 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Archivis
Re: Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church web site said by Archivis:It sure is. Everyone wants to debate about which version of fiction is the truest form of fiction.
Your belief is just that; hardly factual.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 pc319Premium
join:2002-04-24
North Royalton, OH | reply to Hank
These low life scum wanted to do the same thing for the funerals of the Chardon school shootings back in Feb. Drove there to participate in the human fence a Facebook campaign started, but they never showed thankfully. |
|
|
|
| reply to Hank
said by Hank:So if it was something, like atheist or Islam, it would be true in your eyes?
Glad to see you mention atheists, since they exhibit the same fervor as the Christians they decry (if not more.) :P The anti-religion religion ...
Returning to Westboro, as previously mentioned, they're not Baptists (the Baptists have disavowed them), they're lawyers. They're only a "church" because it gives them tax-exempt status. So religion of any denomination (pro or con) really has nothing to do with the discussion. They're trolls, a particularly nasty variety, with no redeeming qualities or message.
So as always when watching one criminal element feed off another, if Anonymous goes after them I'm not about to cry. Technically they may have rights, but not to the extent their rights infringe on others'. They crossed that line long ago. |
|
 ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:18 | reply to Hank
said by Hank:So if it was something, like atheist or Islam, it would be true in your eyes?
No, did I insinuate that? My apologies.
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -MLK |
|
ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:18 | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:Your belief is just that; hardly factual.
Yes, exactly! I prefer to live in the factual, so let's not talk about true Christians, because religion isn't based upon the factual. Facts do not require belief, anyways.
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -MLK |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Archivis:Yes, exactly! I prefer to live in the factual, so let's not talk about true Christians, because religion isn't based upon the factual. Facts do not require belief, anyways.
Belief does not require facts. Your beliefs about religion are not based on facts, they are just belief. Nothing more.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 EGeezerGo CatsPremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:8 | reply to kingdome74
said by kingdome74:as long as they break no laws they have every right afforded to them granted in the Constitution and as such should be free from vigilante justice. I always wonder how the same people who yell about their rights being taken from them are the first to take them from others.
"Their rights" end where "our rights" begin.
--
Buckle Up. It makes it harder for the aliens to suck you out of your car.
|
|
 La LunaSurvived AshrafulPremium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3 | reply to trparky
The POINT is that they do what they do, and TRY (albeit very poorly) to claim it's in the name of Christianity. Their skewed version of Christianity. That insults people, whether atheists can understand that or not.
The FACT is that they are NOT a bona fide religious organization, as mentioned, they are nothing but a bunch of skeevy lawyers working a loophole to make money. They should lose their religious tax deferment.
--
The Alien in the White House
20,085 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 |
|
ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:18 | reply to NormanS
I don't have beliefs about religion. I'm not Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc. I think the closest term would be Agnostic. I accept that there are certain questions that I simply don't or won't have answers to. If you can provide evidence as to why your fairy tales aren't fairy tales, I'm open to accepting that. I happen to believe that an atheistic mindset is just as narrow-minded as a committedly religious mindset.
When you get into the specifics on each religion, the discovery is made that there are a multitude of contradictions that fall flat on their face, or that if someone were entirely true to their teachings, that there are so many violent and exclusionary instructions that they're too extreme to allowed to be actually followed in today's world. How can someone be true to their religious beliefs when they can dismiss significant portions of their texts? Who gets to decide what gets dismissed and what stays? Why are some parts more invalid than others?
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -MLK |
|
ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:18 | reply to La Luna
said by La Luna:The POINT is that they do what they do, and TRY (albeit very poorly) to claim it's in the name of Christianity. Their skewed version of Christianity. That insults people, whether atheists can understand that or not.
The FACT is that they are NOT a bona fide religious organization, as mentioned, they are nothing but a bunch of skeevy lawyers working a loophole to make money. They should lose their religious tax deferment.
I can agree with that. The next step though is to actually read through some of the writings of some of the family members. You'll find that no only are the family members lawyers, but some of them are of the most deranged. We're not talking about trolls trying to get a reaction. We're talking about severely mentally damaged and abusive people who have learned how to master the law to bend the world to their will.
There was one of the children who left the home upon becoming an adult and champions the very causes their parents protest against. He wrote about the violently abusive upbringing he had. These people believe the shit they're spewing.
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -MLK |
|
La LunaSurvived AshrafulPremium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3 | said by Archivis:I can agree with that. The next step though is to actually read through some of the writings of some of the family members. You'll find that no only are the family members lawyers, but some of them are of the most deranged. We're not talking about trolls trying to get a reaction. We're talking about severely mentally damaged and abusive people who have learned how to master the law to bend the world to their will.
There was one of the children who left the home upon becoming an adult and champions the very causes their parents protest against. He wrote about the violently abusive upbringing he had. These people believe the shit they're spewing.
And I agree with you. I think we can all agree they should be called out on what they are doing, something should be done about it.
--
The Alien in the White House
20,085 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11 |
|
 BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to Archivis
said by Archivis:I don't have beliefs about religion. I'm not Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc. I think the closest term would be Agnostic. I accept that there are certain questions that I simply don't or won't have answers to. If you can provide evidence as to why your fairy tales aren't fairy tales, I'm open to accepting that. I happen to believe that an atheistic mindset is just as narrow-minded as a committedly religious mindset.
... How can someone be true to their religious beliefs when they can dismiss significant portions of their texts? Who gets to decide what gets dismissed and what stays? Why are some parts more invalid than others? Believing is having a personal conviction that something is true and real. It may or may not be based in some way on "facts", since what are viewed as "facts" by people may or may not in some 'absolute' sense be based on a final reality - hence sometimes even the understanding of the "facts" exists in the eye of the beholders. Debating over beliefs ends up always being an unending debate about what are 'facts', and what the implications/interpretations of those 'facts' may actually be. In the end, we each believe what we choose. I know what I believe, and I'm at all times prepared to give an explanation for why... but this isn't the forum for that.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Archivis
said by Archivis:I don't have beliefs about religion.
Actually, you do. But I must apologize to the fine folks of this forum for going OT into religious debate. Blackbird  is right; this is not the place for that debate.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:18 | reply to Blackbird
It kind of is, though, isn't it? This is a topic about the validity of shutting someone down because their beliefs perversely invade the lives of others. We're all free to believe what we believe, but if we're talking about perverse invasions by one group, what about perverse invasions of others?
And then we get involved with vigilante justice. Above are some pretty critical thoughts about a religion of people who agree with us to denounce WBC. I feel that the people in the image I'm posting also have perverse views.
The difference? The WBC lacks the voter base to inflict their beliefs into law. The people in that image do not. These are views held publicly and privately by millions of Americans. It's just as perverse as what the WBC preaches.
This topic would be "off topic" any other day, but we're talking about rights, vigilantism, and other security-style topics that have been discussed before. It is entirely relevant, I think.
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -MLK |
|
ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:18 | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:Can you factually prove that I believe in fairy tales? Or do you just believe that I believe in fairy tales?
The onus to provide proof is on the person who makes the claim. If I were to claim that my digestive system excretes only unicorns, it is not for you to discredit, but for me to prove. I can only attempt to prove that you do or do not believe in fairy tales as soon as you attempt to prove that those beliefs are not actually fairy tales/imaginary/not real.
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -MLK |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Archivis:The onus to provide proof is on the person who makes the claim ...
I won't be modded this time ... I won't be modded this time ...
Does anybody know where I can steer this debate without offending the mods?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
BlackbirdBuilt for SpeedPremium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| reply to La Luna
said by La Luna: ... The FACT is that they are NOT a bona fide religious organization, as mentioned, they are nothing but a bunch of skeevy lawyers working a loophole to make money. They should lose their religious tax deferment. Their tax deferment exists under IRS code because they are a non-profit organization, a class of which are churches. The real question, IMO, is whether they are truly non-profit, not whether they are a conventional "church". There are religious organizations that do not possess non-profit status because of what they actually do with their income and why they actually exist, and there are religious organizations that are true non-profits. Given that the organization is heavily... uhmm... "populated" by lawyers or lawyers' families, they've probably got their books set up fairly well. But if I were the IRS, I'd be taking a hard look at them anyway... and a second look... and a fifteenth look, if necessary, just to be sure. A lot of potential NPO questions arise: who benefits from the church's income, who is employed by the church in what capacities and how are they compensated, what is withheld on whose imputed income (and is it paid up to the government), who directly benefits from specific church activities and facilities (and how), what properties/assets are owned by the church and with what justification, and on and on.
--
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” A. de Tocqueville |
|
ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:18 | reply to NormanS
You won't offend me. I promise. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Archivis:You won't offend me. I promise.
You are the alternate moderator of this forum?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·ViaTalk
·Vonage
| reply to fuziwuzi
said by fuziwuzi:said by La Luna:I think you would be hard pressed to find any true Christians who approve of Westboro's despicable tactics. They are an anomaly.
They claim to be the "true christians" and everyone else is "fake". So, who are we (non-christians) to believe? Every one of the 217+ recognized denominations of christian churches claims to be the only correct one. Saying that one nonsense is more correct than another nonsense is, well, nonsense.  Its a test how Biblical the church is, Westboro doesnt follow the most important rules of Christianity. Throwing stones at others is a clear sign. As for denominations, most follow the bible as best as they can. Westboro is an attack on the bible.
--
They Live... We Sleep...
“Spreading the wealth around” never results in a better outcome for people. It always results in destruction.
|
|
