Fred Phelps

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I believe that Fred Phelps is utterly disgusted with this trend that he sees in the Church and in the whole of the United States and that he is attacking the trend with a vengeance. I too am utterly disgusted with this trend, but I personally disagree with much of the methodology employed by Fred Phelps and his church.

I'd put it a little differently: I personally disagree with some trends in the Church, but I am utterly disgusted with Fred Phelps and his church. I'm also revolted by anyone who appears to be condoning Phelps by using the strongest terms in condemning what Phelps attacks, but the weakest terms in condemning Phelps himself.

Otherwise, what Deacon Dean said.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'd put it a little differently: I personally disagree with some trends in the Church, but I am utterly disgusted with Fred Phelps and his church. I'm also revolted by anyone who appears to be condoning Phelps by using the strongest terms in condemning what Phelps attacks, but the weakest terms in condemning Phelps himself.

Otherwise, what Deacon Dean said.

It is not my place as a Christian to condemn a Christian brother no matter how strongly I may believe his teachings or behavior to be inappropriate. If it appears to any of my readers that I am condoning the teachings or behavior of Fred Phelps, they certainly did not grasp the meaning of my words in post #25 of this thread where I wrote,

The teachings of Fred Phelps and his church are hardcore Calvinism, a system of theological beliefs that are at variance with Biblical theology on very many points; five exceptionally serious ones are known as the Five Points of Calvinism. The hatred for which Fred Phelps and his church are famous stems from the concept that all of mankind, from the beginning of creation, is made up of two distinct groups—the elect of God and the non-elect. In the Old Testament, the non-elect persons (men, women and children) are depicted as evil creatures to be utterly destroyed by the elect of God. In the New Testament, the elect are chosen for salvation, leaving the non-elect destined for eternal damnation in the fires of hell. Calvin taught that the election and non-election of all persons was determined before they were born, and that the election is irreversible. It logically follows from this that God has hated the non-elect from their birth, and that He has loved the elect from their birth, and that we, as Christians, should hate those whom God hates and love those whom God loves. Fred Phelps and his church practice what they believe the Bible teaches.

As for DeaconDean’s comments about the sin of homosexuality in post #40 of this thread, they are both Biblically and clinically incorrect. Not all sins are of equal seriousness and the Bible explicitly and incontrovertibly says that they are not. In 1 John 5 at verse 16 we read:

If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.

In Romans chapter one, Paul cites homosexual behavior as the ultimate example of the depravity that results from suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and exchanging the truth of God for a lie. And of course we all know that the consequences of the sin of adultery are very much likely to be far more devastating that the sin of a small child expressing mild and momentary disrespect for a parent or a sibling.

DeaconDean’s claim that homosexuality is no more difficult to “cure” than heroine addiction is nearly as clinically incorrect as a statement could possibly be. Fred Phelps knows, and very Baptist pastor most certainly should know, that there is absolutely no comparison between the two. Heroin addiction is easy to cure and there are hundreds of thousands of documented cases to prove that it is. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is nearly impossible to “cure” and many today argue that it is impossible to cure it. And this is not only supported by vast amounts of clinical data, it is also supported in the Bible where it says of homosexuals in Romans chapter one that “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity,” that “God gave them over to degrading passions,” and that “God gave them over to a depraved mind.” Given over by God in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, given over by God to degrading passions, given over by God to a depraved mind —what could possibly be a worse condition for a living human being to be in? God does not give us over to the clutches of the devil for failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign when there are no other vehicles for miles around. Engaging in homosexuality is an especially serious sin.

On the other hand, we read in 1 Corinthians 6,

9. Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
10. nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Fred Phelps, being a hardcore Calvinist, apparently assumes that persons engaging in homosexual behavior are among the non-elect and thus are hated and despised by God and are under the sentence of eternal damnation in the fires of hell. Such an assumption, however, contradicts 1 Cor. 6:11 and other passages in the Bible. I suspect, however, that if Fred Phelps were to read the posts in this thread, he would be no happier with those posting them, including me, than with the homosexuals doing their thing in the bushes in our public parks, in “gay bathhouses,” and in their bedrooms.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

It is not my place as a Christian to condemn a Christian brother no matter how strongly I may believe his teachings or behavior to be inappropriate.

Does this apply not only to Fred Phelps and his hate tactics, but also to gays who believe themselves to be saved by grace and call themselves Christian? If you are willing to extend the same compassion toward them that you do toward someone who hates them in the name of Jesus, then I won't put you on my ignore list....

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Does this apply not only to Fred Phelps and his hate tactics, but also to gays who believe themselves to be saved by grace and call themselves Christian? If you are willing to extend the same compassion toward them that you do toward someone who hates them in the name of Jesus, then I won't put you on my ignore list....

My feelings toward Fred Phelps are not the feelings of compassion; they are the feelings of contempt (have you carefully read my posts?). The grace of God is the dynamic of God by and through which He saves us from Sin and its consequences through faith in Christ and bestows upon the Christian the blessings that accompany the Christian life. If a homosexual is saved by that grace from sin and is no longer engaged in homosexual activity, I recognize him or her as a brother or a sister in Christ. My feelings of compassion, however, are not limited to those who are Christians.

As for the euphemism “gay,” it is an insult to everyone who is truly happy and gay, and a horribly gross distortion of reality. Active homosexuals are nearly always, if not always, aware in the deepest recesses of their being that they are guilty of acts so exceedingly filthy and disgusting as to be indescribable and thus they hide themselves within the euphemism “gay” in an attempt to feel less terrible about themselves and in an attempt to delude others into believing that they are not what they really are—homosexuals living in homosexual sin.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Yes sir, I've read every word of your posts, and I continue to get the feeling that you have more sympathy for FP than for the homosexual population. You continue to say, if I understand correctly, that homosexuality is a "worse" sin than others.

If this is the case, then you and I very much differ in our foundational approach. Yes, a homosexual act is a sin as I interpret the Scriptures. I don't know about the orientation. Not having that particular encumberance myself, I can't speak on it. The orientation may or may not be a sin, but acting on it is.

On the word "gay": Meanings change. The word "goodbye" used to be considered blasphemous. At any rate, "gay" is only one simple syllable and easier to keep typing than "homosexual," which isn't a dirty word either. Thank you for not using a certain word that rhymes with maggot, which in my opinion is disrespectful and an insult.

So, if a practicing gay has accepted the Blood of Christ to save them, but interprets things differently (the argument that the sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality; that "effeminate" refered to male temple prostitutes, etc.) then you would say he/she is going to hell in spite of the Blood of Christ? I beg to differ. This would apply ONLY if everyone ever covered in His blood never commits another sin from that point on. Can you say that about yourself, and be honest? Can you say that a practicing homosexual, sincerely seeking the will of the Lord but not yet convicted of the sin of homosexuality, is any worse than someone who has been saved but continues to smoke cigarettes? Or take the name of the Lord in vain? Or disrespect his/her parents? Or any number of other sins?

I finally quit smoking last year. Since that sin still had a hold on me, was I not saved until I managed to quit at last?

For that matter, I might assume you are missing at least one eye, hand, and foot. You would have removed them in obedience to Matthew 18:9-10, since I don't think anyone on earth has never looked at something they shouldn't have looked at, touched something they shouldn't have touched, or gone where they shouldn't have gone. My point is, we are all sinners, as you and I both well know.

And, I know you're a big important ordained minister and all, and I'm nothing but a lowly layperson who reads the Bible without someone there telling me what it really says, but James 2:10 does say if you offend in only one little point, you might as well have committed every sin there is. To me this means one sin is not "worse" than another.

By the way, you and I are bumping heads only on this issue. You're doing an excellent job on the KJVO thread.

 

[DeaconDean]

As for DeaconDean’s comments about the sin of homosexuality in post #40 of this thread, they are both Biblically and clinically incorrect...DeaconDean’s claim that homosexuality is no more difficult to “cure” than heroine addiction is nearly as clinically incorrect as a statement could possibly be.

Sticks and stones my friend, sticks and stones.

Let me tell you something my friend.

Having myself gone through rehab, one thing that has to be present in an individual is the desire to be cured. No amount of "rehab," no amount of "counciling" could convince me to give up my marijunia.

I loved to smoke dope. I loved to drink.

But what "rehab" could not accomplish, God did!

When I rededicated my life to God some 10 years ago, He took all the desire to drink and/or smoke "pot" away from me. I have 3832 days of sobrity under my belt, and it is all to God's power, not mine.

Engaging in homosexuality is an especially serious sin.

Yes it is, but, is it more severe than the person who engages in inappropriate behavior with animals?

According to you, it is.

The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that homosexuality "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9; 10). Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. (emphasis mine) He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.

Paul attributes the moral depravity of men and women to their rejection of "the truth of God" (1:25). They refused "to retain God in their knowledge" (1:28), thereby dethroning God and deifying themselves. The Old Testament had clearly condemned homosexuality but in Paul's day there were those persons who rejected its teaching. Because of their rejection of God's commands He punished their sin by delivering them over to it. (emphasis mine)

What should be the Christian's attitude toward the homosexual?
We must always keep before us the fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God's love. The Bible says, "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I John 2:2). The Christian who shares God's love for lost sinners will seek to reach the homosexual with the gospel of Christ, which "is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth" (Romans 1:16). As a Christian I should hate all sin but I can find no justification for hating the sinner. The homosexual is a precious soul for whom Christ died. We Christians can show him the best way of life by pointing him to Christ. Our Lord said, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). We are obligated to take the gospel to all.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1302

However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

And in all, it does not make up for the Rev. Fred Phelps preaching nothing more than "pure hate."

And to attribute that same hatred to all Calvinists:

Fred Phelps, being a hardcore Calvinist,

As well is equally wrong.

Yes homosexuality is a grevious sin. but is it any worse than the sin committed by Judas?

Yes the Bible teaches varying degrees of sin and varying degrees of punishment,

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. " -Lk. 12:47-48 (KJV)

But will being a homosexual be the only reason you'll be cast in the lake of fire?

That isn't what the Bible teaches.

"...he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God...he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." -Jn. 3:18,36 (KJV)

The reason why Paul says they would be given up to a reprobate mind is because He has quit striving with them. (Gen. 6:3)

They have quenched the Spirit. (1 Thes. 5:19)

They have not believed the truth and have found pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thes. 2:12)

Because they are homosexual is not why they'll eventually be cast into the lake of fire, it is because they have rejected the Lord Jesus Christ as thier Savior.

The Rev. Fred Phelps preaches nothing but pure hatred, hatred for those who are homosexual, hatred for those who have fought in Iraq, and hatred for those who have died in the war in Iraq.

And no excuses by you, me, or anybody else can make up for what this man preaches.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Yes sir, I've read every word of your posts, and I continue to get the feeling that you have more sympathy for FP than for the homosexual population. You continue to say, if I understand correctly, that homosexuality is a "worse" sin than others.

I have very little sympathy for Fred Phelps, but my heart is very heavy for those persons who are in bondage to the sin of homosexuality. The sin of homosexuality is a much “worse” sin than many others. I could write volumes to prove that point.

If this is the case, then you and I very much differ in our foundational approach. Yes, a homosexual act is a sin as I interpret the Scriptures. I don't know about the orientation. Not having that particular encumberance myself, I can't speak on it. The orientation may or may not be a sin, but acting on it is.

A person’s sexual orientation is a function of many factors, some of which may include sin, but the orientation itself is not a sin.

On the word "gay": Meanings change. The word "goodbye" used to be considered blasphemous. At any rate, "gay" is only one simple syllable and easier to keep typing than "homosexual," which isn't a dirty word either. Thank you for not using a certain word that rhymes with maggot, which in my opinion is disrespectful and an insult.

The English language is very much alive and is today rapidly changing, and in my opinion, mostly for the worse. That does not change, however, why homosexuals began using the word ‘gay’ rather than ‘homosexual’ and that preference was not and still is not because the word ‘gay’ is a simple, three-letter word.

So, if a practicing gay has accepted the Blood of Christ to save them, but interprets things differently (the argument that the sin of

Sodom was actually inhospitality; that "effeminate" refered to male temple prostitutes, etc.) then you would say he/she is going to hell in spite of the Blood of Christ? I beg to differ. This would apply ONLY if everyone ever covered in His blood never commits another sin from that point on. Can you say that about yourself, and be honest? Can you say that a practicing homosexual, sincerely seeking the will of the Lord but not yet convicted of the sin of homosexuality, is any worse than someone who has been saved but continues to smoke cigarettes? Or take the name of the Lord in vain? Or disrespect his/her parents? Or any number of other sins?

Linguistic gymnastics that defy reason, common sense, objectivity in the analysis of linguistic data, and linguistic principles do not absolve anyone from the guilt of their sin. Sin, whatever the sin, comes with a price—and ultimately, if the sin is not repented of, the price in eternal damnation, whether the sin be smoking cigarettes, the excessive consumptions of alcohol, the excessive consumption of food, or any other sin, small or great.

I finally quit smoking last year. Since that sin still had a hold on me, was I not saved until I managed to quit at last?

You were not saved from that sin until you gave it up, but let’s not derail this thread.

For that matter, I might assume you are missing at least one eye, hand, and foot. You would have removed them in obedience to Matthew 18:9-10, since I don't think anyone on earth has never looked at something they shouldn't have looked at, touched something they shouldn't have touched, or gone where they shouldn't have gone. My point is, we are all sinners, as you and I both well know.

The Bible teaches that we all WERE sinners; it does not teach that we are all STILL sinners.

And, I know you're a big important ordained minister and all, and I'm nothing but a lowly layperson who reads the Bible without someone there telling me what it really says, but James 2:10 does say if you offend in only one little point, you might as well have committed every sin there is. To me this means one sin is not "worse" than another.

The words in the Bible stand upon their own merit and have nothing to do with my merit or yours, and what they mean to me or to you does not determine the meaning of the author.

By the way, you and I are bumping heads only on this issue. You're doing an excellent job on the KJVO thread.

The KJVO issue is very simple and cut and dried; the issue of this thread is very complex.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Sticks and stones my friend, sticks and stones.

Let me tell you something my friend.

Having myself gone through rehab, one thing that has to be present in an individual is the desire to be cured. No amount of "rehab," no amount of "counciling" could convince me to give up my marijunia.

I loved to smoke dope. I loved to drink.

But what "rehab" could not accomplish, God did!

When I rededicated my life to God some 10 years ago, He took all the desire to drink and/or smoke "pot" away from me. I have 3832 days of sobrity under my belt, and it is all to God's power, not mine.

I rejoice with you over what Christ has done in your life.

Yes it is, but, is it more severe than the person who engages in inappropriate behavior with animals?

According to you, it is.

Yes, of course it is. When a homosexual commits a homosexual act, he or she is, by definition, committing an act with another human being, and therefore sinning against another human being rather than an animal. You and I are much more precious in the sight of God than a cow or a pig!

And to attribute that same hatred to all Calvinists:

“Fred Phelps, being a hardcore Calvinist,”

As well is equally wrong.

I am not attributing the hatred of Fred Phelps to any Calvinist other than Fred Phelps. A very dear friend of mine for over twenty-five years is a five-point Calvinist and has been all the time that I have known him. And this dear friend is one of the finest, most loving Christians that I have ever known.

 

[VT_Boy]

Has anyone here saw the movie "Fall from Grace"? It's a movie about Fred Phelps and his church and their beliefs. It shows how they protest funerals of soldiers and laugh about it and wished more American soldiers die in Iraq. They blame 9/11 on homosexuals. Homosexuality is sin but all Christians are commanded to love their neighbors and their enemies which you can clearly see that FP and his church violates God's command big time in the movie. They don't show the love of God and repel many people including Christians. Fred Phelps and his children uses cuss words several times in the movies. They stomp on the American flag and one drags it around tied to his foot. The movie has phone interviews with 2 of his children who calls FP's church a cult and have distance themselves from the group. One of the young grandsons said he wished he could kill homosexuals. Hatred, pride, murderous thoughts etc... top the chart and IMO is no worse than the sin of homosexuality. They cost Americans loads of tax dollars with the behavior.

 

[ImmersionX]

When did smoking become a sin!????

:o

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Has anyone here saw the movie "Fall from Grace"? It's a movie about Fred Phelps and his church and their beliefs. It shows how they protest funerals of soldiers and laugh about it and wished more American soldiers die in Iraq. They blame 9/11 on homosexuals. Homosexuality is sin but all Christians are commanded to love their neighbors and their enemies which you can clearly see that FP and his church violates God's command big time in the movie. They don't show the love of God and repel many people including Christians. Fred Phelps and his children uses cuss words several times in the movies. They stomp on the American flag and one drags it around tied to his foot. The movie has phone interviews with 2 of his children who calls FP's church a cult and have distance themselves from the group. One of the young grandsons said he wished he could kill homosexuals. Hatred, pride, murderous thoughts etc... top the chart and IMO is no worse than the sin of homosexuality. They cost Americans loads of tax dollars with the behavior.

I have not seen the movie. If your description of what it portrays is accurate, I have been too soft of Fred Phelps.

 

[DeaconDean]

You know what PrincetonGuy, I point out this:

The Rev. Fred Phelps preaches nothing but pure hatred, hatred for those who are homosexual, hatred for those who have fought in Iraq, and hatred for those who have died in the war in Iraq.

VT Boy shows this:

It shows how they protest funerals of soldiers and laugh about it and wished more American soldiers die in Iraq...They don't show the love of God and repel many people including Christians. Fred Phelps and his children uses cuss words several times in the movies. They stomp on the American flag and one drags it around tied to his foot.

And then you have the gall to say:

If your description of what it portrays is accurate, I have been too soft of Fred Phelps.

Geez, give us a break.

I say something and you take me to task over it. Somebody else says the same thing and you back step.

I see a double standard here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You know what PrincetonGuy, I point out this:

The Rev. Fred Phelps preaches nothing but pure hatred, hatred for those who are homosexual, hatred for those who have fought in Iraq, and hatred for those who have died in the war in Iraq.

VT Boy shows this:

It shows how they protest funerals of soldiers and laugh about it and wished more American soldiers die in Iraq...They don't show the love of God and repel many people including Christians. Fred Phelps and his children uses cuss words several times in the movies. They stomp on the American flag and one drags it around tied to his foot.

And then you have the gall to say:

If your description of what it portrays is accurate, I have been too soft of Fred Phelps.

Geez, give us a break.

I say something and you take me to task over it. Somebody else says the same thing and you back step.

I see a double standard here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I am very sorry that this post gave you the impression that I have a double standard in which you are some sort of a victim. VT Boy’s post gives many details which you and the other posters in this thread did not bring to my attention, details of which I was also unaware of from other sources. These details, if an accurate portrayal of the facts, tell me of a man whose actions and attitudes cannot be attributed to hardcore Calvinism, but to something that is (edited out by me in order to conform to the rules of CF).

 

[DeaconDean]

When a homosexual commits a homosexual act, he or she is, by definition, committing an act with another human being, and therefore sinning against another human being rather than an animal. You and I are much more precious in the sight of God than a cow or a pig!

Again, I beg to differ.

According to the Law of Moses as given by God, both homosexuality and inappropriate behavior with animals were equal. Both were to be dealt with in the exact same manner:

"For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people." -Lev. 18:29 (KJV)

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him...If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them...And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -Lev. 20:9, 13, 15-16 (KJV)

The penality for homosexuality and inappropriate behavior with animals as well as adultry and cursing your parents was the same! Death!

One sin was not more grevious than another for they all warrant death.

"For the wages of sin is death;" -Rom. 6:3 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Those details are QUITE accurate. Link follows for more information. You'll see many atrocities, of verifiable authenticity. It's calling those Amish girls (a bad name) that I particularly can't stomach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Also, I am trying to assert the fact that sin is sin, the final result of any sin is the same, and therefore one sin is not "worse" than another. From the amount of reps I've been receiving in this thread, I'd say my words are well received, by all except one.

To rephrase an earlier question, I've been told I was not saved from the sin of destroying my body from smoking, until I gave it up. That wasn't what I asked. I asked, was I saved at all? If I had died while still bound by smoking, would I have been lost? I don't think so.

 

[DeaconDean]

you know, as I read Levitcus 20, I see a whole bunch of sins which are dealt with in the exact same manner.

"Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people. And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God. And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you. For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." -Lev. 20:2-27 (KJV)

All these "sins" or "abominations" are equal in penality.

Or am I reading the scriptures wrong?

Placing children and infants in the fire (child sacrifice)- Death.

Dealing with "familiar spirits" or "wizards." - Death.

Cursing your parents - death.

Adultry - death

Incest in any form - death.

inappropriate behavior with animals - Death

Intercourse during the "monthly" - death.

Homosexuality - Death.

And just to qualify, to be "cut off" meant to be expelled from among the people. To be cut off meant to be cut off from the benefits from being one of God's people and the blessings that came with it. So to be cut off meant that you suffered a "spiritual death."

I see a whole bunch of sins that are equal and none are more grevious than the others.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Hypothetical but all too real man #1, after very much forethought and careful deliberation, calmly murders his adulterous wife who had repeatedly been unfaithful to him and for the last 12 years had daily treated him as though he was nothing but a piece of garbage.

Hypothetical but all too real man #2, after stabbing a man to death during a fight over illegal drugs and very much enjoying the sensation of taking a human life, seeks out more men to stab to death. After stabbing to death six of them and finding the pleasure of taking a human life to be diminishing, he begins to dismember his victims while they are still alive, and licks their blood while they cry out for mercy—finding the pleasure to be all the more great when his victims are children!

Logic and common sense tells me that hypothetical but all too real man #2 is a worse sinner than hypothetical but all too real man #1. If both men are found guilty of first degree murder and executed for their crimes before finding salvation in Christ, both men will be damned to hell. Will their punishments in hell, however, be the same? The Revelation According to Peter tells us that they will NOT be the same and although the Revelation According to Peter is not recognized today as being canonical by most Christians, it was wide quoted as canonical in the Ante-NiceneChurch. And it most certainly tells us that the Ante-NiceneChurch did NOT view all sins to be equal because it expressly teaches that different sins will be punished in hell differently.

And indeed, in this very thread, most of the participants in it are railing against Fred Phelps for being such an exceptionally despicable sinner for treating some sins more severely than others. What a blatant contradiction! If the sins of Fred Phelps are more severe than those of most Baptist pastors (and of course they are!), some sins are more severe than others!

I fully realize, however, that most of you will continue to believe that no sin is worse than another.

 

[VT_Boy]

Again, I say go watch the movie. It's hard to argue with the facts & they prove what I'm saying. No one was holding a gun to their heads and force them to say what they did and do what they did. I use Netflix to watch the movie. I wanted to stop watching the movie before it was halfway through cause I was disgusted with FP and his cult. I finished watching the movie so I could understand them better and see the damage they are doing to the cause of Christ and giving Christians a bad rep.

 

[trinityisunity]

Hypothetical but all too real man #1, after very much forethought and careful deliberation, calmly murders his adulterous wife who had repeatedly been unfaithful to him and for the last 12 years had daily treated him as though he was nothing but a piece of garbage.

Hypothetical but all too real man #2, after stabbing a man to death during a fight over illegal drugs and very much enjoying the sensation of taking a human life, seeks out more men to stab to death. After stabbing to death six of them and finding the pleasure of taking a human life to be diminishing, he begins to dismember his victims while they are still alive, and licks their blood while they cry out for mercy—finding the pleasure to be all the more great when his victims are children!

Logic and common sense tells me that hypothetical but all too real man #2 is a worse sinner than hypothetical but all too real man #1. If both men are found guilty of first degree murder and executed for their crimes before finding salvation in Christ, both men will be damned to hell. Will their punishments in hell, however, be the same? The Revelation According to Peter tells us that they will NOT be the same and although the Revelation According to Peter is not recognized today as being canonical by most Christians, it was wide quoted as canonical in the Ante-NiceneChurch. And it most certainly tells us that the Ante-NiceneChurch did NOT view all sins to be equal because it expressly teaches that different sins will be punished in hell differently.

And indeed, in this very thread, most of the participants in it are railing against Fred Phelps for being such an exceptionally despicable sinner for treating some sins more severely than others. What a blatant contradiction! If the sins of Fred Phelps are more severe than those of most Baptist pastors (and of course they are!), some sins are more severe than others!

I fully realize, however, that most of you will continue to believe that no sin is worse than another.

I cannot understand why as a Baptist you would hold views from a non-canonical book- 'The Revelation According to Peter'. It is not in the canon for a reason. I am not having a go at you here, I just cannot understand your thinking on this particular part.

Sin is sin to God. We as humans put the different values on to sins, saying that this is worse or not as bad as that. All unforgiven sin has the same consequence: punishment, eternity in Hell.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I cannot understand why as a Baptist you would hold views from a non-canonical book- 'The Revelation According to Peter'. It is not in the canon for a reason. I am not having a go at you here, I just cannot understand your thinking on this particular part.

I was originally educated as a scientist—and therefore I see the Bible and all other literature as data. Seven of the twenty-seven books found in our New Testament today faced serious opposition to being accepted as canonical. In other threads I have addressed one of the reasons why the Epistle to the Hebrews faced serious opposition. The other six books were as follows: The Epistle of James, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistle of John, and the Revelation of John. Of these six, The Epistle of James and the Second Epistle of Peter faced the most opposition. The last Churches to recognize their place in the New Testament Canon were the Syriac speaking churches.

2 Peter came under very strong opposition because its authorship was questioned by some of the early Fathers of the Church (Origen, the first of the Fathers to mention it by name, Eusebius, and Jerome) and because, unlike the rest of the New Testament books, we find no direct quotes from it till the 3rd century causing some scholars today to place the writing of it as late as 160 A.D. and many scholars at c. 150 A.D. Several possible allusions to 2 Peter can, however, be found earlier, the first being in The Apocalypse (Revelation) of Peter (c. 110-140 A.D.). Richard Bauckham, Joseph Chaine, and Bo Reicke all date it c. 80-90 A.D., making it one of the last, but probably not the very last, New Testament books to have been written—and NOT written by Peter!). Today, the vast majority of scholars specializing in the writings attributed to Peter at least seriously doubt that Peter was the author of 2 Peter, and the very large majority believe that he was not (the reasons why not can be found in the introductions to the best of the recent commentaries on the Greek text of 2 Peter).

If 2 Peter was not written by Peter, should we consider it as genuine? That question raises another question—what do we mean by genuine? To me, genuine, in this case, would mean that the work accurately reflects the teachings of Peter. How about the Apocalypse of Peter? Does it accurately reflect the teachings of Peter? If not, whose teachings does it reflect? And are those teachings any less truthful than the teachings of Peter? What we have is data—data that must be very carefully analyzed and evaluated.

For further (and MUCH more detailed) reading, see the following,

Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, editor. New Testament Apocrypha, Revised Edition translated from the 6th German edition (2 volumes). Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press. 1989.

Sin is sin to God. We as humans put the different values on to sins, saying that this is worse or not as bad as that. All unforgiven sin has the same consequence: punishment, eternity in Hell.

It is my personal belief that God is no less intelligent than I am, and I am intelligent enough to know that some sins are worse than others and most of the people posting in this thread think that the sins of Fred Phelps are worse than the sins of their pastor but they still believe that no sin is worse than another . Is God that confused? Personally, I do not believe that he is. Certainly the Apostle John believed that some sins are worse than others.

1 John 5:16. If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. (NASB, 1995)

The precise meaning of this verse has been debated for centuries by New Testament scholars, but they agree about one thing—that some sins are worse than others. They disagree, however, as to exactly which sins and what kinds of sins John was writing about.

In my posts I always defend points of view that are held by the very finest and most gifted Biblical scholars, so if you would like to earn a whole lot of reputation points, vigorously attack my posts as often as you are able to.

"Good night, Chet!"

"Good night, David!"