quote:

---

Because the Bible preaches hate. For every one verse about God's mercy, love, compassion, etc., there are two verses about His vengeance, hatred, wrath, etc. The maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely preachers of today's society are damning this nation and this world to hell. They are telling you what you want to hear rather than what you need to hear, just like what happened in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah: "That this [is] a rebellious people, lying children, children [that] will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us." Isaiah 30:9-11; "Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart." Jeremiah 14:14; "They have healed also the hurt [of the daughter] of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when [there is] no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time [that] I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the LORD." Jeremiah 6:14-15. And also in the New Testament we are warned: "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." I Timothy 1:11-13; "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." II Peter 2:1,2. What you need to hear is that God hates people, and that your chances of going to heaven are nonexistent, unless you repent. What you need to hear is a little fire and brimstone preaching, like Jesus preached. What you don't need to hear is that you're okay just the way you are, and God accepts everyone without exception. Don't listen to the money-grubbing heretic who stands at the front of your church. Listen to God. If you are one of His elect, you'll hear

---

quote:

---

I trust Mephi and I agree with Jewgrass.

---

Cool stuff. That means a lot. My thought was sort of along the lines of Jewgrass. I didn't want to see this ENTIRE thread go up in smoke for the cause of a word. This is something that needs to be discussed...for real. I've discussed GodHatesFags with atheists. It is a subject.


She also asked:

quote:

---

Mephi, does the title of the thread need to stay the same? I fear what it would say to someone coming across this board for the first time.

---

As it stands, I personally don't see anything wrong with it. It was clear to me that the post title implied a QUESTIONER'S perspective about the ideology implied in the name. Moreover, if one is aware that this is the FORMAL NAME of a group, then the offense may be even more lessened. (See the question mark at the end. Perhaps it would have been more obvious if Triskal had done something like "God Hates Fags"?: Is This for Real?) But if someone were to be offended by the mere label, then it ultimately really wouldn't matter if it were just in the subject line or in the message too. Think about it. The group's name could have been "God Hates Crackers" or anything like that. What would we do? Refuse to use the formal name of the group JUST BECAUSE it had a racial slur in it? Are we to censor the writings of certain groups that we want to analyze to the point of obscurity just so that our sensibilities may remain intact? That seems overly prudish to me. Going further. Does it even make sense to do something like that when we would ALL know what was being said anyway? To me, it's like when anyone here on this board uses characters to blank out certain words (f&$@ing, a$$, etc) Are we fooling anyone? Heck, no. We all KNOW what's being said. We only do this as a matter of convention (an arguably silly one, at that) We are grown ups and we can deal with that, I think. It'd have been a TOTALLY different thing if Triskal had continued to use derogatory terms in an manner demonstrating that his specific INTENT is to exploit the pejorative nature of the word. Now we'd have a problem.


Chance, homie. YOU seem to be guilty of this with that "homo" stuff. You know that, right? Hmmm...


Need to give another example of my thinking. In a post that I made a while ago, I used the words "nigger", "cracker", and "spic", all of which racial slurs. To my knowledge, no one made any fuss about it to me or Adiaphora. And I think that I know at least some of the reason why. Because of my CONTEXT. It was clear that I was not belittling anyone. I was citing what I had seen and heard. I think Triskal's post deserves the same type of leniency that I had.

Here's my reasoning. I vote the thread AND it's title stay.

quote:

---

I don't think the thread title gives enough room to put it in context, either. What if you were driving down the road and see a billboard that says, "GodHatesNiggers"? with a web address attached. Even if there were additional info suggesting the billboard was against said group, wouldn't the word itself, used as a title, burn into your brain in a negative way? Wouldn't you hate that people were driving past this and some would get the context but many would read the opposite, and would never go any further to check it out?

---

I don't want to go to far afield from Triskal's important topic...but...check it out...

GodHatesNiggers.

GodHatesNiggers!

GodHatesNiggers?

"GodHatesNiggers"?

Maybe it's just me...but the question mark makes a HUGE difference. Punctuation nuances can be very powerful...perhaps more powerful than you are acknowledging. From more ambiguity of purpose to less. Sure the phrase would give me a clear indication of SOME type of negativity involved. But that wouldn't mean that I'd be so ticked or offended that I wouldn't check out the site. Honestly, if some people are sufficiently sensitive to the point where merely the phrase itself is SO PAINFUL to an individual that they cannot continue to pursue the topic, would said people even really be able to read the subject matter ABOUT the topic? I really don't think so.

But I see where you are coming from. Better safe than sorry, right?

Mad love, queenie!



PS: I hate that I even have to do this...but I certainly HOPE that no one is getting offended by my use of the "N" word. Oy friggin vay...

PSS: No more digression from me, Triskal. Promise!

quote:

---

Of course not! For, if we follow (as we ought) the example of our Saviour and the clear commandment of God, we would not dare to do so.

To clarify, consider what the Saviour said in John 17. After stating at length how God pre-selected a few out of the world to give to Jesus, it comes to verse 9 which states unequivocally "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou has given me; for they are thine." To the extent that we are ever instructed to pray for any other than those who make a profession to this faith, it is in recognition that they may be God's elect who have not yet received the call to grace. Hence, we are instructed to "pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:44). We know that, as with Saul of Tarsus, we could find among the enemy one who has grace.

More telling on the subject, however, is the events immediately prior to the destruction by God of the nation of Israel told of in Jeremiah. Throughout the detailed accounts of the abominations of that nation, God repeatedly tells his prophet "pray not thou for this people" (Jeremiah 7:16; 11:14; 14:11). Then, as if to put the instruction into the hyperbolic range, God pronounces the futility of such prayer by saying "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people." (Jeremiah 15:1). You simply cannot read the accounts given throughout the scriptures without recognizing that those who are clearly condemned of God are beyond any hope of intervention by prayer.

To bring the point into focus, consider the pronouncements of God that He has thrice given sodomites "up to uncleanness" (Romans 1:24), "up unto vile affections" (Romans 1:26), and "over to a reprobate mind" (Romans 1:28). What arrogance would we display to pretend we could pray them back into the good grace of Him who has given them up?

---

quote:

---

We use the word "fag" as a contraction of the word "faggot" or "fagot." A "fag" is a firebrand. A "fag" is used for kindling - it fuels fire. "Fag" is a metaphor used in the Bible, for example, in Amos 4:11 (where it is translated "firebrand" in the KJV). Just as a "fag" fuels the fires of nature, so does a sodomite fuel the fires of God's wrath. We do not use the word "fag" in order to engage in childish name-calling. Rather, we use it because it is a metaphor chosen by the Holy Ghost to describe a group of people who BURN in their lust one toward another, and who FUEL God's wrath.

---

In His Grip,
Matt


P.S. Mephi, your digression was sorely needed. Thank you for your help in defending what I believed to be an accurate portrayel of the discussion topic. Digress all you want if you feel the need.

"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28

Edited by - Triskal on 11/27/2001 12:15:32 PM

quote:

---

Would it really be so hard to agree not to use the words fag or nigger or such in the TITLES OF OUR THREADS? It actually upset me a little just to write that sentence!

---

Ask yourself a question, Semeia. Would it matter if Triskal were to have NOT placed his title...but used the "God Hates Fags" term and "fag" term extensively in his post? Would you STILL not have had problems?

I think you WOULD have. I think that it would have mattered to you very much...which is the point I tried to make in my earlier post. If people are so sensitive to the point that they wouldn't even be able to get PAST the title, then why would anyone think that they would have the gumption to even really deal with the meaty issues inside?


I will answer your 2nd question to Triskal:

quote:

---

2) Is there a compelling reason to use such a charged, rather hateful word in the title, which any new person browsing the board may stumble across and misunderstand and be hurt?

---

Yes. A good title often gives a hint of what will be dealt with in a post...including the controversial nature of the same. I believe that Triskal stated this in so many words. NOT to mention that it's the name of the organization.

But, hey. I can disagree agreeably.



PS: Triskal, I say we just change the friggin title name and be done with it. As long as the subject matter and thread itself is kept. For the sake of getting to the meat of the GodHatesFags issue. Be appeased, sensitive ones! (teehee) And let's get raw as all get out in the actual posts. Whaddaya say?

quote:

---

She also said:

quote:

---

Homosexuals have been attacked, shamed, and condemned by Christians for eons. It seems to me that to repair the damage we may need a little extra sensitivity, rather than a little less.

---

That doesn't lend itself at ALL to being "pc", now does it? All I'm saying is that we have to be careful with this type of thinking.

---