Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Phelps Church Burns

Since you mentioned it, Steven Pinker on "The Stupidity of Dignity"
url=http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=d8731cf4-e87b-4d88-b7e7-f5059cd0bfbd

And yeah, I wouldn't shed a tear if a meteor deposited itself on one of their little protests. Especially if it were a gay meteor.

-TTm

Posted by: Ticktockman | August 6, 2008 9:43 AM

I got really annoyed with all the fake mourning that went on following Jerry Falwell's death. How does the act of dying undo all the evil bullshit one did during life?

Posted by: Wes | August 6, 2008 9:47 AM

Oh Ed, you're such a big meanie.

Posted by: Braxton Thomason | August 6, 2008 9:47 AM

The church "caught fire?" To the kind of "Christian" who routinely blames gays for the hurricanes that hit Florida and New Orleans, and just about everyone not like themselves for 9/11, that SHOULD be interpreted as a sign of God's disapproval of Phelps' actions. And I'm sure the entire Christianist Reich will be publicly rethinking their entire mindset in response to this obvious sign from a God whose anger they know so well. Yep, any minute now...

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2008 9:51 AM

Ticktockman, Thanks for the link. One of the great things about this blog is the semi-random assortment of links readers toss out, so many of which turn out to be little gems.

Posted by: James Hanley | August 6, 2008 9:51 AM

Unless the family celebrates services in their garage, a church did not burn. No one was hurt

Posted by: Kathy Suits | August 6, 2008 9:52 AM

Naturally Phelps is quick to judge, claiming the fire was intentionally set - by 'fags, or their agents' (paraphrase).

Phelps is so rabid in his opposition to 'fags' it makes one wonder about his own orientation - we do tend to despise in others that which we cannot accept in ourselves.

And, isn't it a psychological truism that most, if not all, anger is a result of fear??

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 6, 2008 10:05 AM

It might be time to repost Bill Maher's tribute to Jerry Fallwell.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/20/bill-mahers-touching-tribute-to-jerry-falwell/

"New Rule - Death isn't always sad"

Posted by: mess | August 6, 2008 10:18 AM

agreed

Posted by: Abstruse | August 6, 2008 10:25 AM

It was the garage and a fence that burned. The 'church' was untouched.

Posted by: Elf Eye | August 6, 2008 10:35 AM

Ah! I knew it! Phelps' stupid has finally reached the level where it burns physical objects! Run, run!

Posted by: Spook | August 6, 2008 10:36 AM

I really don't spend much time thinking about Fred Phelps. I doubt his death would change that. Both morning and celebrating imply more emotional investment than I think I could muster. Most likely I'd have a fleeting moment of sadness intermingled with relief then never give him another thought.

Posted by: Abby Normal | August 6, 2008 10:37 AM

Why does Fred Phelps have to make The Baby Zeus cry?

Posted by: J-Dog | August 6, 2008 10:44 AM

"The family, sadly, survived."
I agree with this thought, and hold another one (evil, neutral, or natural, depending on your views): I am always thrilled when this group of horrid people are traveling, because that increases the chance they will run off the road and kill themselves (without hurting anyone else, of course).

Posted by: Dean | August 6, 2008 10:49 AM

@Raging Bee:

It clearly was the Phelps' burning bush! Everyone knows they're doing God's work and he simply wanted to communicate with them.

Posted by: Brock | August 6, 2008 11:12 AM

I know they are dead serious about what they believe; but I, for the life of me, cannot take their antics seriously at all (yet I've never had someone close to me exposed to their funeral protest). They are pure carnival to me. PT Barnum could take them on tour.

Posted by: Jon Rowe | August 6, 2008 11:20 AM

"And yeah, I wouldn't shed a tear if a meteor deposited itself on one of their little protests. Especially if it were a gay meteor."

Uh, that'd be a flaming meteor, right?

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your server.

Posted by: Philip T | August 6, 2008 11:32 AM

My son, who was in the Offutt AFB Honor Guard, has seen the Phelps gang in action. He is appalled at the behavior of these loonies. They cause loads of pain to the bereaved families.

I like my son's idea of sending the Phelps family to the interior of Afghanistan but it seems kinda nasty to treat the Afghans that way.

Posted by: Anne | August 6, 2008 11:33 AM

Finally other people who have the same reaction I do when one of these scumbags dies. I was practically giddy when Falwell kicked it.

Posted by: J | August 6, 2008 11:50 AM

I agree completely. When this monster finally dies, I think I'm going to throw a party.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 11:57 AM

Who's gonna do the T-shirt for the crowd that's waiting to piss on his grave, "GOD hates Fred Phelps!"

Posted by: democommie | August 6, 2008 12:12 PM

Believe it or not, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is a good thing! To me it shows how bad real Christianity really is, because everything they say is actually in the bible. The church only consists of less than a hundred people and is not growing. They are also hated by mainstream public maybe even more than the evil baby eating atheists. To me, having these people look so ridiculous helps pull people away from the superstitions of the religion more. I think of them as putting a sarcastic view on Christianity. I also think most people see them as a joke so they end up having a similar effect as the Colbert Report. Maybe it's just me, but I like these guys. They seem to be the only "real" Christians out there. People with delusional unmoving belief in what the bible says. They take the good the bad and the ugly, unlike most Christians who cherry-pick the bible. I think they are providing the world with a push in the right direction: away from religion.

Posted by: Rob | August 6, 2008 12:12 PM

Believe it or not, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is a good thing! To me it shows how bad real Christianity really is, because everything they say is actually in the bible. The church only consists of less than a hundred people and is not growing. They are also hated by mainstream public maybe even more than the evil baby eating atheists. To me, having these people look so ridiculous helps pull people away from the superstitions of the religion more. I think of them as putting a sarcastic view on Christianity. I also think most people see them as a joke so they end up having a similar effect as the Colbert Report. Maybe it's just me, but I like these guys. They seem to be the only "real" Christians out there. People with delusional unmoving belief in what the bible says. They take the good the bad and the ugly, unlike most Christians who cherry-pick the bible. I think they are providing the world with a push in the right direction: away from religion.

Posted by: Rob | August 6, 2008 12:14 PM

Believe it or not, I think the Westboro Baptist Church is a good thing! To me it shows how bad real Christianity really is, because everything they say is actually in the bible. The church only consists of less than a hundred people and is not growing. They are also hated by mainstream public maybe even more than the evil baby eating atheists. To me, having these people look so ridiculous helps pull people away from the superstitions of the religion more. I think of them as putting a sarcastic view on Christianity. I also think most people see them as a joke so they end up having a similar effect as the Colbert Report. Maybe it's just me, but I like these guys. They seem to be the only "real" Christians out there. People with delusional unmoving belief in what the bible says. They take the good the bad and the ugly, unlike most Christians who cherry-pick the bible. I think they are providing the world with a push in the right direction: away from religion.

Posted by: Rob | August 6, 2008 12:27 PM

It's just God sending a message

Fred Phelps, you're going to burn in hell

;-)

Posted by: Ben Abbott | August 6, 2008 12:35 PM

Sorry about the over posting, it's not intentional. Scienceblogs is doing updates or something.

Posted by: rob | August 6, 2008 12:36 PM

I think I would prefer that the Phelps live to one day see the light and regret their idiotic antics and try to atone in some meaningful way rather than die in a horrible fire. Maybe I'm naive (I know Falwell sure didn't do any of these things before he died), but it's really hard to especially be pointing the finger at the Phelps grandchildren who are actively involved in the gay-bashing because granddaddy made them, not because they've come to the "reasonable" conclusion that gay-bashing is the wise thing to do.

Posted by: AL | August 6, 2008 12:49 PM

So if Fred dies because the stupidity within causes his head to explode, will his harpy daughter protest at his funeral, thanking God that Fred is dead?

Posted by: mark | August 6, 2008 12:51 PM

Unlike Abby Normal, I'm somewhat fascinated by the Phelps clan and have done a bit of reading about them, because they're so damn inexplicable at just a glance. Based on that, I've come to the conclusion that Fred Phelps is (surprise) a sadistic monster and pretty much evil incarnate. And very likely, not a suppressed homosexual himself, just someone who needs a focus for his addiction to hatred, and gays provide the handiest excuse, as attitudes about homosexuality have changed more than any other "sin" in his lifetime. He could pick any topic and be just a cruel and horrible about it.

That said, although I'd happily dance on Fred Phelps' grave while singing "Y.M.C.A." in a falsetto, I'd feel bad for most of the third generation churchmembers if any harm came to them. Indeed, I feel bad for them already. The grandchildren have been indoctrinated into this hatred since they were able to speak (the littlest ones clearly don't even know what a "fag" is, just that they're evil and should be hated) and have never achieved enough maturity to reject that life. Even among the adult family members, only a handful have been able to break away from the church (never to return), while the rest have learned to enjoy the buzz of constant conflict and the self-righteousness of knowing they're the only ones going to heaven.

It's all just very depressing and ugly and if the whole church went up in a mushroom cloud, I'd feel relieved, but also very depressed and ugly.

Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | August 6, 2008 12:52 PM

They take the good the bad and the ugly, unlike most Christians who cherry-pick the bible.

Completely wrong. They do cherry-pick the Bible. They take the bad and the ugly and rationalize away the good. The exact opposite of what most Christians do, and a whole lot worse.

Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | August 6, 2008 12:59 PM

I think we outta claim that this fire is an act of God to punish Phelps for not being even more hateful toward gays...like he's too liberal or whatever. Put the fear of god back into him.

Posted by: M Pickard | August 6, 2008 1:07 PM

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow

Posted by: khan | August 6, 2008 1:27 PM

I'll gladly join in the dancing on his grave. He has no respect for others' deaths so why should his be?

I hear you on the social thing about people pretending to be sorry when some asshole dies. Back in high school, one of the popular boys who thought it fun to pick on the poor girls whose mom cleaned homes for a living and who in general considered himself a priviledged, entitled golden boy because he came from money and wasn't much better to his "friends" (cowtowing middle-class kids with slightly less money than his family's) died drinking and driving and I was good he's gone. People were appalled and saying how can you say that and pretended not to understand when I explained I didn't have to put up with his shit any more.

The whole town (it was a small town) was boo hoo and I'm like but he was mean, I'm not sorry he's gone. Not to mention he was killed through his own stupidity. The good thing was he didn't take anyone innocent out with his sorry self.

This was back in 1976 and 32 years later with the hindsight of the life I've lived and wisdom I've gained I still can't help but feel it was no great loss.

Posted by: T's Grammy | August 6, 2008 1:35 PM

Fred Phelps and company picketed my brother's law school graduation in 1996. I guess they figured somebody in the graduating class had to be gay? Slow picketing day? I don't know. Anyway, he strikes me more than anything else as a sad, pathetic old man. If he were a sad old senator, or otherwise had the opportunity to exert power over me, I might be able to summon up more ire.

Posted by: Gretchen | August 6, 2008 1:40 PM

The church only consists of less than a hundred people and is not growing. They are also hated by mainstream public maybe even more than the evil baby eating atheists.

I wonder if this would be true if they only picketed the funerals of known homosexuals, and not soldiers.

Posted by: Taz | August 6, 2008 1:50 PM

I completely agree that some people don't deserve to be mourned and have gotten my share of flak for saying so. I have never understood the whole "all death is sad" attitude, especially since it seems to come most from religious folks who believe in an afterlife and presumably divine judgment. When Phelps dies I think the best thing that could be done is to completely ignore his funeral. No protests, no celebratory articles, no nothing. Just a resounding silence that says "you didn't matter while alive, you matter even less dead."

Posted by: jba | August 6, 2008 1:57 PM

Eh, the only harm they do to the world is depress the crap out of mourning families and give fuel to angry atheists. The world's probably better off without them, but I couldn't bring myself to dance on their graves unless they, like, started killing people. I would prefer they learn the errors of their ways or (far more likely) just give up and keep to themselves.

Posted by: Brandon | August 6, 2008 1:58 PM

I would be very, very, very happy to see Fred Phelps himself kick the bucket in a very, very, very painful way, but I'm not so sure about the rest of the family.

http://www.blank.org/addict/

It's a long article, but worth reading (albeit with physical and psychological abuse triggers out the wazoo), that draws on interviews with the entire family, and largely from the two brothers that managed to get out. Most of the "church" is comprised of Fred's abused, brainwashed children. I can't see them as much other than victims. It's pretty horrific, but I feel that, if the serpent's head were cut off, the rest of them might be redeemable. Really, that bastard's the only one I wish death upon (although I do so very, very fervently).

We're talking a man who forced his children to run marathons on starvation rations, who beat them to bloody concussions with a mattock handle, who drove a son's girlfriend to suicide, and who convinced his children in their bones that, if they disobeyed him, they were cast out of God's Elect and would suffer eternal hellfire. I can't even imagine their pain.... although I wish every bit of it on him.

Posted by: Falyne | August 6, 2008 2:01 PM

They take the good the bad and the ugly, unlike most Christians who cherry-pick the bible.

If this were true, we would see the Phelps Bunch picketing every Red Lobster and Joe's Crab Shack in the country. After all, the prohibition against shellfish resides in the same book wherein their beloved anti-sodomy passage lies.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 2:11 PM

Blaidd Drwg scripsit: by 'fags, or their agents'

Given that 'fag' is UK slang for a cigarette, maybe someone was smoking in bed?

Posted by: Lusoman | August 6, 2008 2:27 PM

Rob,

They take the good the bad and the ugly, unlike most Christians who cherry-pick the bible.

Nonsense. That's like saying the only people who don't cherry pick evolution are the eugenicists. The only way your argument works is if people like you think they have some reason, knowledge, expertise, or authority to say that "what is in the old testament is still binding"--as if Christians are hypocrites because we no longer sacrifice animals as commanded in the OT. Well you don't. The laws in the Old Testament were for the old covenant. The laws in the New Testament--such as love your neighbor as yourself, are for the new covenant. As inconvenient and/or surprising as it sounds, things changed when Jesus came.

cue: "jot & tittle" verse.

Posted by: heddle | August 6, 2008 3:16 PM

>> If this were true, we would see the Phelps Bunch picketing every Red Lobster and Joe's Crab Shack in the country. After all, the prohibition against shellfish resides in the same book wherein their beloved anti-sodomy passage lies. >>

I can't help but laugh every time I see this stuff. Sadie, you and many others on this blog think of yourselves as so brilliant and enlightened, but statements like that just demonstrate your ignorance. The prohibition against shellfish doesn't apply to American Christians because it is part of a legal code that applied to ancient Hebrews. Why would I be bound by ancient Jewish civil and religious law? This is so incredibly obvious yet you still make the ridiculous statements that you do. Secondly, the New Testament has prohibitions against homosexuality. So even if one had to invalidate the OT prohibitions against homosexuality because it is part of a foreign and ancient legal code, the New Testament, which IS binding on Christians, STILL prohibits it.

Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 3:26 PM

Really, mroberts? Care to give us some direct quotes and a reasoned analysis to prove that? Jesus himself said absolutely NOTHING about homosexuality, and the only reference in the NT is that obscure bit in Romans, which is NOT an explicit prohibition on the order of "Thou shalt not kill."

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2008 3:37 PM

The day anyone starts taking the Phelps family as an example of "true" Christianity and good Scriptural interpretation is not a good day for good Christian theology.

For theological reasons I consider it prohibited to me to cheer the death of a human being; to all you people that might sound a little stupid; to me it's just a logical implication of what I believe.

Posted by: KKairos | August 6, 2008 3:37 PM

That's like saying the only people who don't cherry pick evolution are the eugenicists.

I'm confused. How does one cherry pick evolution?

Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2008 3:41 PM

>> Really, mroberts? Care to give us some direct quotes and a reasoned analysis to prove that? Jesus himself said absolutely NOTHING about homosexuality>>

LOL. Bee, you think you are brilliant too, but just as ignorant. If you think that the words of Jesus are the only valid Christian doctrine in the Bible, then you REALLY have no business arguing the Bible because you clearly know nothing about it.

>> and the only reference in the NT is that obscure bit in Romans, >>

Love that one too. Romans? "Obscure"? You demonstrate your ignorance with that statement. Romans is a core book of Christian doctrine and FAR from obscure. Just the fact that you use the word "obscure" tells me you are trying to minimize what you KNOW is there.

>> which is NOT an explicit prohibition on the order of "Thou shalt not kill." >>

So what. You believe there is a constitutional "right to privacy", don't you Bee? It's not in the words of the Constitution, but I know that you believe it is there. Thought it does not directly issue a prohibition, Romans lists homosexuality among various other sins. It would be absurd to conclude that homosexuality would somehow be acceptable whereas the other sins would not be. But then again, I'm not somebody trying to distort the Scriptures to justify my political agenda either.

Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 3:48 PM

Saying that you can cherry pick evolution to get eugenics is like saying you can cherry pick gravity to get to suicide by jumping off a tall building.

Posted by: Coriolis | August 6, 2008 3:51 PM

mroberts: "Romans" was a letter ("Epistle") that Paul addressed to the Romans of his time. And in his time, the Romans (the powerful elite at least) practiced homosexuality in a certain way, an way that was more about power, exploitation and selfish pleasure, than about loving relationships. Given all this, it is quite reasonable to suppose that, to the extent that Paul was condemning anything at all, he was condemning the exploitative, unequal power relationships he saw in his era, not homosexuality in general.

It is also reasonable to conclude that if two people live, and have a loving sexual relationship, according to Christ's teachings, then it really doesn't matter whether it's a gay or straight relationship. The passage you cite against homosexuality is nowhere near as clear as Jesus' own admonitions to love our neighbors, treat them as we want them to treat us, let God do the judging, forgive and understand, etc. etc. In other words, Jesus condemns bigotry and ignorance a LOT more harshly than he ever condemned homosexuality.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 6, 2008 4:00 PM

Raging Bee, I rest my case. Unreal.

Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 4:02 PM

No, cherry picking evolution is easy:

Evolution teaches survival of the fittest, ergo it is clear that eugenics is but the next logical step.

The point of calling it "cherry picking" is because it involves taking a snippet, applying where it doesn't apply, and viola! a specious argument is born.

Rob accused Christians of cherrypicking, but in fact he and others who argue that "Christians who don't advocate stoning homosexuals are hypocrites" are the cherry pickers. Take a snippet (From Mosaic law) apply it to Christians (where it doesn't apply) and viola! a specious argument that Christians are cherry pickers is born.

Posted by: heddle | August 6, 2008 4:04 PM

I got it. For some reason I didn't understand what you were getting at, heddle, but I got it after reading Coriolis's comment. I dunno...maybe not enough caffeine this afternoon...

Posted by: Josh | August 6, 2008 4:11 PM

mroberts:>the New Testament has prohibitions against homosexuality. So even if one had to invalidate the OT prohibitions against homosexuality because it is part of a foreign and ancient legal code, the New Testament, which IS binding on Christians, STILL prohibits it.

Yep. Just like it still prohibits the charging of interest on loans. A significant part of the basis of our economy is a violation of scripture.

Posted by: DougT | August 6, 2008 4:49 PM

Maybe they tried to burn a few gays, and it got out of control? Did the police search for bodies?

Actually, since the Phelps' have to pay all that money, I find it unusual that their property should burn down. Hopefully the investigators will be able to tell if it was accidental or arson.

Posted by: Badger3k | August 6, 2008 4:52 PM

>> Yep. Just like it still prohibits the charging of interest on loans. A significant part of the basis of our economy is a violation of scripture. >>

Not quite. More accurately, the prohibition is on charging interest to poor people or usury. Borrowing for commmercial purposes is not included in that.

Posted by: mroberts | August 6, 2008 5:04 PM

So mroberts, you mean usury like credit cards, check cashing, title loans, etc.? I don't see too many christians out picketing their offices.

Posted by: Paul Snyder | August 6, 2008 5:14 PM

DougtT,

Yep. Just like it still prohibits the charging of interest on loans. A significant part of the basis of our economy is a violation of scripture.

Where is the NT prohibition against interest? The only passage I know of that mentions interest is the parable of the talents--Matt 25 and Luke 19. There it is mentioned but not condemned.

Posted by: heddle | August 6, 2008 5:25 PM

1. The day of Jerry Falwell's death was one of the best days of my life. [Warning: off-topic comments by the ultimately (and hysterically, i.e., hilariously) banned John A. Davison/VMartin at the end of this post. I sure scared the bejeezus out of poor VMartin with my Flaubert act. Well, he should know better. My humor is not always obvious.]

2. I don't wonder about Fred Phelps' sexual orientation any more than I did about Jesse Helms'. Self-hatred is a political thing.

3. It's obvious that this "fire" was set by the Phelpses! I mean, come on, people! A useless garage burns, and they squeal, "It was teh gays!" Oh, riiiiight. How very conveeeeeenient!

Posted by: Kristine | August 6, 2008 5:32 PM

As a native Topekan, who grew up with and around the Phelps', I'll say this for them:

They've done more for free speech rights than your average civil rights attorney ever will.

And, quixotically, they've make Eastern Kansas a surprisingly liberal oasis in that area of the country in terms of gay acceptance. I might even make the case that they've done more for gay acceptance (or at least revulsion at homophobia) than your average anti-homophobia bloggers ever will.

I, and most other people who grew up around those guys (and for whom the "shock value" of them has long since worn off), could well plead the case that in their vilely misdirected way, they've made the world a better place.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Brayton!

P.S. And at the risk of ostracizing myself, they're actually quite nice people. So long as you don't get them talking about, you know, gay stuff.

P.P.S. And good luck with that.

Posted by: BradCrossedPond | August 6, 2008 6:11 PM

Love that one too. Romans? "Obscure"? You demonstrate your ignorance with that statement. Romans is a core book of Christian doctrine and FAR from obscure. Just the fact that you use the word "obscure" tells me you are trying to minimize what you KNOW is there.

She said the bit in Romans was obscure, and she is right...it is not a popular passage in any of the MANY churches I have attended and visited, notably because it is just a screed against Paganism, which hasn't been a big problem in a long time. And Paul is CERTAINLY NOT a central part of all Christian doctrine...a number of denominations throughout history have condemned Paul as a false apostle.

Finally, it's important to remember that Paul's condemnation of homosexuality was in the context of reversion to Paganism, complete with homosexual orgies as part of fertility rites. The problems with all of the epistles is that the authors are each writing in response to a particular piece of news; however, we don't get to read what they are responding to, just the response. It's like trying to form doctrine

Posted by: Shygetz | August 6, 2008 6:11 PM

"The laws in the Old Testament were for the old covenant. The laws in the New Testament--such as love your neighbor as yourself, are for the new covenant. As inconvenient and/or surprising as it sounds, things changed when Jesus came."

That's not just cherry-picking, that's cutting down the whole damn tree! Good job, heddle!

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law..." (Luke 12:49) etc...

Also the smiting of the hapless fig tree is my fave.

Posted by: ildi | August 6, 2008 6:14 PM

P.S. And at the risk of ostracizing myself, they're actually quite nice people. So long as you don't get them talking about, you know, gay stuff.

If their niceness is qualified in such a way, they're not actually "nice."

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 6:18 PM

I would be saddened if they died, at least to an extent - as long as they're alive there's a chance that they might figure out what assholes they've been. A slim chance, but a chance nonetheless.

Posted by: MRL | August 6, 2008 6:34 PM

ildi, accusing heddle (or any Christian) of cherry-picking for not strictly following OT law is like accusing the U.S. of cherry-picking because we don't follow the Articles of Confederation anymore.

(Although to disagree on a point with heddle, I don't think "Love your neighbor as yourself" is a good example of NT law, since Jesus quoted it from Leviticus 19:18. I assume he recognizes that there is a degree of continuity between OT and NT, even where Jesus clearly marked out new territory.)

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | August 6, 2008 6:40 PM

heddle
You've confused me. Could you explain how the "jot" verse where jesus states that his purpose is not to abolish the old laws, means that he abolished the old laws? I don't understand.

Posted by: watercat | August 6, 2008 6:55 PM

Well, the comments section started out perfectly, but then of course we had to have the bible dissectors (on both sides of the equation) claiming that they're the true Christians. As if it matters one bit what the fucking book says. Mroberts hates fags because he hates fags, and uses very relevant passages from the bible accordingly. RagingBee (sorry, just one example, most people on this blog are of the same mindset) doesn't hate fags, and uses equally valid passages from the bible accordingly. You people really need to get off of this crutch, I know that it's a good idea to know your enemy, but quoting technicalities at them isn't the way to do it, pointing out that they don't have an original thought in their head would be the way to go. Good Christians don't need a biblical reason to not hate fags. Hateful Christians don't need a reason to hate them, but they need that reason to be taken seriously by the rest of the country instead of appearing as bigots, as if they're only bigots cuz their god tells them to be. The bible says some good things, and some evil things, the only thing that matters is what you believe. But I suppose you can't really see that when you think god is doing the writing...

Posted by: paul | August 6, 2008 7:54 PM

Falyne wrote:

We're talking a man who forced his children to run marathons on starvation rations, who beat them to bloody concussions with a mattock handle, who drove a son's girlfriend to suicide, and who convinced his children in their bones that, if they disobeyed him, they were cast out of God's Elect and would suffer eternal hellfire. I can't even imagine their pain.... although I wish every bit of it on him.

No kidding. The man is a sadistic, child abusing, misanthropic creep. He's certainly inflicted far more harm on those unfortunate enough to be born into his family than he will on anyone else.

I'm still going to have a party when that fucker dies though!

Posted by: Leni | August 6, 2008 8:03 PM

Ed,

Two things come to mind:

1. I agree this man has some real issues but I he is still a human being. I think it is wrong to wish for anyone to die.

2. I have to call you out on not being in consistent. God kills someone in the Bible and he is a genocidal tyrant and you root for someone to get taken out and it is justice. Justice by death does not sound like a Deist stance to me. I think you are a closet Theist. Just messing with you but think seriously about what you said and your stance toward God when He judges someone to death.

Posted by: King of Ireland | August 6, 2008 8:08 PM

And in swoops mroberts to the aid of the Phelps clan.

Surprised? Not so much.

Posted by: Rick R | August 6, 2008 8:10 PM

KOI:

I have to call you out on not being in consistent. God kills someone in the Bible and he is a genocidal tyrant and you root for someone to get taken out and it is justice. Justice by death does not sound like a Deist stance to me. I think you are a closet Theist. Just messing with you but think seriously about what you said and your stance toward God when He judges someone to death.

A possible distinction between Ed's stance on god's taking people out and his (Ed's) eagerly anticipating Phelps' death is that Ed has not voluntarily created humanity out of charity and love, as the Christian god is supposed to have done.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 8:38 PM

Heddle-

Out of curiosity, can you provide any quotes outside the Paul's epistiles which suggest that the New Covenant described in the OT would either (a) apply to anyone outside the Jews, or (b)that it would do anything like actually revoking any of the mosaic laws? Not only does Jeremiah specifically reference the house of Judah, but it clearly states that, rather wiping away his previous laws, Jehovah would "put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." That hardly sounds like a repeal.

I ask because, before cavalierly dismissing the "Jot or Title" argument, you really have to address the fact that it harmonizes far better with that reading of the passage than the one so often forced on it by modern christians. It also a far better fit with any number of passages relating directly to the "Law"- For example, "He remembers His covenant forever, The word which He commanded, for a thousand generations."

And before you dismiss this argument as ludicrous or uninformed or due to a lack of understanding of 'christianity'- I would also point out that it was a position held by a very large group of early Christians. In fact, the friction between Judiazed Christians, who believed exactly that, and gentile Christians sparked any number of schisms, rebukes, and outright purges of the former by the latter. It led to some of the most notable events in early christiandom- everything from the authorship of several of 'Paul's' epistles (which is why I chose to omit them as support), to the Nicaean council. Until, of course the Judaized Christians were effectively wiped out, thus ending thier ability to present their argument.

Simply put, absent any concrete scripture in the affirmative, the argument you're presenting here has a lot more to do with persecution and attrition of its opponents than it does some universal and unquestionable understanding on the part of 'christians.' And all the eyrolling in the world won't change that fact- In fact it comes across as a little disingenuous.

So, just curious....

Posted by: uriel | August 6, 2008 9:02 PM

"The prohibition against shellfish doesn't apply to American Christians because it is part of a legal code that applied to ancient Hebrews."

Wouldn't that same reasoning also apply to the Ten Commandments? Aren't they "Mosaic law" that just applied to "ancient Hebrews"? And why is the word "American" in the above-quoted sentence? Are you saying that the prohibition against shellfish does apply to non-American Christians?

Posted by: daniel rotter | August 6, 2008 9:11 PM

Wouldn't that same reasoning also apply to the Ten Commandments?

Logically, it would have to. It seems to have escaped mroberts' notice that I was not referring to religious-based anti-gay bigotry in general, only to Fred Phelps and his Merry Gang of Idiots when I brought up the shellfish issue. Phelps predominantly alludes to Leviticus in his rants, so I quite reasonably was curious as to why he does not also picket Red Lobster restaurants. Hmmm, now why would Roberts project my criticism of Phelps onto himself?

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 6, 2008 9:17 PM

Well, the comments section started out perfectly, but then of course we had to have the bible dissectors (on both sides of the equation) claiming that they're the true Christians. As if it matters one bit what the fucking book says.

Well, as someone who doesn't have a God in the race, I would say it does matter. Sure, the Bible is open to a thousand interpretations, and various people who aren't satisfied with any of them will further twist it into further word pretzels in order to support any damned thing they want. But consistency matters to all but the most fervent on either side, and pointing out when a group is being inconsistent or even a-historical is a valid form of argument.

And those arguments do change minds, whether towards moderation or towards rejection entire. There is ample evidence of that all around. Sure, people like mr roberts are unlikely to be swayed- But there are others who will. It is for the latter's benefit that the arguments must be made, the ignorance revealed, and the contradictions must be pointed out.

(oh, and btw- I'm not equating Heddle with mr roberts. Quite the opposite, I generally find him reasonable and interesting. And often funny. Essentially the opposite of mr roberts. Which is why I addressed my questions to him- I simply don't agree with him here.)

Posted by: uriel | August 6, 2008 9:22 PM

Daniel- Because god loves american christains better than anybody else. That's exactly why he gave us red lobster, after all. Its a sign of his new and improved all you can eat covenant- now with lemon and butter on the side. Only $19.99.

You know this in your heart, even if your pride denies it...

Posted by: uriel | August 6, 2008 9:30 PM

hmmm......

the wrath of God??

I just saying....

Posted by: blurdo | August 6, 2008 11:49 PM

Maybe he decided that lightning rods were a sign of mistrust of God. Which they are, of course.

"Phelps is so rabid in his opposition to 'fags' it makes one wonder about his own orientation"

A church tradition started by St Paul, who in Romans lamented those terrible, terrible things that his body did that his spirit so abhored.

Posted by: Paul Murray | August 7, 2008 12:48 AM

If "Mosaic law" doesn't apply to Christians (as has basically been implied here by heddle and mrroberts), then does that mean that only Jews are supposed to obey the Ten Commandments?

Posted by: daniel rotter | August 7, 2008 1:15 AM

Rob stated earlier:

They ["Phelps and his merry band of idiots"] are pure carnival to me. PT Barnum could take them on tour.

The freaks, the freaks, the everloving FREAKS! -DJ
Oh and BTW kowtow (not cowtow).
Sorry continue your 'my bible passage is better than yours' pissing competition.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2008 1:22 AM

"Why would I be bound by Jewish civil and religious law".

Because they are found in a book (the Bible) that is at the core of a religion you have chosen to belong to.

Posted by: daniel rotter | August 7, 2008 1:24 AM

If "Mosaic law" doesn't apply to Christians (as has basically been implied here by heddle and mrroberts), then does that mean that only Jews are supposed to obey the Ten Commandments?

Not at all- It means that the Jews are wrong for not realizing its crap for everyone. Except when it isn't. Because, really, the OT is nothing more than a pick and play precursor to God's _real_ message, which was only finally revealed to a variety of anonymous authors who all claimed to be Paul. And like 'Paul,' in the mind of the modern christians, the only real point to the OT is that one can massage a handful of quotes in it to support a theology that clearly has nothing to do with the source. Because god is eternal and unchanging- except of course when he isn't.

So, while worshiping any other god is still right out, killing (even given an honest interpretation of the original language) is a gray area. And the Sabbath? Well, it's only as holy as your employer thinks it is.

That's why blood libel and pograms were so popular for much of christianity's history. Just read any history of the Nicaean council- Jews were clearly as wrong as wrong could be.

which is to say:

Because they are found in a book (the Bible) that is at the core of a religion you have chosen to belong to.

Not at all- the 'core' of the religion is in the last eighth of that book. The rest of it is just filler. They just keep it around because it occasionally supports the stuff at the end.

Posted by: uriel | August 7, 2008 3:09 AM

What's all this in the bible about sticking coloured tiles to walls and stuff? And ceilings as well?...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png

Check out the guy on the right. It's bumming minors all the way down.

Posted by: eddie | August 7, 2008 3:15 AM

Not only can we conclude that God is pissed by bigots like these, but She throws like a girl.

Posted by: Bill Poser | August 7, 2008 4:04 AM

So, were having a discussion about the applicability of a book written by middle-eastern goat herders (who were also genocides), added to by bipolar preachers and opportunists, edited and translated by politicians, and interpreted by more politicians, scam-artists and cult leaders.

Yeah, I can were all going to learn something valuable and useful from this.

Posted by: Valhar2000 | August 7, 2008 5:41 AM

Daniel rotter,

If "Mosaic law" doesn't apply to Christians (as has basically been implied here by heddle and mrroberts), then does that mean that only Jews are supposed to obey the Ten Commandments?

No, because all of the Ten Commandments (except the fourth) were repeated (and upgraded) in the New Testament. There is no reason why a new and better revelation of the law cannot incorporate aspects of the old law. For example there is a commandment against adultery in both the OT and the NT.

[On: Why would I be bound by Jewish civil and religious law?] Your are bound by Because they are found in a book (the Bible) that is at the core of a religion you have chosen to belong to.

I think that given a moment's consideration, in just an intellectual sense, of what Christ's sacrifice means to Christians, you would agree that Christians are not bound by the OT commandments to sacrifice animals for the atonement of sin. Christ has rendered that obsolete. If so, then you already acknowledge the principle that Christ put Christians under different laws. What was once a command is now an abomination.

By the way, I have come to believe that it is not some nebulous and difficult to define "ceremonial and civil" law that was rendered null and void, but all the old law including the moral law--the Ten Commandments. (The laws of the New Testament, of course, do incorporate or rather upgrade the ten commandments, except the Sabbath observance.) In the unlikely event that you are interested, I elaborate on this theme here:

http://helives.blogspot.com/2008/07/ten-commandments-are-history.html

Uriel,

Out of curiosity, can you provide any quotes outside the Paul's epistiles which suggest that the New Covenant described in the OT would either (a) apply to anyone outside the Jews, or (b)that it would do anything like actually revoking any of the mosaic laws?

That's a fair question. If I were a Jew, or just an interested party giving the Old Testament a fair reading, I could certainly read Jeremiah's prophecy to be an as-yet unfulfilled prophecy applying only to Jews. That is essentially true for all of what Christians call Messianic prophecies. In understanding the OT in light of the NT Christians, at least non-dispensationalists, believe that Israel in prophecy is a metaphor or a forshadowing for the NT church. At any rate, the writer of Hebrews (who may have been Paul, but I don't think so) connects Christ's work to the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy.

As for it revoking laws I don't think it is a stretch, even if you think it applies only to the Jews, to see that Jeremiah is prophesying a new paradigm. He promises a time where the sins of the father will not be laid on the future generations. He promises a permanent city. He promises what we would say is the Holy Spirit, the law written on the hearts rather than on paper, a time when the heart is the arbiter of sin conviction--which is what Jesus teaches in Matthew 5. Jeremiah is, in fact promising a new form of the law.

Uriel,

And before you dismiss this argument as ludicrous or uninformed or due to a lack of understanding of 'christianity'- I would also point out that it was a position held by a very large group of early Christians.

I would not dismiss it out of hand because it is still the view of many Christians today. I would only dismiss its use as a universal "gotcha" of the type that presupposes we never heard the passage before. To believe the jot and tittle passage means that all the Mosaic law applies is to believe (as many do, I don't) that Jesus is only clarifying the Mosaic law. But I don't see that. He is not saying we "misunderstood" the commandment against murder, he is completely upgrading it to including simply hating someone. Moses approved divorce; Jesus teaches that it is now, for all intents and purposes, forbidden. The Christian view on the Old Testament is that it is filled with shadows and types--and I would say that applies to the law as well. The Mosaic law was a shadow of the law. The law has not been abolished. Jesus did not fulfill the law because he kept the Mosaic law perfectly--in fact he didn't--he worked on the Sabbath, he mishandled lepers, etc. Jesus fulfilled the which, in a greater revelation in the NT, is revealed to be not a list of do's and don'ts, but a question of motivations from the heart.

Valhar2000,

Yeah, I can were all going to learn something valuable and useful from this.

You do, I assume, possess the ability to skip what doesn't interest you?

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2008 6:58 AM

@heddle

David, a couple of years ago I asked you about this topic at Panda's Thumb. Rather than giving me a pat answer, you pointed me in a very useful direction to find out more- a belated thank you. The upshot of what I took away from all that discussion is that the subject of charging interest on loans is sufficiently complicated that it has provoked considerable debate over the centuries. It seems much more involved and nuanced than the overturning of ritual laws such as dietary restrictions. As such, I believe that it remains a point that at the very least needs to be addressed in this particular debate. Indeed, even some fairly conservative scholars were wondering if similar types of arguments might not be applied to modern understanding of homosexuality, though I'm having trouble relocating those references at the moment.

With regard to a specific NT reference, I'm afraid that my statement was too extreme based on my mis-remembering the context of Luke 6:34-35

And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.

The fact that Calvin mentioned this passage in De Ursuris Responsum probably contributed to my mistake, as does the fact that it's been many years since I last read the Bible. I had erroneously remembered the context as Jesus' reminding his followers of the OT law and then holding them to a higher standard, much as he did with adultery and divorce in Matthew 5. Obviously, that is not actually the context of the passage. My bad, although I do think that my broader point to mroberts still stands- the OT passages against usury are not overtly overturned in the NT.

Posted by: DougT | August 7, 2008 8:52 AM

Ok, I guess I'll have to explain myself in more words so you can understand heddle:

Evolution says that the fittest survive in nature through the natural selection of the rest of the environment. Please note that it is the environment, not particular people or animals who does "natural selection".

Gravity (as it relates to this analogy) says that the earth attracts all things with a force of mg, and if you jump off a tall building you'll fall down.

Neither physical law claims that humans *should* do anything, they just describe what *is*. Neither one "teaches" a damn thing about how humans should actually act - that is a matter of human morality and judgement. They just state what happens in certain circumstances, like all of science. To use another analogy, it is like saying that understanding how nuclear weapon

Profile

Search This Blog

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Blogroll

Archives

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Phelps Church Burns

Comments