Reverend Phelps and his anti-gay monument

One word: Stupid. My opinion of what you have just wrote and I have just quoted. Now it is your turn to live with it. May it make you mad.

I'm sure this isn't the last we will hear of this Phelps guy, but what makes people follow such a hateful person. I would consider him and his followers more of a cult. I don't think he preaches mainstream religion.

Well, they may not be a cult but darn close. What is going through those peoples heads when they justify a monument that depicts a violent hate crime in the name of religion? I heard that Phelps was actually one of the people that was trying to free this kids murderors. So in his mind it's OK to murder people who are diferent than him because why, god told him to? This guy needs to be locked up in a mental institution.

Actually he's following the bible to the letter. What makes people follow such a hateful person is when they don't think for themselves and let the person with the loudest voice rule.

How so?

After a fashion -- he is. As I mentioned earlier:



The guy is promoting the killing of homosexuals -- as the god of the Bible requires.

Kind of sad, wouldn't you say?

If he was following the bible he would know that the old testament laws only existed for the Israelites. Killing anyone isn't right. Plus the Israelites did not go around to other countries enforcing their rules onto them. That is what Phelps is doing.

If the Old Testament laws only existed for the Israelites, then why do you find nothing wrong with placing monuments to the 10 Commandments in public places? Are we Israelites?

I know you understand the distinction but just to humor you and your point I will explain.

I am talking about the laws that if someone killed someone and they did it on accident they are to go to the "City of Refuge". The Judges knew who was lying and who was not. If someone murder someone they would die - eye for an eye. But since we are not Israelites, as you so smartly pointed out, then those laws don't translate over to us. Also because of what Jesus did.

The commandments are not under the same law. They are common sense stuff. There is nothing wrong with it. They don't indicate one religion over another.

[irony]Oh my, my, my . . . were there any members of the Thugees in your home town, devotees of "The Destroyer of Worlds," they would be very offended indeed at an injunction against killing . . . [/irony]

Well that may be your take on it, Monkey, but let's ask....ahhhh...I know, let's ask Jesus.

What say you Jesus -- does the fact that you are here change the laws enumerated in Leviticus and repeated in Deuteronomy:





Well, Monk, whatta ya think. Should be go with what you say -- or with what Jesus said?

God gave Israel the Law through Moses as mediator, in the Wilderness of Sinai, 1513 B.C.E. At inauguration of the Law at Mount Horeb there was an awe-inspiring demonstration of God's power. (Exodus 19:16-19; 20:18-21) The covenant was validated by the blood of bulls and goats. The people presented communion offerings, and they heard the book of the covenant read to them, after which they agreed to be obedient to all that God had spoken. Many of the earlier partiarchal laws were incorporated in the Law give through Moses. (Exodus 24:3-8)

The Real purpose of the Law was, as stated by the apostle Paul, "to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive." It was a "tutor leading to Christ." It pointed to Christ as the objective aimed at ("Christ is the end of the Law'). It revealed that all humans, including the Jews, are under sin and that life cannot be obtained by "works of law." (Galations 3:19-24; Romans 3:20; 10:4) It was "spiritual," from God, and "holy." (Romans 7:12, 14) At Ephesians 2:15 it is called "the Law of commandments consisting in decrees." It was a standard of perfection, marking the one who could keep it as perfect, worthy of life. (Leveiticus 18:5; Galations 3:12) Since imperfect humans could not keep the Law, it showed that "all have sined and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Only Jesus Christ kept it blamelessly. (John 8:46; Hebrews 7:26)

Paul wrote: "Go on carrying the burdens of one another, and thus fulfill the law of the Christ." (Galations 6:2) WHile the Law covenant was terminated at Pentecost, 33 C.E. ("since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be necessity a change also of the law"; Hebrews 7:12), Christians come "under law toward Christ." (1 Corithians 9:21) THis law is called "the perfect law that belongs to freedom," "the law of a free people." 'the law of faith." (James 1:25; 2:12; Romans 3:27) Such a new law had been foretold by God through the prophet Jeremiah when he spoke of anew covenant and the writing of his law on the hearts of his people. (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:6-13)

Like Moses, the mediator of the Law covenant, Jesus Christ is Mediator of the new covenant. Moses wrote the Law in code form, but Jesus did not personally put a law down in writing. He talked and put his law into the minds and hearts of his disciples. Neither did his disciples set down laws in the form of a code for Christians, classifying the laws into categories and subheadings. Nonetheless, the Christian Greek Scriptures are full of laws, commands, and decrees that the Christian is bound to observe. (Revelation 14:12; 1John 5:2, 3; 4:21; 3:22-24; 2 John 4-6; John 13:34, 35; 14:25; 15:14)

I am not trying to get into some sort of Relgious disscusion because I don't want to. I am stating where I was coming from for my comment.

That's pretty cheesey . . . you give a turgid four paragraph religious rant, and then claim you are "not trying to get into some sort of Religious discussion . . ."



(Why do people keeping capitalizing substantives and adjectives here? Are we turning German or something?)

I stated my opinion and it is apparent that people didn't get it. It wasn't that difficult to begain with. I was just saying what I thought and that was that. It isn't my faut people want to know why why why.

Oh and by the way God God God God God God God God God God God. How about Lord Lord Lord. Or Him Him Him Him. Is that the capitalizing you are talking about?

It could be as lame as you using the smile face.

I was referring to the fact that you had capitalized the word religious. Capitalization of god, lord, him, etc., is an accepted convention, although i do not honor it myself.

That "emoticon" is not smiling, by the way. What is lame is you posting your religious screed, and then trying to wiggle out of the discussion.

You keep reading into everything. May it serve you well, but right now I know it isn't.

I know it isn't a smile face. It is rolling its eyes. But you are nitpicking so I will let it go.

Were you better able to use the English language, i'd better be able to respond to what you write.

The sad tatic of making fun of the way someone writes. Used by people who don't have anything better to say and want to say something so they . . . what? Nitpick.

Not at all, your sentence: "May it serve you well, but right now I know it isn't." completely mystifies me. I have no idea what it is that you intend to say with that. And, of course, now you have edited that post, so i would have to deal with revisionism.

C'mon, Monk, let's be serious.

I don't often agree with Setanta, but he hit the nail right on the head.



Under any circumstances...

...you made an observation that Jesus came to supercede the law as written in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

I countered with an obseration that Jesus made -- that pretty much was in direct opposition to yours -- that in fact he was not here to change any of that law -- not one word; not one letter; not one stroke of one letter -- not until the heavens and the Earth pass away.

Jesus certainly did not pussyfoot around on this issue. Certainly didn't leave a lot of wiggle room, did he?

Now you are offering Paul's words in refutation of those of Jesus!!!

Hummm....

...well, earlier, I asked you whether I should accept your word over the word of Jesus.

Now I gotta ask you: Do you think I should take Paul's word over the word of Jesus?