Westboro Baptist Church

[doublecross]

I was actually referring to the post. [If that is still ambiguous, I am specifically referring to the post that I quoted]

[Naesala]

I was actually referring to the post. [If that is still ambiguous, I am specifically referring to the post that I quoted]

While Wimble's post does come across a bit harsh and offensive, it is nonetheless true i think. If homosexuality is a sin, then theres no need for riots or picketing. And God does not hate them any more than god might hate someone who dishonors their parents, or covets. In fact those last two are from the original 10 commandments, which stand as MUCH more powerful guidelines than the other sins written about. Heck, depending on your bible eating pork is a sin, I don't see WBC picketing butcherys. A final point, WBC wouldn't be so much a problem if they didnt do what they did in such bad taste. Protesting homosexuality is one thing, but thanking god for the death of soldiers at their funerals WITHOUT consent of the mourners is extremely bad taste. And I'm sure they do it so they can eat up all that publicity.

[Wimbledofy]

I was actually referring to the post. [If that is still ambiguous, I am specifically referring to the post that I quoted]

While Wimble's post does come across a bit harsh and offensive, it is nonetheless true i think. If homosexuality is a sin, then theres no need for riots or picketing. And God does not hate them any more than god might hate someone who dishonors their parents, or covets. In fact those last two are from the original 10 commandments, which stand as MUCH more powerful guidelines than the other sins written about. Heck, depending on your bible eating pork is a sin, I don't see WBC picketing butcherys. A final point, WBC wouldn't be so much a problem if they didnt do what they did in such bad taste. Protesting homosexuality is one thing, but thanking god for the death of soldiers at their funerals WITHOUT consent of the mourners is extremely bad taste. And I'm sure they do it so they can eat up all that publicity.

Roman clearly states that there are no longer any more unclean foods. And no i wasn't trying to be offensive, i was actually trying to make it not offensive by pointing out that i have flaws too.

[doublecross]

That! Right there! Calling it a flaw is seriously offensive.


A parallel example would be if I said

"You are religious, but I sometimes am stupid as well"

You see how that could be considered insulting?

[Naesala]

I said depending on your bible, wimble. and there are other sins that were of great importance before we discovered ways to treat them (we can now better prepare unclean foods, etc) who's tosay homosexulity as a sin existed to prevent spread of diseases we have better treatment for now?

[doublecross]

Most likely, it was thrown in in order to provide contrast to the Roman Regime that early Christianity was in opposition towards.

Also, I find it interesting that you are considering sins to exist for pragmatic reasons. Wouldn't most people who are religious contest that line of thinking, saying that sins exist for moral reasons, or because god said so? In my experience, people treat this as a matter of faith, and attempts to rationalize commandments are actually considered to be an attack upon faith.

[Naesala]

It's a mixture. The bible (kind of like god) does three things I believe: sets morals for people to learn and understand, teach some history, and inform people of actions that may have been unhealthy during the time. If I'm wrong, why would the sin of eating pork have become not a sin? God decide that bacon is delicious?

[doublecross]

Honestly? I think that it was a wise tactical decision on the part of the religion, realizing that with many social changes that had occurred since the religion's beginnings, the number of commandments would be increasingly seen as arbitrary, intrusive, and off-putting, and thus the shirking of some commandments was to make Christianity that much more appealing relative to other faiths.

[BluePriest]

I said depending on your bible, wimble. and there are other sins that were of great importance before we discovered ways to treat them (we can now better prepare unclean foods, etc) who's tosay homosexulity as a sin existed to prevent spread of diseases we have better treatment for now?

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
 14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

 16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.