Slashdot Mirror
Phelps Clan Tweets Intent To Picket Jobs Funeral Via iPhone
It comes as no surprise that Margie Phelps of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church has already declared the church's intention to picket Steve Jobs's funeral. What is interesting, is that she did so using an iPhone. The 142 characters of wrath read: "Westboro will picket his funeral.He[sic] had a huge platform; gave God no glory & taught sin. MT @AP: Apple co-founder Steve Jobs has died at 56."
Rebels mad cuz I used iPhone to tell you Steve Jobs is in hell.God created iPhone for that purpose! :)
She's just confirming what Apple fans already knew: God works at Apple.
That's a bittersweet reminder of my Roman Catholic upbringing. Whenever I did something good like played the trombone well or scored well on a test, I was instructed to pray to Jesus for working through me to do something so good. Whenever I screwed up, well, all those powerful forces like God and the Devil were suspiciously absent and the fault was solely mine.
My work here is dung.
Oh Great Spaghetti Monster.
Smite the infidels! Turn their iPhones into Nokia phones running Symbian!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Nothing but attention whoring, they shouldn't be given press at all.
This space for rent.
Even a Westboro Baptist idiot has to realize the irony...
I'm going to picket her arse through the face with a wooden dowel.
Westboro Baptist Church doesn't want to incur the wrath of hardcore Apple fans. They just don't know it yet.
And get mobbed by hundreds of Steve Jobs and Apple supporters. And everyone including the the WBC will be carrying iPhones. Zealot on zealot action at 11!
"HELL IS INSANELY GREAT"
"GOD HATES VISIONARIES"
"BLACK TURTLENECKS CAUSE CANCER"
Unfortunately, these are probably 'way more intelligent than what these assholes will really display.
Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
Posting stories on Slashdot / Putting it on CNN is only helping them get what they crave : Attention.
Some problems are best ignored - then they'll fade away out of frustration when they realize they're not getting the attention.
Blah blah - free press - I get it. I'm not asking for a law but common sense to take place.
People love dirty laundry - D. Henly.
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
The Westboro people turn my stomach.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
They can handle security
Thanks Wesboro, I needed a good laugh this morning. Although my screen and the guy across from me probably didn't appreciate the projectile coffee.
Seriously though can we stop giving these people attention?
This actually happened? This is not a headline from "The Onion"?
What attention wh**es. They are like the Kardashians with a bible instead of a sex tape.
(Examining the complete lack of intelligence coupled with the abundance of hypocrisy apparent in the subject and her peers...)
There, but for the grace of God, go I.
Why is it that when someone dies all the crazies come out?
I have my God Hates Fred sign ready to go!
I'm glad SOMEONE is picking up the slack and giving god glory by picketing at funerals.
Maybe once their done reglorifying god, he'll get off his ass and stop all these genocides and famines.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
God Hates Turtlenecks.
Why do people help these people spread their vile?
"Vile" isn't a thing one can metaphorically spread.
Unless you're talking Vegemite or Marmite - that shit is spreadable vile incarnate.
You show precisely why religion is so evil and debilitating to society and why those who believe don't grasp the simple concept that they are bowing down to a narcissistic dictator.*
Further, I find it amazing that people have no problem idolizing/worshiping/whatever someone who was obviously a hippie. Long hair, no job, bumming off of others for food and shelter, preaching peace and love. If that isn't the definition of a hippie, I don't know what is. Whatever happened to working for what you want rather than asking for handouts?
"You didn't give God credit! You're going to hell!"
"You had all this money and you didn't give any to God! You're going to hell!"
"You dared to expand the human mind and not worship God! You're going to hell!"
And before those out there who do believe in the guy** in the sky try to explain away that these nuts are just aberrations, take a good, hard look at your beliefs. Do you give thanks to the invisible being? Do you give it*** credit for your success/failure? Further, when people talk about terrorist from the Islamic faith and how they are representative of that faith, could not the same be said of these folks?****
* Anyone who tells a father he has to kill one of his sons to prove his obedience definitely falls into the dictator category. Not to mention that to keep in good graces you have to follow all the various rules.
And what's up with standing by and doing nothing while your only son is killed? Talk about psychopathic.
** Why is God a guy? Why can't he be a she? Was it because the stories were written by men during a time and in a region where women were (and to some extent still are) considered property and subservient to men?
*** Why must God be male or female? Surely an omnipotent and omniscient being wouldn't have a gender. Or is this like calling a ship a 'she' when obviously an inanimate object is neither.
**** All these arguments leave aside the question of whether such a being exists. As we've seen over the centuries, no such evidence has come forth and based on our actions, this being, if it exists, certainly isn't perfect or it wouldn't have created such fallible beings and allowed them to go astray so easily.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
All we need are the Patriot Guard in black turtlenecks to even up the numbers.
www.patriotguard.org
Ganty
Which one, specifically? Please provide context.
You know why they picket such funeral? Because they want attention. Please, please, just ignore these idiots. Please stop giving them headlines.
Who are these people?! I never fully appreciated before how blessed I am NOT to listen to the media!
Don't you look at these people, who cheer when others die and think - wish I had a military drone of my own on stand by?
You can't handle the truth.
Phelps and his crowd is nothing but a bunch of pinheads who haven't bothered to pick up the bible. If you bother to read it, how is the gospel to be spread? By showing love for your neighbor, for your enemies, and generally not being a douchebag. Even further, the whole thing about "judge not lest ye be judged" - that is not referring to not saying to your friend "Hey. you know, you really ought to not cheat on your wife" but judging one's eternal destination. On their web site, they have this posted: "Matthew Shepard has been in hell for 4742 days" - it seems to me that Phelps is claiming to be God and is condemning Matthew Shepard -- NOT their job and they are expressly FORBIDDEN from making such proclamations. On top of that, their domain "godhatesfags.com" is blasphemous, because the bible says that God does not want anyone to suffer, but all to come to redemption. While Jesus did speak of hell quite a lot, he let people who refused to believe not believe. And, for those in "sin" (hookers. corrupt politicians, etc) was his message of condemnation? No; it was of repentance. The ones he saved venom for were those who were speaking and practicing blasphemy (from the point of view of the Tenach)
Now, whether or not the bible is a fairy tale, half truths, true, or the greatest hoax in history, everything Westboro Baptist cult does is in direct contrast to how Christians are instructed to behave, and how Christians are instructed to spread the GOOD news.
Having said all of that, why is this story being run on slashdot? By carrying this story, you are only giving the media whores at westboro baptist cult the attention they want.
Why doesn't everyone try to live by this rule: "let's not be douchebags to one another, whether or not there is a god, or flying spagheitti monster, or little green men." Being nice to one another is something one should do because it takes less energy than being an asshole, and it is self-serving to do so anyhow because it makes life easier for you.
In any event, fuck Fred Phelps and his cult.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I fully support the fact that these people have freedom of speech and thus they cannot be attacked by the government for their hate, but I also fully support the fact, that their freedom of speech does not have to be tolerated by other individuals.
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from a fist of an individual smashing their face. Of-course the criminal code says that freedom of fist smashing their face will not be tolerated, but what is civil disobedience for, right?
You can't handle the truth.
You are free to ignore it.
What did Jobs ever do to hurt Baptists?
Now I know its a commonly held belief that a higher proportion of GLBT's buy apple products compared to other brands, but the woman herself used an iPhone, does that make her gay?
I'm sorry your childhood was rough.
I'm sorry if I lead anyone to imply my childhood was rough. That was merely an anecdote about how people "with faith" often see a given event or action. Then after the event or action is prescribed to be "good" or "bad" (often subjective in and of themselves) they will say that it was "God" or the "Individual" at work. This often perplexed me as a child and, like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, its place in the toolbox of control became very clear to me later in life around age 16. I do not call this abuse of any kind, I see this as a method of control that was particularly effective with me.
Please, don't attribute that kind of harsh upbringing to a religion.
Good sir, there was nothing harsh about it. It is, however, a core concept of (nearly all) religions. An eye in the sky that can magically be anywhere and everywhere at once? That knows everything? That is free to judge me without fear of judgment of itself? A being I cannot communicate with? A being of somehow infinite goodness that is so powerful and unknowable that it's okay to let children in Africa starve to death -- children who have never had the opportunity of knowing Jesus? I have often mused that Roman Catholics would rather you believe in Satan (or Shai'tan or whatever) than God as fear will keep you in line. As a child, I definitely feared God more than anything else. And I assume you're a god-fearin' man.
Now that, my friend, will keep a young boy in lock step. It did for me and I'm not opposed to rear my children the same way until they are 16 and the same books that fell into my hands start falling into theirs.
My work here is dung.
The following statements are heresies:
1. God hates fags.
2. God hates Jews.
3. "pray for more dead soldiers." Telling someone to pray for evil is heretical.
In a nation that actually has an established Christian state religion which the state regards as the source of its legislation and authority (what the first amendment actually prohibits), these things would be capital crimes if Margie Phelps were to refuse to repent of them before a religious tribunal.
I don't expect the sort of idiots who believe that admonitions against homosexual **conduct** are irrefutable proof that God secretly hates homosexuals to understand or agree with this. However, it should be rather obvious that since the New Testament affirms that salvation is also for the Jews and homosexual conduct is one of the countless sins that is fully covered by divine grace that these are contrary to Christian doctrines.
Obviously, some lunatic church may disagree, but then the Bible tell us to have no dealings with them.
I've already had people on my facebook shilling quack cancer cures saying "If only...".
The body doesn't have to be cold before the vultures swoop in.
He[sic] had a huge platform
[sic]? Should Jobs not be referred to as a 'he'? Was Jobs a woman? What am I missing here?
To picket his funeral, they will need to find it. I can't imagine Jobs' family is going to have a large public affair. Would be very atypical of how he did things.
and we are creative. I am sure with enough brain power we will come up with a way to not get them attention but actually embarrass the shit outta em. not that they have any shame. Maybe a walled Garden around em? steve would'a loved it.
I seem to recall there were studies to this effect. But you know, any time people are emotionally charged, their rational minds are effectively blocked. And the longer your rational mind is blocked, the more it atrophies. The mind (the conscious and functioning pathways of the brain) are like ALL parts of the body.
Bones, in zero gravity, lose strength. Muscles, when left unused, become weaker. The intellect of a person, when not being used, is left to wither.
Anger, hate and even lust or love are emotions that will limit the amount of brain power you can put to use. And when people stop using that power, it becomes weaker. I think this should be self-evident to anyone who thinks about it... but that's something of a catch-22 isn't it?
But this also makes me think of another thing -- the fictional character "Doctor House" said "Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people." Of course the meaning is "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people" but that's not what was said. Still, it is all recognition that when emotion reigns in the brain, rational thought doesn't work as it should. And when unpracticed and unexercised, the ability to think deteriorates.
Why would Steve's family have a public funeral? Or even publicly acknowledge the date and time of the funeral? Westboro is going to have a hell of a time picketing a low-key, secret event that only a few close friends and relatives know about.
Troll is gonna troll. Sorry, but not everybody gives a damn about YOUR god. Get a life you dumbfuck.
If he had mentioned their pathetic god, then they would have come out with the 3rd commandment - "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"
LOL. Will she display signs at the picket with her iPad?
All I can say to the Westboro Baptist Church is THINK DIFFERENT
Jobs tried several eastern religions. I don't know if he practiced and worshiped Buddhism religiously, but he certainly advocated independent thinking as based on quotes like this. In my opinion, this philosophy served him well.
"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone elses life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary"
-Steve Jobs, Stanford Graduate Commencement address (2005-06-12)
(Rest in peace Steve.)
Westboro will picket his funeral.He had a huge platform; gave God no glory & taught sin. MT @AP: Apple co-founder Steve Jobs has died at 56.
140 characters exactly. Count them again.
And what's with putting [sic] after "He"? Twitter updates are required to be grammatically correct now, including spaces where grammatically necessary?
Maybe the Foo Fighters should come to the funeral too, then.
Hopefully Steve's funeral will be just as private as Bill Gate's wedding. These Westboro people are beyond the pale.
so the in crowd can head nod and act all smug with their belief that all Christians or people of faith are really like this. For no other reason is such a person newsworthy, it is very much like the bit on Scary Movie, The press only wanna interview the most ignorant person they find.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You clearly misunderstand: God created iPhone, therefore Steve Jobs is God, and that means that they picketing God's funeral.
It cannot go "all the way back" because in reality Genesis (from its first word in Hebrew, Bereshit) is one of the later books to be added to the canon. It is a convenient reference of creation myths of several Middle Eastern societies, put in by a society that really wasn't that interested in how things started. It was the Catholic Church first, and then the Protestants, that gave it an authority it did not have.
That's why in the "real" Bible, all that original sin and guilt stuff is missing. David goes off and totals a load of Palestinians and they make him king. A couple of spies get into a city with the assistance of a kindly (if dim) prostitute, and nobody thinks to try to get her to mend her ways ("While we're putting this city to the sword, just have a read of this tract about raising fallen women"). The writer of Ecclesiastes is close to pessimistic atheism. Many of the people who get a good Press in the Bible are mass murderers (who had good scriptwriters.)
I'm sorry, you cannot blame the Jews for the idiocies of Christians and Muslims. And Islam postdates the start of the Catholic Church. I, as a one time student of sociology of religion, put the blame squarely on the Romans, and the rules they invented to keep the Plebians under the thumb of the Patricians.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
and she gets really annoyed if she's called "it".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
3... 2... 1... FIGHT
It only encourages them. Let them wither and die in obscurity.
Anyone remembers the Retros of Wing Commander Privateer? - "Die by the very weapons you adore!"
However, without getting into serious Biblical criticism, Jesus did say one thing which turned out to be 100% accurate. He said he would be followed by false prophets who would claim that they had the true story. And that pretty much sums up the history of Western civilisation with the exception of the Unitarians, the Quakers and a few other sects who don't pretend to have a revelation.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Seriously, I have to ask: Which part of "Love your neighbor as yourself" was unclear?
Yes, the U.S. Constitution says you're allowed to do your picketing. However, it doesn't require me to listen to you, or see you as anything other than a bunch of sad, deluded, hate-filled little nut-bars.
"My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
and we should all go picket their funeral. I'm so tired of these guys, who obviously are ignoring some of the most admirable lessons from the New Testament.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L9_GfVhUZQ
How soon they forget. http://gawker.com/5539717/
Can't imagine what kind of problem a group of bong-hitting olympic atheletes would have with Steve Jobs...
Perhaps this image will help to prove my point.
As Jobs died in America and there were protests at the wall at his funeral, jobs died in America and there were protests at the Wall street at that funeral.
I was thinking something in terms of these lines, but couldn't put my finger on it. Probably because there were no buttons left to push.
You can't handle the truth.
They are whack jobs but the constitution protects this..
Just whipped this up...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frizille/6217286495/in/photostream
Think about it for a moment, the goal of these loonies is to get as much attention as possible.
What better way to do that than by making that tweet with an iphone?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Get a dickcheese facial from a transsexual street walker, then picket the funeral of the whakjob, lunatic, nutcult "church" that she represents!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
White trash like these people are the reason that the "ugly American" label exists in other countries. Can we please have them all neutered?
You would think people running a site that is well known for the trolling would know a troll, but this article proves even slashdot can be trolled. Not even a classic goatse post would be as good a troll as the Phelps clan.
They're attacking the character of the one leader in the tech industry that was trying to "protect us from porn"?
...that God has a sense of humor and that truth is always stranger than fiction.
Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
Being raised in a Baptist home, I'm at a loss to understand Margie Phelps's public activities. Throwing a Bible, or the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights, or an American flag in someones face is not why these objects were created.
Please stop giving these folks a wider platform by relaying their attention grasping behavior. As a Christian, I find their activity to be annoying and even defamatory. They are a side-show carnival act (no disrespect to the bearded ladies and highly skilled knife throwing blind folks) that brings discredit to Christians, the Baptist faith and America in general. Relaying their cries for attention demeans us all.
Apple fanatic trumps westboro fanatic. Perhaps the idiots from westboro will finally meet their fanatical match and go home with their tale between their legs?
Why the "[sic]" in the post?
It is unwise to ascribe motive
Although Jobs had help from Archangel Jony.
A lot of people think the WBC picketing gets pretty extreme, we need to take it once step further and show just how ridiculous all the picketing is:
Let's picket the picketers. Show up in a group next to WBC and make a march line with signs and just march around their group holding anti WBC signs or something, like lines from the Bible saying how humans shall not judge, only God can, or something.
No joke.
...that the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself" Now I want to be clear that I'm not in any way advocating or calling for any violent behavior. I'm simply asking a question. Back in the 60's and 70's people used to get assassinated all the time. People would put a bullet in you for being President if they didn't like something you did or publishing Hustler magazine. They'd shoot you for trying to end segregation or just for walking down the road if you were the wrong color. I'm not talking about common murders. Those still take place with alarming regularity. I'm talking about your outraged nut-bar going off after some public figure who's made him angry and filling him full of lead. I'm not saying anyone should do this to the freaks at Westboro. I'm saying that I'm surprised that nobody has done this yet. And ok, I'm also saying I'd go to that funeral protest in a heartbeat.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
You want to piss off these nutters? Send them to a "Free Speech Zone" two or three miles from the actual funeral. There's plenty of precedent for that, and while they're making a stink that'll be completely ignored, they won't be pissing off normal people.
Do it under the guise of "keeping peace in the community" or some bullshit.
im pretty sure if they picket apples loyal fans will murder them... i sure hope they do
the only part of the Bible they keep going back to is Noah getting off the boat, planting grapes, and jumping his three daughters. if they were true Christians, they would pray for Jobs' Buddhist soul, remind themselves that he's getting another life on earth and not in heaven, and move on. they're just Khardasians with no PR agent.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
So, in your mind, God manifests in the current world and rapes children? Seriously?
And you're okay with that?
And yet, strangely enough, WBC does not appear to share that view. Hence the picketing of Jobs' funeral.
The point of the post SEEMS to be that if God is capable of preventing a child from being raped (an act which we can all agree qualifies as "evil") but does NOT prevent that, then God is also "evil".
Have the local sheriff designate a special area for this picket - somewhere highly visible. At that place, hide a conductive mat. In a nearby tree or something, hide the corresponding electrode. Apply sufficient voltage between electrodes. Bam - divine bolt of lightning perfectly delivered. For extra points, let a note drop down from the tree reading: "I don't need you to tell me how to do my job, thank you."
-- Put crudely, the world is an extremely large problem instance. (Russel/Norvig Artificial Intelligence)
Someone should talk them into picketing scientology. Given their track record, problem solved.
Considering their attention-whoring targets are the likes of military funerals and Mr. Rogers, it would be a fucking honor to have made these douchebags' lives miserable enough to justify them picketing my funeral. Sic semper cuntannis.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
No he didn't give God the glory. But either are they when they say things like this. Just like Steve we all have times when we don't give God the glory. That's why He offers forgiveness through Jesus. They need to forgive and forget.
I would consider it an honor to be picketed by these people. If they're angry, you're probably doing something right.
Liberty in your lifetime
To me it is more evidence for the non-divine origin of that PARTICULAR religion.
It makes sense if you think back 3,000+ years when the world was divided into "them" and "us" and it was easy to tell the beliefs of "them" from the beliefs of "us".
And "them" had always been "them" from the time of your father and his father and his father's father.
When your view of the world was limited by what you could see from the highest hill in the area.
Where one bad year could mean death for all of "us" and triumph for "them".
The picketing of funerals strikes me as not something Jesus would have condoned. Jesus was about love, not hate.
These people are twisting the Bible and the word of Jesus to push an agenda of bigotry and hate.
Oh Great Spaghetti Monster.
Smite the infidels! Turn their iPhones into Nokia phones running Symbian!
Too merciful. Let them lug Motorola DynaTAC phones with the "fast" charger and a bunch of spare batteries.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I'm not a violent person nor do I condone in general that anybody should be physically harmed in any way.
That said, I think these people really just need a good ass kicking to send them home crying. Jesus needs to come here today and just kick the sh!t out of them and tell them to just stop being assh*les already and learn to love people.
Enough is enough already.
There needs to be a law or constitutional amendment to make it illegal to picket at or near funerals. Period. For any reason. The people who complain will be those who wanted attention or wanted to spread hate, and the people who approve will be those who are sick of these stories and want peace when saying goodbye to a departed one. Plus there's a hundred other places they could picket at, just not at the place that would be the most insulting. I fail to see how it can't not be passed.
I'm not an Apple user myself, nor do I care for my Catholic upbringing.
This "Phelps" group is actively tarnishing the name of dead man before he's even been buried.
This disgusts me. So lets make something perfectly clear:
According to their own doctrine:
HER PRIDE in this action IS A SIN
HER ENVY of Steve Jobs IS A SIN
HER WRATH (and anger) IS A SIN
THEIR LUST for attention IS A SIN
http://stwem.com/2011/06/16/what-does-mt-mean-on-twitter/
http://twitter.com/#!/AP/status/121732977523826689
Apple says the company's co-founder, Steve Jobs, has died. He was 56: http://apne.ws/lCbPzP -MS
=>
Apple co-founder Steve Jobs has died at 56.
I can't believe anyone supports the WBC. I can't wait to picket this c**t's funeral.
Do Westboro's actions in any way diminish the innovation that Steve Jobs contributed to the technology industry?
Any answer other than "No!" should be considered very naive.
Let Westboro have their day of protest--which will be very short-lived. Conversely, Steve Job's legacy will live on far longer than theirs ever will.
Besides, it is their Constitutional right to protest, just as it is mine to disagree with them.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Please, can we stop referring to this stupid "church"? Let them do what they want, and stop giving them the attention they so desperately want.
I'm waiting on the WBC to have that 'grassy knoll' moment.
I mean, they're "deep cover" liberals. I thought we knew that by now? And this just proves they're fake. If they so abhorred Steve Jobs, they certainly wouldn't support products and services associated with him. That's how I operate, and I assume that's how the rest of you operate, especially the anti-gates crowd around here won't touch a thing MS has had a hand in creating. You know what it's like to shun a company and therefore shun its products, good or bad. WBC... They're just making a mockery of Christianity and/or conservatives, with pretense and false extremism, and now it backfired a little bit. At least slashdotters ought to know whatever they're doing has no resemblance to right wing/Christianity... right?
+1 Frightening
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
“If I am right, then (religious fundamentalists) will not go to Heaven, because there is no Heaven. If they are right, then they will not go to Heaven, because they are hypocrites.”
Isaac Asimov
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The Santa Clara sheriff department shot and killed the guy that shot up the quarry in Cupertino yesterday. Couldn't they wait until he had shot the Westboro people too?
...what, do you think I'm joking?
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Ok, now I can understand WBC having a semi-legitimate reason to picket soldiers funerals (as horrible as it is), but Steve Jobs' funeral? What would they be trying to prove other than to get publicity because it'll be highly publicized?
Heck, they'd picket Phelps' own funeral when he died if it got them a lot of press.
Reminds me of protests against the local police force for racism, profiling, etc. then demanding police protection when a bunch of rednecks come around to rough them up.
WTF? People should have a right to a decent, respectful funeral that's free from reality-tv-type BS. I don't particularly care for Apple (or Michael Jackson for that matter) but can't these nutcases find some other way to gain media attention for their "message"?
Celebrities have relatives too and I doubt being famous makes the grieving process any less painful. Dig deep and find some humanity or at the very least go buy a billboard if you have something to say.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
The Westboro Baptist Church is not Catholic, or Christian. They are a Cult that claims to be Christian. The reality is they are pretty much a single (maybe inbred) family that calls themselves a church.
I am a Christian Biker Geek
This means I am Christian first and an avid motorcyclist and a programmer and systems administrator. I also ride with the Patriot Guard http://www.patriotguard.org/ [patriotguard.org] to help shield families of our fallen heros from these despicable people of this so-called church.
Please do not confuse these people for actual Christians.
I'd shove that picket so far up he arse she could pick her crooked teeth with the end. I have no idea where these Fr!ken people get off pushing there phone religion on anyone else. Their whole church is a bunch of inbreed idiots that "follow" their father/Grandfather/Uncle/Husband/sex partner, who thinks he's a profit...
Some Gang in California should spray them down in a drive by and we can see who pickets their funeral....
I'll disagree with that portion. But for right now ...
That's because the Greek / Roman / Norse / etc Gods never claimed to be the Ultimate Good (nor did their followers claim that).
The Gods did whatever the Gods wanted to because they had the power to do it and they got bored / horny / pissed / whatever. That was easy to understand.
Which is the major problem between certain monotheistic religions and religions based around a pantheon. If you have ONE God, that God has to be responsible for everything that happens. Even if it seems cruel or meaningless.
With a pantheon, it's easy to blame a different God for whatever happened. Maybe it was a Godly turf war. Maybe God A pissed off God B so God B decided to take it out on God A's worshipers. Maybe God A needed some help with celestial paperwork so God A collected some worshipers early. Maybe God A lost a bet with God B. So many options.
And none of those make sense when you have a single God who is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient.
GOD could have Zotted Adam and Eve as soon as they ate The Apple but HE decided to let everything play out.
Heck he could have nuked MorningStar when he revolted (and decided to "surplus" all of the angels that switched sides).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
As a Vet myself, the Westies went over the line with the "innovation" of protesting Combat Casualties' funerals. Way, WAY over the line by trodding on the, (usually poor as in financial), very people who literally put their lives into a Meat Lottery and Lost, for the sake of their Country. Where are the distantly placed "Free Speech Zones" when it comes to a young Vet's funeral? Oh, the many levels of irony...
Now they are going to possibly make a splash by protesting a wealthy man's funeral who did not give his platform over wholly to their chosen godhead. Bet there will be some kind of intervention to get them to stop, or have a conveniently located (5 miles away) Free Speech Zone, so as not to disturb the funeral.
Guess I'm a little too enraged to even make a point here other than this:
Stupid and Proud can only get you so far. And when you get there you blow your stupid up and get it spread far and wide.
Tea Anyone?
http://kanewj.com/wbc/ I really wish they had to pay taxes as a business.
You must have done something right.
I suspect that these people do such an effective job driving people away from hateful conservative religious thinking, that I've wondered about their real motives. Sometimes, it's just easier to be a bad example.
That she tweeted this,
Or people are subscribed to her twitter feed?
Phelps Clan Tweets Intent To Picket Jobs Funeral Via iPhone 396
There's an app for that: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0292625/
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
A while back someone slashed the tires on their bus, and not one auto shop or towing service in town was willing to help them.
For the funeral, let the WBC protest, it is their right. At the funeral, let the legion in attendance link arms in solidarity, it is their right too. If the WBC attempt to break the chain and get through, that can be grounds for assault and they can be arrested. If the human chain is organized enough, they could be wrangled into the shape of an apple. Simple and Elegant
The trail is the thing, not the end of the trail. Travel too fast and you miss all you are traveling for Louis L'Amour
So it is questionable whether raping a child is a "good" act or an "evil" act?
And what does that have to do with free will? There are LOTS of acts that will result in pain/death in the world right now. Adding "raping a child" to the list would certainly seem to be within the ability of an omnipotent/omniscient God.
Again, there are LOTS of acts that will result in pain/death in the world right now. If we evolved (which I believe we did) then evolution has nothing to do with this discussion.
There are whole species which I do not believe would ever be able to form the CONCEPT of raping a child (should they evolve intelligence). Fish for example. Kind of hard to rape a child when the "sex" process takes place external to the female and male.
Please die screaming. kthx.
that is all
Didn't they dump a bunch of money into California in an attempt to stop "gay marriage" from becoming legal there?
I guess it depends upon whether you agree with their "ethical teaching" or not.
Again, it depends upon what you believe.
The exact same thing can be said about Scientologists. Unless you don't agree with them in which case they're a "cult".
The problem with finding an atheist organization like that is that atheists don't normally go door-to-door telling you how much they'd like to help you "save" yourself.
Any non-religious organization will, usually, have religious members. So they cannot be labeled "atheist". Such as the library.
The closest you could probably get would be non-theistic models such as Taoism or Buddhism or such. But again, they don't tend to go door-to-door so you probably haven't had much experience with them.
The Westboro crazies think everybody but them is going to the Christian Hell. You have to believe in their very specific definition of the Christian God to get to Heaven. I think ol' Fred even has his own addendum to the Bible that you need to follow.
I am not christian; however, I can objectively evaluate different christian groups. Phelp's group in many ways is better at adhering to the Bible than other Christians; their messaging is intentionally shocking and extreme but it is not inaccurate and it is not warped to the point of being labeled a cult. They don't argue the world is flat, so they ignore the bible on some points but on others they follow it and you do not. Such as their anti gay positions; which are correct although sometimes they preach a bit extreme it probably has biblical justification... After all, they do not stone the evil doers (gay, bad children,etc) which the Bible prescribes.
The Bible is such a huge mess of contradictions its silly to even say you believe in it as there is so little in there left over after you remove the illogical and superstitious ignorance. Jesus one could say undoes all the sick twisted Bible teachings with his hippie liberalism - so you let gay people alone; however, you will still go to hell if you are gay unless you are sorry for being gay etc. that whole forgiveness thing -- unless you doubt the trinity in which case there is no going back, no exceptions, you are hell bound forever.
I always ask myself this when I see these lunatics at work... But what happens if we get there /first/, and hold such a big counter-protest that there's no /room/ for Phelps and Co?
No I did not. I stayed with raping a child.
So you presume that there are some circumstance under which raping a child would be considered "good" (or at least not "evil").
Looks like you've just lost this discussion.
But please, enlighten me with an example of when raping a child would be "good" thing to do.
Because they would have to sit out in the zone, or sue to block it...
I for one would be happy if Free Speech Zones were found unconstitutional, or WBC was neutered, so some good would come out of it.
Just a little ironic.
Clan pickets FOR jobs!
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
I can't wait until Rev. Phelps dies. Hopefully his funeral will be the party all others will eventually be judged by. I hope it's like Mardi Gras, the NYC gay pride march and burning man rolled into one. I've already got vacation and airfare set aside for it.
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
Wow Steve, bravo, what a heroes send off. I'm still half waiting for the burning boat Viking King thing.
Oh, and as if to put that final stroke on a masterpiece, as you pass through the pearly gates, a band of knuckle draggers and mouth breathers thump their chests and grunt loudly to voice their proto-simian displeasure at your having been a more evolved being! Epic dude, such pageant, such grandeur, truly it touches me deeply to see a man who had his hands all over the last century, leave us with grace and an outstretched hand pointing the way for this century.
that is prefect. but she missed a few things. Steve didnt teach sin... which was one of my main problems with him. He locked up that lame POS iPhone/Pod so much that you couldnt get good p0rn from flash sites. locked them down so it was hard to root them and make the device do what YOU want and what IT was able to do, but locked down from doing. I'll be protesting him for the next ten years or till someone remebers Dr Cooper...
I, for one, am pleased with the opportunity to practice my patriotism by ignoring speech I don't like. I need truly vile abuses of the freedom of speech like this every now and again to test my skills at suppressing the natural urge to find some way to silence them.
She and her whole clan of mouth breathers should have been drowned at birth.
Maybe it's time for the rest of the planet to land on Westboro's doorstep and let
them know how much their hypocritical, fundie, cranially/rectally inverted, lame,
obnoxious, tedious tripe is appreciated.
It gives me a chance to demonstrate the flaws in religions such as yours.
That doesn't matter. Show a scenario where raping a child is not "evil".
If you cannot do that then you have failed to demonstrate your point or counter mine.
Looks like you lose again.
"Rape of a child" ... and not only have you failed to provide a single scenario where it isn't "evil" but now you're asking if they're both mammals.
You make it too easy.
I'll make it simple for you, again.
In what scenario would raping a child not be "evil"?
The Phelps gang aren't like patent trolls or crazed birthers suing the Federal government to release the evidence that Obama was an illegal immigrant space alien. When they sue, it's because they've got reasonably legitimate cases against people or governments who have enough money that there's a good chance of collecting it. They do their trolling outside of court, loudly and persistently enough that people attack them or governments illegally restrict their speech, and then they sue and usually win, because they usually only sue when they've got a solid case.
From a legal perspective, the technical term for what they are is assholes, and it's not the government's business to stop people from being assholes, and it is the government's business to keep people from punching them out.
From a religious perspective, the technical term for them is sinners, and they refuse to repent, and in many religious traditions the proper response to that is to shun them. If the news media would follow that advice, maybe they'd go away.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Parasites can use Twitter now?
All good things come from Heaven, not God.
If man is created in the image of God, then that makes man an illusion of measurement of present facts
and not a stone-cold rendition of form but ever changing.
iPhones were needed more to wade through Hell on Earth, not Heaven, because Hell is what man makes for himself while Heaven is a retirement home that I might never want to see, yet then why not continue working with Godhood through my lordship? I don't want to retire.
I ask you to give me a scenario where raping a child is not "evil" and you ask if they're both mammals.
And now you want to claim that I'm the one evading anything?
So I'll ask again. Under what scenario would raping a child NOT be "evil"?
If you cannot answer that then you cannot support your position. And that supports my position.
That's exactly what I expected from a believer. It makes sense in your head, where no one else can question your "logic". But when you try to use it to answer basic questions ... you really have to ask if raping a child involves two mammals.
Interesting. Somehow, these evil-doers, these Phelps folks, their kind were there when Jesus was crucified. They weren't the ones following along in reverence, no, they were the ones throwing stones, and spitting on him. These are sick people. But that's the kind of people they are.
Just trying to guess, being the devil's advocate, and reading about Jobs and religion, a real turning point in his life came when he went to India and discovered Buddhism, and converted to that faith. We will miss him. And, not knowing too much about Buddhism, but respecting this great religion, perhaps turn the other cheek at these lost souls, these haters, because that's what Steve would do.
It gives a nice look at the inability of the faithful to process basic logic.
So you're claiming that raping a child may not be "evil" because you claim "evil" has not been defined to your satisfaction.
And prior to that, you wanted to know if raping a child involves mammals.
Keep going. :)
This is perfect.
So you're saying that you do not understand the concept of "evil" as in the act of raping a child being "evil".
Which implies that you can envision a scenario where raping a child would be a "good" act or, at best, a "neutral" act.
But you cannot explain that (those?) scenario(s) because you don't understand how raping a child would be considered "evil".
And you want me to provide details as to whether the child being raped is a mammal.
And that is how the mind of a believer works, people.
The only way that could be reasonable is if your definition of "evil" did NOT include the concept of raping a child
OR
If raping a child did not meet the requirements for "evil" for you.
Exactly. You cannot answer if raping a child is "evil" because ... something about DNA.
AWESOME! :)
"almost universally corrupt" may be a just bit overboard. Every church I've seen is made up of people. Even mine. That implies that no church is "perfect" in the celestial sense. That's the whole purpose for churches in the first place. (Granted, some are better at following God's instructions than others.)
In response to Applekid:
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
--James 1:27
Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
--Galatians 6:2
I could go on.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I think that a religion should be judged based upon ALL of the people practicing it, good and bad. [emphasis added]
???
I can understand looking at averages... but All? Churches can't make people be good. Teaching people doesn't make them good. It only helps them be good.
You're expectations are way overboard. You'll give yourself confirmation bias that way.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
So by your "logic" ...
raping child A is "not evil" if done by person B at the behest of person C who is threatening a different act against persons D through Z.
Child A
Person B
Person C
Persons D through Z.
Yes, it is. Thank you.
So it is okay ("not evil") to rape a child as long as someone else wants you to do it AND promises not to kill some people if you do (when they have the ability to do so).
I can see why you spent so much effort trying to avoid putting that into a posting.
And the omnipotent/omniscient God that allows such a scenario is not "evil" for allowing such actions.
So you can claim. But that doesn't seem to be accurate.
Nope. Only when there is a question of what the terms mean in the given context.
Which means that in order for me to HAVE to define "evil" in the context of raping a child you would have to be able to indicate a situation where "evil" did not apply to raping a child or where raping a child was, somehow, "good" or "neutral".
Otherwise it is just you trying to play semantic games.
So you can claim. Yet you are the one who insisted that I identify whether the child being raped is a mammal or not. And there was something else about DNA later.
So you can claim. And, again, you are the one who wanted clarification if the child being raped was a mammal or not.
Actually, I think the exact opposite. I'm sure that it is demonstrating the "logic" of the believers and the steps they go through when confronted.
Again, YOU were the one who wanted to know if the child being raped was a mammal. Not me.
And, again, the issue isn't whether I will define "evil" for you.
The issue is whether YOU understand "evil" in the context of raping a child.
And because it contradicts your beliefs, you are claiming that it is my responsibility to define "evil" for you IN THE CONTEXT OF RAPING A CHILD.
Your attempts at semantic games only result in your posts implying that you do NOT understand "evil" in the context of raping a child. And that is the mind of the believer.
*sigh*
Why-- oh why-- do people keep assuming every passage in the Bible has equal weight?
Job is part of "The Writings", along with Psalms and Proverbs. Basically, it's in the literature section of the Bible. You can't take it as a literal history. The original author didn't.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Ignore them? They're bullies. Ignoring them just makes you miserable. In rare cases where ignoring them works, they change tactics.
Bullies don't stop unless they get bopped on the nose, or an "adult" intervenes firmly and repeatedly. (I'm hoping for the latter in this case.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I dont understand... I thought Steve Jobs was a buddhist...
Bereshit is in Torah because, as well as the creation myths, it also includes the stories of the beginnings of the Hebrew people - Abraham, Isaac. I should have made clear that I was referring to the earlier part of Genesis up to the retelling of Gilgamesh (Noah), and not the later parts. For that I apologise.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Unless e.g. Bill Gates
I understand that Steve never publicly thanked god for creating the iPhone, but saying that Jobs taught sin? I thought that parting with your money was one of the best things you could do in the eyes of the church?
~Syberz
Everyone else that they've picketed, (to the best of my knowledge,) were pretty much working class stiffs.
I wonder how they will handle someone with a paid security force that can hand them their ass... and tell them to have a nice day. (Because you know there will be security, if for nothing else, the other people that will be attending the funeral. It's not like every Tom, Dick and Harry will be allowed to go.)
-D
"Trolls"? Sorry, I meant "hypocritical, attention seeking scum".
Seriously though, stopping giving them the airtime they're so desperate for.
Personally, I have been enjoying computers more side I switched off of Windows. But here is my take about Steve... He ultimately ended up with plenty of money (WEALTH), He became extremely famous (FAME), and he had a great deal of influence in regards to the products made by Apple that are used by a lot of people (POWER). Despite all these things, he delighted in providing products that made people happy. He was definitely not "luke warm", and had strongly held opinions about many things. He wasn't a saint. I don't worship him, but I am fond of his company and most of their products.
To be honest, the best way to deal with WBC has been counter protests. It emberasses them emmensely when they protest something like Comicon and the counter protest is Bender, Buddy Jesus and the cast of firefly. They like being reviled. They're not as keen on being mocked. If they protest and the mocking counter-protest gets just as much coverage, they tend to back off.
I used to live in Topeka KS (where they are from). People used to get upset. However, in HS all the students took to holding hands with someone of the same sex when they walked infront of the WBC protestors.
Thats what I want to see. Gay orgy infront of every WBC protest. Ignore the WBC protester's yelling at them and just make out. Better yet, copy the signs and have a bunch of flamboyantly gay guys protest homosexuals right along with the WBC. Don't revile them, MOCK THEM.
I do security
The mods hate yeast extract.
And yet ...
So you are "perfectly clear" about it BUT you don't understand it.
Nice. And exactly what I expected from a believer.
And yet it was YOU who insisted there was some confusion over the concept of "evil" in the context of raping a child. So much confusion, in fact, that you wanted me to clarify whether two MAMMALS were involved.
And then you went off on some DNA tangent.
Keep going! This is perfect.
What is with this "infer"?
Why did you have a PROBLEM in all your other posts with "spell[ing] it out"?
Meanwhile, all the time insisting that I had to clarify whether raping a child involved a mammal and that it had something to do with DNA. And now you're off on a tangent about hamburgers or something.
And THAT is the mind of a believer.
Ummmm, did you miss the original point?
Let me help you with that:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both willing and able to prevent evil?
Then how does evil still exist?
Is God neither able, nor willing to prevent evil?
Then why call him God?
And then you posted:
There's a very simple counter to that idea - the rape of a child. In what context would it NOT be "evil".
And all of these posts since then have been about you avoiding that very simple question. Because you cannot answer it without proving the original assertion.
You might want to look up the term "lesser of two evils". No, it is NOT "clear" to me that it is "not evil". It is STILL "evil".
Let me break you little dream down a bit. Your position for raping a child being "not evil" (do you think I'm ever going to not quote you on that) requires:
1 - child victim (person A)
2 - secondary actor (person B) (acts under orders of 3)
3 - potential primary actor in a SECONDARY action (person C)
4 - a SECONDARY action (death as opposed to rape)
5 - multiples of 4 (multiple people die)
So what you're trying to do is to claim that raping a child is "not evil" ... if you can pile enough other acts onto it that have the POTENTIAL to be worse (even if such acts are NOT performed).
And THAT is the "logic" of the believer.
First it was mammals. Then it was DNA. Now it is starving children.
Does your "logic" prevent you from staying on topic?
Exactly. The "logic" of the believer.
It isn't the ACT that is "evil". Even when raping a child.
It is who does it. And if God does it, then it is "good".
Even raping a child.
Thank you for your participation, believer.
Of course you are. You're just not sure by what I mean when I talk about how raping a child is "evil".
That makes perfect sense. To you.
I'm not arguing that. I'm demonstrating how the "logic" of a believer works. And you are the example.
To you, it is not "evil" to rape a child - under certain circumstances. And yes, that is EXACTLY what you have stated.
And to you, that seems "logical" because I haven't stated whether the child being raped is a mammal or been clear enough on their DNA.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is about YOU. It isn't. It is about the thought processes that you represent.
Once you accept X (illogical to a non-believer) then you can justify ANYTHING. Even the rape of a child.
You will avoid specifically stating such. You will try different tangents. You will demand additional clarification.
But in the end, you believe that raping a child is "not evil" (your words) under certain circumstances. As you have stated.
Great! That's binary thinking at its finest!
I'll stick to the concept that raping a child is "evil". :D
Go ahead, call me irrational for that.
Again, I don't care about you. All you are is an EXAMPLE of the "logic" of the believers.
I don't have to define "evil" in the context of raping a child because the point is that YOUR "logic" requires that it be "not evil" (in certain situations).
What I am doing is illustrating that "logic". Over and over and over.
Every time you demand that I define "evil" in the context of raping a child YOU MAKE MY POINT FOR ME.
It even got to the point where you wanted me to tell you if the child being raped was a MAMMAL or not.
You don't understand. This is NOT about your edification. You are not the student. You are not the teacher. You are the EXAMPLE.
Nope. Again, the POINT is that YOU want to play semantic games about whether raping a child is "evil" BECAUSE your belief requires that raping a child be "not evil" (your words) in certain situations.
They are a bunch of lawyers. Their main motivation is greed and they will sue anyone they think they can squeeze money out of. Their whole religion thing is just a front.
I wish the media would stop giving these people coverage
Funny how they condemn every one that doesnt fall in line with their philosophies
If Jesus walked the earth today they'd probably condemn him for hanging out with hookers, drug addicts and the like
(oh wait is that what he did)
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
Just so the people reading this don't get confused, you're calling me irrational for my statement that raping a child is "evil".
Just keeping that clear. :D
If it makes you feel better to claim that I've lied, then you'll do so.
But I can quote you exactly and link to your posts where you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And you're still making that claim. :D
Again, as I have stated many times, that is EXACTLY my point in this thread.
Other people can see you (a believer) arguing that raping a child is NOT ALWAYS "evil".
No. You asked if the child being raped was a MAMMAL.
LMAO
In a discussion of whether RAPING A CHILD is "evil" you want to know if the child is a mammal.
Again, you can claim that.
My point was to use this thread to show the "logic" of a believer that causes them to argue that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
As you have continued to do throughout this entire thread.
Again, if I was lying, I'm sure you'd be able to quote me. But you cannot.
As to why I'm "persisting" ... I'm doing this to show the "logic" of a believer. As I've said many times in this thread.
Exactly. And, as I have stated before, my point is that the "logic" of a believer is such that they will claim that even raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
It took a bit to get you to actually post that instead of going off on tangents about whether the child being raped was a mammal and something about DNA. But it worked in the end.
I'm not arguing whether mammals are animals.
I'm pointing out that in the discussion of whether a child being raped is "evil", you wanted to clarify whether the child being raped was a mammal.
And then you said that a child being raped was "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And my point was that a believer would think that because of the "logic" of their beliefs. :)
And your posts in this thread are the examples of that "logic".
Just to be clear for the audience, you agree that you are calling me "irrational".
Now, we just disagree on what, specifically, you are are accusing me of being "irrational" about.
Now, let's take a look at what you had posted, okay? :)
I am saying that raping a child is "evil".
And for that, you claim I am "irrational". :)
That's fine. Call me "irrational" for saying that raping a child is "evil". I have no problem with that.
As I've stated before, this thread is about the "logic" of a believer that leads him to claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). And you are the example of that believer with that "logic" making that claim. :D
And again, no I do not.
My point in this thread is to show the "logic" of a believer and how that "logic" results in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
You can claim it is "correct logic". You can claim a lot of things.
All you're doing is making my point for me. Again and again. So nice of you to do that.
I've quoted you verbatim. If you consider that to be "misrepresentations" then that's up to you.
And, again, this isn't about contradicting your "logic" with facts.
This is about showing the "logic" of the believer which results in them saying things like raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
But it is not evil in ALL circumstances according to you. That's the "logic" of the believer.
Hmmmm? Why do you use "could" there? Are you now backing away from your previous, oft-repeated, claim that there is at least one circumstance where it is "not evil"?
As I've stated before (many times), I'm not here to refute your position.
I'm here to show the "logic" of the believer and how that "logic" results in them saying things like raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
As I've stated before (many times), I'm not here to refute your position.
I'm here to show the "logic" of the believer and how that "logic" results in them saying things like raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
As I have been doing for many, many, many posts in this thread.
Why? As I've stated (repeatedly), you aren't the student. You aren't the teacher. You are the EXAMPLE.
My point in this thread is NOT to show you where you are wrong.
My point in this thread is to show the other people reading it how the "logic" of the believer will result in them saying things such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Well then, that's an advantage for you, isn't it?
Meanwhile, I'll continue on my point which is that the "logic" of the believer results in them making claims such as raping a child being "not evil" (in certain circumstances). With you being the example of such.
This is wrong no matter what you believe in. If they think SJ was doing something against God, they should have confronted him and boycotted him during his lifetime, not in death. I just find it awfully distasteful to protest at or nearby a funeral, let alone a funeral of an innovative entrepreneur, not any dictator or the likes... it does not make sense to me.
Using an iPhone to spread the word just proofs the weakness of what they are trying to say...
The WBC shows up at funerals to protest and try and goad someone into punching (or worse) one of its members, so they can file a lawsuit. Earlier this year, there was a funeral in my hometown (population ~8500, mostly rednecks and Bible-reading conservatives) for a soldier who died in Iraq. A massive biker gang called "Patriot Force" (if memory serves) offered to run interference and shield the soldier's family from WBC's insults. That effort was successful. My son was on hand to watch what happened elsewhere in town, and said that when the WBC's van pulled into a Casey's to buy gas, they were immediately surrounded by locals, who subtly threatened them with something along the lines of death and/or dismemberment if they didn't get the hell out of town immediately after buying their fuel. Surprisingly, that effort was successful too. I saw some news footage of the surrounded van on the evening news, and I have to say, it was pretty gratifying. Fred Phelps, an especially hot/humid neighborhood in south hell awaits you and your lawyers.
Okay, I'm the example of you getting demonstrated to be an illogical lying idiot, and of a systematic and accurate counterargument to the "Problem of Evil".
Happy to be your example, idiot.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
That's nice of you. As I had posted, the "logic" of the believer results in them claiming things such as the raping of a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
I don't think that it is ever "not evil".
Therefore, I am "an illogical lying idiot".
It's nice to have an example.
So you can claim. I'll stick to my statement that raping a child is evil.
You might want to look up the definitions of those words because I quote you verbatim.
Well it does say a couple of things.
1. That my point here is to show how the "logic" of a believer results in them saying things such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
2. That you have been unable to grasp that point despite it being repeated "dozens of times".
As I have stated (according to you) "dozens of times".
I say that raping a child is "evil". And that it is the "logic" of the believer that results in them claiming that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). And your posts are the examples of that.
You say I'm an illogical, lying idiot who will not debate you when you say that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
So you can claim. But I'll stick with my point about how the "logic" of the believer results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). And as I have demonstrated with your posts.
Repeatedly.
And yet you've posted many times that you do believe that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances) and you have even provided a circumstance in which you believe that would be the case.
So it would seem that my point has been demonstrated by you, repeatedly.
Would you like me to quote you again, verbatim, on the subject? Here it is:
So it would seem that you made my point for me.
You claim that there are circumstances where raping a child is "not evil".
That is the "logic" of the believer. In your own words.
So you keep claiming.
And each time you make that claim, you prove my point that the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Here you are, again, claiming that you are right that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Why would I want to "show otherwise"? My point (stated many times) in this thread is that the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
And you are the example of that. And you're claiming that you are "right" for claiming such.
That's nice. And as I've said,the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
And the statement that you are claiming is "true" is that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
My point in this thread is that the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). That is my point. And you have just demonstrated it, again.
That's the best you have after you've claimed that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances)?
You've made my point for me. That the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Feeding the WBC from his ample supply of toe-cheese.
- learn to swim.
And yet I'm the one saying that raping a child is "evil".
It is the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
You must have missed all those posts where I stated that my point was to demonstrate how the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). And how you were the example for that.
And you still claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
So you have "shown" that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) to be "right and rationally uncontested".
That is further proof of my point of the "logic" of the believer.
And you still claim that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Yes, I am. I will even quote myself. I said:
"And yet I'm the one saying that raping a child is 'evil."
And whatever you want to the end of it. I don't care. I stand by my statement that raping a child is "evil".
Meanwhile, you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances.
And that is my point. The "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Considering that I quote you verbatim, that is an interesting claim. I'm guessing that it stems from the "logic" of the believer.
That same "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). Which has been my point in this thread.
Meanwhile, I'll stand by my statement that raping a child is evil.
You are the one saying that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). I have quoted you verbatim on that.
And my point in this thread has been to demonstrate the "logic" of the believers that results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
You are the example of that.
I will stand by my statement that raping a child is evil.
That's been my (oft stated) point in this whole thread. To illustrate how the "logic" of the believers result in them making statements such as how raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
And you claim that such is "correct logic".
I will stand by my statement that raping a child is evil.
Well since I say that raping a child is evil ... ... ...
and you say that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances)
And then you say that "nobody is arguing against" my statement
But since my point in this thread has been to demonstrate how the "logic" of the believers is such that they make statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) I can understand how you would post that.
You are the example of the "logic" of the believers.
As I have posted, raping a child is evil.
You have stated that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
That is the "logic" of the believer. Which results in them making statements such as how raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
You postulate a situation where raping a child is not evil. That is the "logic" of the believer.
I have posted that raping a child is evil. I have not added any qualification to my statement. My statement does not require any qualifications.
My point here is to demonstrate the the "logic" of the believers that result in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
You can make whatever claim you want to.
But I never said that. Nor would you be able to provide a quote from me showing such.
Again, the "logic" of the believer. Since you also claim that raping a child would be "not evil" (in certain circumstances) why would you not resort to lying?
As I have stated many times, my point in this thread is to demonstrate the "logic" of the believer.
And you are the example of that "logic".
The "logic" of the believers that result in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Then do so.
Otherwise it is just another example of the "logic" of the believer that results in claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and lies.
As I have stated on many, many, many occasions.
And that is the example of the "logic" of the believer. Such "logic" leads them to make statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
I quote you, verbatim. And you don't like that.
You cannot quote me, verbatim, so you resort to lies.
You can claim that it does. But I can quote you, verbatim, and you cannot quote me.
Again, it is the "logic" of the believer that results in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). And lies.
And you are the example of such.
You said that you could quote me. Where is that quote? Here's the quote from you:
Then do so.
Or is this another expression of the "logic" of the believer? The same "logic" that results in them claiming that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies?
Let me guess ... the "only logic there is" would be the "logic" of the believer. The same "logic" that you use when you say that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
I'll stick to my statement that raping a child is evil.
And it is the "logic" of the believer that allows them to claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
With the example of such being yourself in this thread.
That quote does not say what you had claimed it said.
Your claim was (and I will quote you verbatim):
That you claim that my statement that raping a child is evil is a statement saying that I "advocate mass murder (in certain circumstances)" is just another example of the "logic" of the believer.
That "logic" results in statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
You are the example of that "logic".
That would be the "logic" of the believer.
The same "logic" that results in statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
This thread is the demonstration of that "logic" with you as the example claiming that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
That would be "unarguable" by your "logic".
That would be the "logic" of the believer that results in statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And it is my point in this thread to demonstrate that "logic" with you being the example. You have, repeatedly, stated that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). As well as other lies.
You cannot even substantiate your claims as to what I have posted without claiming that your "logic" proves what I did not post.
But I can quote you.
A direct quote from you where you state that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
That is the "logic" of the believer that results in them claiming that even raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And you are the example of that "logic".
Yes, the "logic" of the believer that results in such statements as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And my point in this thread has been to demonstrate that "logic" with you as the example. Such as your posting this:
That is the "logic" of the believer that I'm using this thread to demonstrate.
You can claim that. But that is a lie as well.
Meanwhile, I can quote you, verbatim, about how you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Like I said, I can quote you, verbatim. You cannot do that. All you can do is lie.
As I said, that is the "logic" of the believer which results in claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And my point is to demonstrate that "logic" with you as the example.
I can quote you but you cannot quote me. That annoys you.
That is because I am demonstrating how the "logic" of the believer results in them claiming such things as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
Which has been my (oft stated) point in this thread. With you as the example.
So says the person posting that "logic" tells them that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
No.
Again, as I have often stated, my point here is to demonstrate how the "logic" of the believer results in them making claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies. And you are the example of such.
The hundredth time you make that claim will be the hundredth time you have publicly claimed that your "logic" tells you that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
Unbelievable. You're a complete void of content with nothing but spamming repetition with zero capability for rational thought or counterargument sprinkled in.
Yes. Fact. Clear to anyone who takes any time to review the clear evidence of that mess you call your mind.
This one's Darwin's. Bye.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
So you can claim.
Of course, that is coming from the person who claims that "logic" tells them that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Allow me to quote you on that:
That is how to correctly quote someone.
So you are mad that I do not accept your claims about how your "logic" (the same "logic" that tells you that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances)) tells you that I'm wrong.
Whatever. My point here has been to demonstrate the "logic" of the believer that results in them making claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
You are not the teacher.
You are not the student.
You are the example.
Honestly I hope this is your last post in the thread. This has been entertaining but the last half-dozen exchanges or so have just made me feel a bit sick. Re-read the thread. Try and figure out where you lost it, how you lost it, and why you lost it. Quit. Even if you get the last post in it won't change anything. Khasim's been playing with you the whole time, and the whole time you've let him. If early on you could have gotten him to play your game of semantics you might (doubtful, but might) have come out ahead. S/he didn't play, and pulled you into their game, made you their example, and has played you like a fiddle. You've obviously lost your cool, just like you lost the argument, and now are like a petulant child crying over losing their allowance for some juvenile act. Just stop already.
The same AC here as what wrote to your utterly defeated opponent. I've enjoyed this, up to a point, but this has gone well past the beating a dead horse phase. You won, they're pulp. If the other guy needs the last post, let the baby have its bottle. It won't erase the example you've made of him.
Uninvited, nagging, and annoying AC signing off, and promising to not further muck up your (and I mean Your) thread.
Nah, despite being trolled, the wider reality is there are the outlines of a dozen different viable responses to the only matter of wider import here from the perspective of anyone other than he and I, the "Problem of Evil" as it is commonly known. Those who want them, can extract these without difficulty, and if this thread is any indication, use absolutely any of them without, often, the slightest valid beginnings to a counterargument. I won this, no question, on everything but an emotional/rhetorical level, and that level only has temporary helpfulness even for the opposition themselves.
;)
.
In general, though, one can expect the standard line of argument to be more robust and less pointlessly annoying, from most holders of opposing viewpoints, but the data is still there.
And no, as would be both of our preferences, there will be no further responses on my side to "Khasim". As for more-effective nuance I might have had, it is indeed a personal challenge of mine to call those unrelenting in idiotic arguments "idiots", and those who are lying (or persistently being disingenuous) "liars". This tends to give the impression, if not the reality, of overextending one's argument.
This particular argument presents a particular challenge in that respect, as one tends to start off in an apparently-defensive position of "reject God or say you advocate rape (or any of myriad cheap accusations)". In my experience, the counterargument tends to run along a pattern of encirclement of the opposition's premises that are valid in their conclusions but invalid in their rationale, as if they have them by happenstance (and apparently they often actually do in reality!), and by parasitically asserting a theistic position while denying any rational basis for that position (at least ones they can name and support--though most atheists do -way- better with that than this guy)
There isn't any preferable way to me to address it I've encountered other than undermining the bases for the assertion--undermining through legitimate counterarguments, that is, but still requiring a digressive, and long, approach. I am always interested in better efficiency in concluding a standard argument, though, and will give your feedback consideration...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Glad Khasim has another irrational friend--or at least an imaginary AC one that's he can tell himself is sufficiently irrational to be one. ;)
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?