Fundie Fred still at it.
Fred Phelps is one of those people who probably should live permanently in a room with rubber walls. But he is a nice illustration of the absolute absurdity of "Biblical Christianity."
Here are a few things that fundie Fred has recently said in a television interview.
"The doctrine of absolute predestination is the bible from one end to the other," said Phelps.
Phelps says he wants people to "repent" of their sins. And he says that homosexuals who have sex should be killed. He says that God will judge America because it doesn't follow his advice to kill gay men and women.
Now why bother? If there is "absolute predestination" there is no free will. No one can repent unless the Calvinist puppet master in the sky has choosen them to repent. It is not a matter of choice. There is no free will. There is "absolute predestination".
And the reason that homosexuality is not illegal in the US, according to "absolute predestination" is that the puppet master has so ordained it.
If there is absolute predestination there can not be issues about what people choose to do since no one chooses to do anything. The gay man is gay only because the puppet master wanted it that way. The whore is a whore because it is the will of Jesus. Fred Phelps is an ass because his god wanted him to be an ass.
In the television report Fundie Fred is picketing a Catholic Church and screaming about pedophile priests. Certainly something to complain about but not if you believe in "absolute predestination". If you hold to that doctrine you would have to say that this is what Jesus wants to happen.
And if it is the will of Jesus then why is Fred unhappy? But then, of course, Fred has no choice in the matter either. No one does. It's an absurd doctrine but then the Bibl is full of those.
posted by GodlessZone at Sunday, February 05, 2006
10 Comments:
First, I should point out that not all Calvinists have this interpretation of predestination. To make such a blanket statement as "all Calvinists agree with fundie Fred," would be absurd, as they clearly do not. If you're interested in understanding the varying degrees this doctrine is taken and where Free Will falls and to what extent, I'll be happy to explain. Also, to label this fundie Fred character a proponent of "Biblical Christianity," is a bit of a misnomer as well.
February 06, 2006
No where does it say "all Calvinists agree with fundie Fred". So to argue that such a "blanket statement" "would be absurd" is absurd since the statement you quote was never made. As to the fact that Calvinists disagree with each other as how extrme predestination may be is of little specific concern. The doctrin, at any level, is silly. I put "Biblical Christianity" in quotes because this is the kind of term Phelps uses to describe himself. I was not labeling him but using the sorts of labels he uses for himself. The Bible is so unclear on some things and so contradictory on others that it is entirely possible to read into it all sorts of things. This is why even those of you who still think it some validity can't agree with each other as to what it says.
February 06, 2006
I wasn't accusing you of literally saying "all Calvinists agree with fundie Fred," but I think that's what may have been insinuating. I just thought I'd clear that up. :) As for the doctrine, it makes perfect sense when first you understand that it does not necessarily mean what you think it means, and second you start with the presupposition that the first point of Calvinism is true -- that is that Man is incapable of turning to God, due to our "Total Depravity" caused by an event in time early in our history we refer to as "The Fall of Man." I am curious as to why exactly you feel it's so silly though. As for the Bible itself, there is no doubt that it can be confusing and complicated. But it certainly can be understood in a rational manner, if taken as it is, without approaching it with some agenda for what we WANT it to say. This, I feel, is where most of these "fundies" and other groups go wrong. They come at the Scriptures, wanting it to back up and justify their own hate and prejudices.
February 08, 2006
There are too many assumptions you make. 1) I don't have any evidence that a deity exists. 2) I think the Bible is a book written by men with all the prejudices of man. 3)I think the concept of total depravity is totally depraved. What a disgusting view of man!
Calvinism is a monstrous doctrine which is why Calvin himself was a monster. The Bible can not be understood rationally with Christian premises but with my premises it can. Then it is a book written by different people with different views It need not be infallible. It not be divine or inspired by some supernatural being. It is a book outlining myths and things that very fallible thought were true which may or may not be true. It reflects the prejudices of the authors and not the prejudices of some divine being. If there is a god then he the Bible, I would hope, defames him.
February 08, 2006
First, I made no assumptions, as I'm very aware by now that you do not believe in God, and I'm also aware of what you think of Scripture, and that's fine. You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter. But you made the claim the doctrines of Calvin were silly, or absurd. I was simply pointing out that your own assumption that there is no God, and man is either morally neutral or morally good would certainly make it seem silly and absurd. But for those who believe otherwise, it is the logical conclusion of the believer's presuppositions. So the question is more about our presuppositions about God and about man, than it is about Calvinism or specifically what we think of predestination.
As for total depravity, what evidence is there that man is anything MORE than depraved? When you see that men constantly seek authority of each other (which I know you see, due to your political views), and when you see that throughout history we've constantly warred with each other, how can you POSSIBLY think it's a "disgusting view of man." It most certainly is a disgusting state for man to be in, but I really can't fathom denying it, which is one reason why I disagree with Jefferson's personal views. He wanted to believe that man is basically good, and capable of great progress as a race, left to ourselves, and then based his view of God from that view.
I would also refute your claim that the Bible cannot be rationally understood with Christian presuppositions. I assert that it is the only rational explanation for that does not contradict itself. You point to its authorship by various individuals over a wide timeframe, and claim that speaks to its fallibility. I see the same evidence and facts and I make the opposite conclusion, that in fact, in speak to its INfallibility. How likely is it, that a book so large and so encompassing in its topics could POSSIBLY be so coherant in its content? The message and content of Scripture is congruent throughout, from first verse to last. This seems highly unlikely to be possible, due to its many authors over such large a time span, UNLESS it is divinely inspired and supervised by God in its authorship and compilation.
I challenge you to find a single item within scripture that backs up your claim that it simply outlines myths, or is not true, or reflects prejudices of the authors. If you think you have found MANY things, I beg, pick one, and let's discuss. I do not claim that I will change your mind, as you are as I said, entitled to your opinion. But I do know that I will have a concrete rational explanation for any single piece of scripture you feel supports your vantage point. I say this not to brag of my own knowledge, but instead I brag of the wonderful coherantness and cohessiveness I know to be Scripture. Thousands of years of history attest to its supernatural origin, as it has withstood onslaught after onslaught on its authenticity. Name another piece of literature which has withstood such a fight.
So again, I challenge you. Let us examine together a portion of scripture that in your opinion, begs to be slandered.
February 09, 2006
May I note that the comments section is for comments. It really isn't built for long debates and I suspect that when a comment is as long as your comment is that it discourages people from reading. And it is impossible to reply to such a long post without an even longer post. You can assert the Bible is as wonderful as you want. It was genocidal and all one needs do is read the sections about how many tribes the Hebrews were supposed to slaughter to find it. And your own Calvinist God picks who will be saved and damned for his own pleasure and then tortures for eternity those he chooses to be damned. And from the Calvinists I went to Bible School with that contains the majority of humanity. You may think man is totally depraved. I have stated my view on that. But this is long enough. I did want to show a willingness to reply but I don't want the comments to be a debate section between myself and one person.
February 09, 2006
Understandable. My apologies for clogging up your blog. If you would like to continue the discussion elsewhere, please, by all means, email me at dannet@alltel.net.
February 13, 2006
This man surely does belong in that wall with rubber walls. Now, I am a gay, youngman, and don't really wish to be killed when sharing my love to another guy. Damn his f*cked up ideas about christianity. I thought christianity was a love-religion, like boeddhism. Appearantly christianity is the religion with most sidetracks. Besides, people who have an urge to kill gay men, or any 'sinfull' person, should look into their souls, wether there is any love for humanity left.
No, I do think he is completely insane. Is he married? I wonder wether his wife can stand his form of christianity. I bet this guy's so mad he'd even kill his own child would it be 'sinful' or turn out gay. I am an atheïst, and am glad to be so. Religions get a bad name because of radicalism like this.
People like him make this world s*ck even more. Anyway, I dropped my mind on your site, and am satisfied, for now.
Truly yours, D.A. Becker
February 16, 2006
Damn, this publius the 2nd does know how to clog a blog, doesn't he? What is publius anyway??? Your discussion with him was quite uniteresting to read. Besides, this is comment of a more-like, non-religion site isn't it? So what is he doing in here anyway?!
Aaah, I think he's just a bored fellah, trying to pull down anything he can get his keypad on. But, I also, am just looking for a place to spread my mind.
Quite little comments you've got here anyway, dude. Are there really so little atheïsts? Anyway, keep pulling down religion, I kind of agree with all your topics, good work.
Yours again, D.A. Becker
February 16, 2006
Just got myself back in here again. Man, I really wish this guy was doing something like that in front of my eyes. I bet he wouldn't dare to ever again. Perhaps it is better for him not to go christian anymore. If he wants to go religious, go boeddha. Boeddha rulez. Those buddhist guys just sit around their silliy-looking temples, wearing some yellow-red cloth. All they do is think, and be peacefull.
Once more, D.A. Becker.
February 16, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home