CHRISTIAN COMIC ARTS SOCIETY :: A NETWORK OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP FOR COMICS FANS, PROS, AND AMATEURS

Forum

Westboro Baptist Church hates "nerds" too.

Posted by David Duarte on July 15, 2010 at 4:43pm in GENERALMISC

http://kotaku.com/5588292/hate-church-targets-comic+con

And heres what the church has to say about the San Diego comic con on their schedule, where they plan to protest July 22 from 1:15pm to 2:00pm on their website:

"San Diego Convention Center 111 W Harbor Dr. WBC to picket Comic Con 2010 at the San Diego Convention Center. Are you kidding?! If these people would spend even some of the energy that they spend on these comic books, reading the Bible, well no high hopes here. They have turned comic book characters into idols, and worship them they do! Isaiah 2:8 Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made: 9 And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not. It is time to put away the silly vanities and turn to God like you mean it. The destruction of this nation is imminent - so start calling on Batman and Superman now, see if they can pull you from the mess that you have created with all your silly idolatry."


If any of you plan to go to the San Diego comic con on the 22nd, expect to see some of them there. Is it possible to show the protestors the truth? Or best to just leave them alone??

 

You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!

Join CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society

Tags: baptist, church, hates, nerds, too, westboro
Email me when people reply –
Follow

Replies

  • Sven Jacobs January 11, 2011 at 12:01pm

    Lee, you have a tendency, at least within this response, to make conclusions about my claims without any lead up to those conclusions. No explanations. You'll have to forgive me if I don't defend myself from a conclusion made when I'm not entirely sure what the points are that lead you there. I'm not one for attacking (or defending against) islands without first knowing how to get to them. As such, I will just simply say you are wrong each time you are. I cannot be expected to oppose your line of reasoning if, after all, there isn't a line in the first place. Take your first few bold-faced points as examples:

    You're a Calvanist AND a naturalistic determinist?!  Your take on material determinism makes the Spirit subject to the flesh, and (appears to) make God the author of evil! 

    Nothing I said necessitates that at all.

    Additionally, you are basing your conclusions on your limited understanding of science's (man's) limited understanding of the workings of the physical universe (and at the expense of what the Word tells us).  What I see you doing is reasoning from yourself rather than reasoning from the scriptures.

    I am not.

    There is no good and/or evil in your world (not in a true sense) - only the "is" of everything. 

    Not true.

    Even speaking from a purely-physical-cause-and-effect perspective, all it would take would be for man to be able to nudge one electron in a new direction by way of some thought that is generated from within to demolish determinism. 

    That is all it would take. And all it would take for a man to be dead is to shoot him. And all it would take for the Earth to discontinue revolving around the Sun is to get pushed out of orbit. And all it would take for the law of gravity not to be true is for it not to be true. I don't understand the point being made here, no doubt because I am ignorant. 

    We do better if we quit looking for the version of the world that can only exist on our lab table -- fully observable and fully explainable from man's vantage point.  The truth is not there.

    I made no claim to naturalism. 

    We have a mind -- the bible says it. 

    I do not deny the mind.

    We are called to make choices -- the bible calls for it. There is no love, no responsibility, no will, no forgiveness, etc., etc., in your view -- not without changing the meanings of those words, Sven.  Since all of those require choice and you have said all choice is an "illusion", we're just tinker toys -- robots.

    I did not say choice was an illusion. 

    Why would God ever, ever, ever use the word "if" when speaking to man in the Sven-World?  "If" you absolutely know what another is going to do, and there is absolutely nothing the other person can do to change what they are going to do, "then" there is absolutely no sense in saying to them, "if you do this, then that".  And "if" you should say your "if" is the means of getting them to do the next thing, well, "then" "that" is a very, very sad and lonely game you would be playing.  A sad and pathetic game you seem to be saying God is playing.

    God told Moses to tell Pharoah to let His people go, and that IF HE DIDN'T, HE WOULD INCUR THE WRATH OF GOD. God ALSO told Moses that Pharoah would not heed His injunctions. So how is this any different?

     

     

     

    WITH LOVE,

    Sven

  • Calvary Comics January 11, 2011 at 11:07am

    I think the answer is so simple that a born again child can grasp it.  Too much intellectualizing.  Both "camps" have some points right and wrong.  "He who has the Son has the Father also."  That's the real issue, salvation in Christ.  If we obey His revealed will in the Scriptures and put it into daily practice, the Holy Spirit will give illumination.  "Knowledge is the fear of the Lord, and understanding is to turn away from evil."  Show me a believer who lacks understanding in a spiritual matter, including myself, and I'll show you a believer who hasn't (yet) turned away from evil (secular media offer a large variety of it) which is clouding his/her discernment. 

     

    Calvinists have to ignore certain verses in order for their tenets to work, and so do Arminians.  They're two sides of the same mountain, but they're selective in their views.  The mountain, in this case, is the Word of God.  George Whitefield (a Calvinist) and John Wesley (an Arminian) were both great soul winners and close friends in the 18th century.  Now they have perfect understanding in Christ, and by and by we shall join them in glory.  Still, it is heartening to see that their doctrinal differences didn't sever their earthly fellowship, because these weren't core (non-negotiable) doctrines, and they both bore good fruit in their lives.

     

    As for Fred Phelps, he is a hateful cult leader who needs to be born again.  A very sad case.

     

    Agape in Christ,

     

    Alec    

    The Cardinal said:

     

    I really doubt the Arminian Vs. Calvinist views will be settled while we're all still here on Earth.  The Lord will settle it once and for all in Eternity.  But the real question may be:  can we comprehend the answer or will it be beyond the bounds of human understanding even then?

  • The Cardinal January 11, 2011 at 10:44am

     

    I really doubt the Arminian Vs. Calvinist views will be settled while we're all still here on Earth.  The Lord will settle it once and for all in Eternity.  But the real question may be:  can we comprehend the answer or will it be beyond the bounds of human understanding even then?

  • Rob Marsh January 10, 2011 at 8:22pm

    Buzz Dixon said:

    Little more on Fred found here.

    This is not a man of God.  This is not a ministry of God.  This is an already sick man making himself sicker thru drug abuse & then passing that sickness of the heart & soul on to his family through tyranny & abuse.

    Absolutely tragic.  Consistent with so many atheists I've known is a simmering hatred directed at a terrible father.  Nate describes his abusive punishments and how, "He claimed that this punishment was done out of love for his children; yet as he beat us, he’d scream his hatred at us also." 

    Pray for Nate.

  • Lee Weeks January 10, 2011 at 6:37pm

    I've shared this with a few people; last week during a ministry to the homeless I am involved with, two co-ministers independently of one another shared the same thing with me about twenty minutes apart...the reminder that we are to receive the kingdom of God as little children.  When I hear something twice like that (sometimes many more times than twice), I take notice that the Lord is possibly saying something directly to me.

     

    I missed my reading the next morning (Thursday), but on Friday my wife, two girls, and I picked up where we left off two days earlier in the book of Mark.  We read chapter 10, which contains the following passage;

    Mark 10

    13  Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14  But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. 15  Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." 16  And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them.
    ***
    I began to weep openly as I read that last verse.  Messiah's treatment of those little children is how He handles us when we receive the kingdom of God "as a little child".  I'd never seen that in the verse before.  He's showing us how He receives His children -- the physical typing the spiritual.  He takes His children up in His arms, He lays His hands on them ... on us ... and He blesses us.
    ***
    And for those who interfere with the little children coming unto Jesus,  He is "greatly displeased".  I shudder at the weight of that statement, sensing the incredible intensity behind the simple, understated way it's written. 
    ***
    The natural father of children is to be a type of the heavenly Father to them.  Will there be discipline involved?  Of course, but I trust a blind man can see the difference between chastisement that is born from love versus the self-centered, misogynistic, sadism that Fred is foisting on his family. And I pray that the one who can't see will be delivered from whatever might be in their own past that clouds what is so clear otherwise.
    ***
    "And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and BLESSED them."
    ***
    I hope Nate finds his way to a true understanding of God's love for him.  How unfortunate that he's run to embrace the foolishness of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and the like.  For anyone who may have contributed to his stumble, he should consider millstones.
    ***
    One more verse ...
    James 1:20 "for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God."
    ***
    It was very hard to read the plight of the Phelps prisoners ... I became queasy, even.  But I'm glad you posted it, Buzz. 
    ***
    ***
    The Lord bless you
    Lee
  • Ralph Ellis Miley January 10, 2011 at 3:27pm
    How can someone defend a man who praises God at the death of a 9 year girl and the deaths of the elderly?  Then he goes on to imply that God laughs at this tragedy.   
  • Rob Marsh January 10, 2011 at 7:35am
    Buzz Dixon said:I would think it would depend on the meaning of the word translated as "draw" in that verse. i.e., what was the meaning in Aramaic.I'm not dodging the issue here, but pointing to the problems we have with language/culture drift.


    Hey Buzz - I did a little research into the Greek usage in this text, and I think it's really telling into explaining what Christ was talking about in the use of the word "draw" in this text.  I'm no Greek expert, but I do like to tinker with it from time to time, because it reveals such a tremendous richness to the Scripture.  Here's some of what I found:

    John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

    For this verse, TR and GNT use pretty much the same word, "ἑλκύσῃ".  Strong's lists this word G1670 - helkō, as:

    1) to draw, drag off

    2) metaph., to draw by inward power, lead, impel

    I did a search for helkō elsewhere in Scripture, and there are eight other occurrences of this Greek word in Scripture, including passages such as:

     

    John 12:32 - And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me (similar to passage above.  Speaks of God drawing/gathering)


    John 18:10 - Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it (Peter completed the action and grabbed a sword)


    John 21:11 - Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land (Peter did the action, and pulled the net to himself)

     

    In each of these passages,  helkō speaks of an action of the individual drawing someone or something to himself by the effort of the one doing it!  Peter's sword didn't do anything, neither did the fish net.  It was the one doing the action that is credited in the word.

  • Anne Langston January 9, 2011 at 8:11pm
    oh. my.  they're going to picket a nine year old girl's funeral?  Okay, please tell me how that's doing God's work. 

    Buzz Dixon said:

    Let's let Fred speak for himself.

     

     

     

  • Rob Marsh January 6, 2011 at 7:32pm

    Kevin Yong said:

    This has been an interesting discussion, and it's prompted me to to go back through my files and dig up some old comics/articles I wrote for the Alpha-Omega APAzine. I did a tongue-in-cheek series illustrating the "five points of Calvinism" using Julius Schwartz's list of "five Silver Age comic covers that always sell", and I think revisiting that would help me spell out my own understanding of these issues in a little more depth than I can manage in this fascinating yet never-quite-starting-from-the-same-point discussion thread. I'll post a link here if/when I get the comics posted to my blog page.

    Hear Hear!  I remember those illustrations you did, Kevin, and those would be awesome to post here!  They would be perfect for the train of comments here.

    Ah dang, now I'm getting nostalgic for those days of Alpha-Omega again...   :)

  • Rob Marsh January 6, 2011 at 7:30pm
    Rob Marsh said:
    Can the Arminian pray something like this?  Or, if the human will is supreme, how do they pray for the saving faith of an unsaved friend?  Can this be done, and if so, then specifically how?
    Absolutely. Free will doesn't mean that God & His followers are unable to act, just that we are unable to coerce or force a choice. Praying for a friend's conversion means we are asking God to provide the means & opportunities for our friend to make a positive decision for Christ; ultimately, the final choice is our friend's, or else there would be no moral element. A good analogy is Alcoholics Anonymous. They don't force anyone to stop drinking, but they provide means, motive, and opportunity for people to embrace sobriety. Ultimately the final choice is the alcoholic's.

    Hey Buzz - a little late with this, but I did have another thought on this response.  I'm in agreement with you that yes, you can pray for the means for a friend to make a profession of belief in Christ, and indeed I have prayed that God would raise up people in the life of my friend Al who could continue to share the gospel with him.  But the long and short of it is, if I understand correct, that the Aminian can NOT say a prayer of "Holy Spirit, please DRAW my friend Al to salvation", right?  Because the Arminian argument is that the human will ultimately trumps God's sovereign will.

    The problem, though, with this, is how do you get around verses like John 6:44,"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day".  The commentaries on this, particularly the word draw, seem to speak not of gentle "wooing" ("Yoo hoo!  Come on up!") but rather a forceful drawing/grabbing/forcing from death.  When I consider my own sin, it's God working to pull me from death, and not myself being "smart enough" to have figured out how salvation works.
This reply was deleted.