it be 100% (that would be ALL). So then most is limited at least to above 50%.  Of course I'm speakin of two pieces.  When you break it up to more than 2, most isn't necessarily more than 50%.

"Most" means the majority, which does imply at least %50, yes. "A lot" means a large percentage, which is relative. I don't see how they're mutually exclusive. All you've shown is that words can mean different things to different people in different circumstances.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich""Most" means the majority, which does imply at least %50, yes. "A lot" means a large percentage, which is relative. I don't see how they're mutually exclusive. All you've shown is that words can mean different things to different people in different circumstances.

Yes, so then since we agree, for the most part....heh, please re-read your point on the bad things (originally) and insert more than 50% to the meaning of most.  Then re-read again by using a lot where the amount in its meaning is less than 50% at worst and vague at best.

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich""Most" means the majority, which does imply at least %50, yes. "A lot" means a large percentage, which is relative. I don't see how they're mutually exclusive. All you've shown is that words can mean different things to different people in different circumstances.

Yes, so then since we agree, for the most part....heh, please re-read your point on the bad things (originally) and insert more than 50% to the meaning of most.  Then re-read again by using a lot where the amount in its meaning is less than 50% at worst and vague at best.

I want it to be intentionally vague.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "AnimatedDirt"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich""Most" means the majority, which does imply at least %50, yes. "A lot" means a large percentage, which is relative. I don't see how they're mutually exclusive. All you've shown is that words can mean different things to different people in different circumstances.

Yes, so then since we agree, for the most part....heh, please re-read your point on the bad things (originally) and insert more than 50% to the meaning of most.  Then re-read again by using a lot where the amount in its meaning is less than 50% at worst and vague at best.

I want it to be intentionally vague.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"http://godhatesfags.com/reports/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf

If there's one thing that most atheists and the Westboro Baptist Church can agree upon, it's that the God of the Bible is a cruel, sadistic, hateful, wrathful being who hates most of his creation. The only difference is, they actually believe in him   .

Sadisitc, cruel, wrathful and hateful? I didn't know these characteristics were of Christ.

WBC isn't following a commandment from Christ, love your enemies and pray for them...

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"http://godhatesfags.com/reports/20060331_god-loves-everyone-lie.pdf

If there's one thing that most atheists and the Westboro Baptist Church can agree upon, it's that the God of the Bible is a cruel, sadistic, hateful, wrathful being who hates most of his creation. The only difference is, they actually believe in him   .

Sadisitc, cruel, wrathful and hateful? I didn't know these characteristics were of Christ.

WBC isn't following a commandment from Christ, love your enemies and pray for them...

I'm not talking about Jesus, I'm talking about God (mostly the one of the Old Testament, although I don't think he's honestly that much better in the New Testament).

EDIT: By the way, welcome back, Achronos. Did you enjoy your vacation?

Quote from: "Sophus"

What?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I'm not talking about Jesus, I'm talking about God (mostly the one of the Old Testament, although I don't think he's honestly that much better in the New Testament).

Well for Christians the God of the OT is Christ, because Christ is eternally begotten of the Father and as Christ Himself said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". So when we read the OT we see it illumined by Christ, it's all Christological for us.

QuoteEDIT: By the way, welcome back, Achronos. Did you enjoy your vacation?

Left a bitter taste *shurgs*

Quote from: "Achronos"Well for Christians the God of the OT is Christ, because Christ is eternally begotten of the Father and as Christ Himself said "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father". So when we read the OT we see it illumined by Christ, it's all Christological for us.

Wouldn't you agree though that the character of Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament is markedly different that of YHVH as portrayed in the Old?  (Mystical beliefs and the Jesus quote aside.)  Compare just about any of the sayings of Jesus with the vicious celestial goon portrayed in Isaiah 13.

YHVH: "Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes"

Jesus: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

Quote from: "Recusant"Compare just about any of the sayings of Jesus with the vicious celestial goon portrayed in Isaiah 13.

YHVH: "Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes"

Jesus: "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

It seems a "true" Christian requires, or is granted a great deal of flexibility.