From Catholic Online:

This past Sunday, during a Worship Service at the Church, a group of loud and intentionally disruptive homosexual activists stood outside of the sanctuary of Mount Hope dressed in strange pink attire. Using megaphones for amplification, they shouted epithets at those entering the service such as "Jesus is a homo".They also mockingly carried an upside down pink cross.

Reports filed with the Eaton County Sheriff’s office indicate that other demonstrators had staged a further action intended to disrupt the Sunday Worship at Mount Hope. Dressed in clothing which would not have indicated their intention, they entered into the sanctuary and were seated with the community. Then, in an orchestrated manner, they left their seats, pulled fire alarms, distributed anti-Christian literature and stormed the Pastor’s pulpit waving a rainbow colored flag and shouting "It’s Okay To Be Gay! Bash Back". 

 

Update  - local coverage from the Lansing State Journal:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081 112/NEWS01/811120369/1001/NEWS

Comments

Search

holmegm   |2008-11-12 13:50:57 What I haven't seen in any of the stories is any detail about the reactions of the pastor or the congregation. I just can't imagine.

Entity   |2008-11-12 14:17:59 You've seen stories on this? The Detroit Free Press buried this and the Detroit News doesn't even have an article on this.

holmegm  - re:   |2008-11-13 06:50:08 Entity wrote: You've seen stories on this? The Detroit Free Press buried this and the Detroit News doesn't even have an article on this. Lansing State Journal had one, I think.

holmegm  - Mainstream news story   |2008-11-13 11:45:08 Here 'tis: Gay rights protesters disrupt Sunday service http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/2008...

Entity   |2008-11-13 13:23:06 I just did a google search and could not find a single AP story on this. The AP website didn't generate anything either. Many of the articles appear to be very watered down. Others make claims that these activists pushed women and children to get to places where to hang their banners and that two of them were removed an hour afterward from a church bathroom where children could have walked in on them.

holmegm   |2008-11-13 13:46:15 Yep; mostly blogs and a couple TV stations: http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=mn&ncl=1269394...

Entity   |2008-11-13 14:36:05 I just talked to someone who is a member of a satellite church of Mount Hope and found out that the outside protesters were there to distract the ushers/security so that the inside protesters could get in and get set up.

wezlo   |2008-11-13 11:21:59 They're too busy covering the vilification of the Mormons in CA I guess. I am surprised that this wasn't covered. That story is an ad salesperson's dream come true.

laika  - Making Friends   |2008-11-12 17:49:30 yeah, those kinds of tactics are really gonna win sympathy for your cause. politically brilliant!

Carol   |2008-11-12 19:09:21 WOW, it wasn't in the news media that I read or watch on tv. First I heard about it. I know people that go to this church, as it's in the county next to me. We'll be praying for them.

emperorbma  - The slogan: "Jesus was gay" is anti-Christian   |2008-11-12 20:11:58 This is blasphemy... (and let's hope to God it isn't Sparta) As Paul said, if Christ is not risen we are still dead in our sins. (1 Corinthians 15:14) However, if Christ was a sinner, so we are also still dead in our sins because: "For our sake [God] made [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in [Christ] we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21) So, since it says that "if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them," (Leviticus 20:13) that means the homosexuals' claim here literally denies the Salvation of Christ. If Christ was homosexual, then all are still dead in sin for it is only a sinless Christ that can work the forgiveness of sins for all and homosexuality is contrary to God's Law. In effect, then, no true Christian can concur and no true Christian will ever reckon their Savior homosexual because it literally cannot work in a manner which keeps them among the saved. The claim that Christ is homosexual is both ignorant of the Word and a denial of Christianity in the worst sort of way. This, friends, is why we cannot support such arguments as were made by these radical homosexuals.  However, let us pray for those in error that they may seek Christ and learn not to blaspheme the Living God. ... and the song says: "Lord keep us steadfast in your Word. Curb those who by deceit or sword would wrest the Kingdom from your Son and bring to naught all He has done."

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-11-13 07:06:47 i agree the whole thing is salacious nonsense, but your logic seems a bit rocky. Are you more convinced that homosexuality is sin than that Christ is God? I know it is a strange hypothetical, but not entirely out of place. (not to mention that you're skimping on the homosexual acts vs. homosexual inclinations bit that has typically defined your view)

emperorbma  - Quick reply...   |2008-11-13 09:41:19 Quote: i agree the whole thing is salacious nonsense, but your logic seems a bit rocky. It seems pretty straightforward to me and I think it is representative of most conservative Christians' stance on this issue Quote: Are you more convinced that homosexuality is sin than that Christ is God? I know it is a strange hypothetical, but not entirely out of place. It's the other way around. I'm already fully convinced that Christ is God. That is why I believe He cannot have been homosexual. My logic is as follows: It is clear that Christ, being God in flesh manifest, is inherently without sin.  However, I think God's Word is unambiguous in maintaining that homosexuality is sin. Therefore, it would be an inconsistency in God Himself which is, by Scripture's own teaching, impossible.... "God cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:13) Quote: (not to mention that you're skimping on the homosexual acts vs. homosexual inclinations bit that has typically defined your view) That's an unknown, although I'm inclined to think that as the Bridegroom, His purpose and inclinations are not the same as most human sexuality.

emperorbma  - Further dissection...   |2008-11-13 10:06:43 I should extend this, lest I be accused of using circular reasoning by since it might be suggested "Christ is without sin because He is God" may be made circular by using the implied inverse thesis that "He is God because He is without sin" as a part of the proof. The latter is actually not true and it was not the proof that the Bible used to demonstrate Christ's sinlessness. In effect, saying Christ is God because He was without sin would be like saying because Christ was an unusually good man, God conferred Divinity to Him. That seems like covert adoptionism to me. That's probably because the Law's purpose is not to save but to show our sins... our redemption is in Christ alone. It seems the authors of Scripture already had a handle on the distinction between Law and Gospel long before Lutherans formalized it. The Bible itself used the resurrection of Christ as well as the testimony of the Holy Spirit to demonstrate Christ's Divinity. As it was written above, "if Christ is not risen, your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14) It continues later "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:17) Therefore, the entire crux of his argument for faith is that Christ is risen from the dead. The argument was not rooted in morality, but the morality was proven from God's own act. However, to continue the train of my logic: Because God cannot be inconsistent with Himself, (2 Timothy 2:13) Christ must also be without sin and this is demonstrated when Paul says "For our sake [God] made [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in [Christ] we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21)  Thusly, it is impossible that Christ is homosexual or else God is inconsistent with Himself. There is a definite chain of logic, although God is by no means bound to the limits of human reason, in Scripture. As such, the proof of the sinlessness of Christ roots not in the assertion itself but in the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the Resurrection of Christ from the dead. [... and, yes, my stream of thought has evolved a bit through the making of this post. It's pretty clear now that saying the inverse statement that "Christ is God because He had no sin" is actually doctrinally unsound! I'm glad that wasn't what I was saying, at any rate, because it's certainly quite freaky theology.]

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-11-13 21:16:17 again this is more of a hypothetical and thereby not super-pertinent, but I'm still a bit curious. The development I'm seeing is that your crux is more scriptural infallibility than homosexuality per se. If Scripture were not infallible would you still believe Christ is God?

emperorbma   |2008-11-17 09:01:36 Well, I kind of answered this in a roundabout way when I said "[t]he Bible itself used the resurrection of Christ as well as the testimony of the Holy Spirit to demonstrate Christ's Divinity." I think I may need to make it clearer, though. The Bible isn't relying on itself as the authority for its teaching but rather on the reality of God's own work. The resurrection is the physical proof and the testimony of the Holy Spirit is the real crux of this matter. Scripture is infallible, not because it claims to be infallible, but because it is inspired by the very Spirit of God Himself to reveal the truth of His Salvation to all. In effect, apart from the work of the Holy Ghost, the Scripture is merely just another book like any other. The Holy Spirit is absolutely and unavoidably necessary both as the original revealer of Scripture as well as for those called by God's grace to even be able to understand and interpret Scripture faithfully. When the Word is preached, it is not merely an empty word but it carries also the Holy Spirit along with it. Not only the Holy Spirit, but through Him we are united into Christ. Likewise, apart from faith in Christ, Scripture is a "closed book."  Christ is the true heart of the Scripture. Apart from the Spirit, at best one may find some sage advice and at worst a book of meaningless gibberish. The Holy Spirit actually creates and establishes that faith and faith receives God's grace. The issue isn't so much that I wouldn't believe that Christ is God apart from the Scripture's infallibility but rather that I believe Scripture is infallible because it reveals that Christ is God as the Holy Spirit intends it to. The infallibility of Scripture is inextricably linked to the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the honesty of God Himself. It is impossible for God to lie because it is impossible for God to deny Himself. In effect, if Scripture is considered fallible, as a lying document is, then it calls into question the very honesty of God Himself. I don't mean people merely misunderstanding Scripture, which is possible because of free will and human error, but it is impossible that Scripture is actually declaring falsehoods in God's Name because the Scriptural testimony also carries His Spirit. That is why Scripture is considered the norm of doctrine. It isn't because we can use it to scientifically prove God's truth but because it is the means by which the Spirit actually reveals God's grace to us. An interesting fact is that the Bible never actually proves the existence of God... rather, it seems to be considered self-evident that God really is there in Scripture and that Scripture is His testimony. Why is this? After all, we ourselves can't even prove to every unbeliever or else atheism would not exist. I can only suggest that the claim of sola Scriptura only works with in the context of the reality of the work of the Holy Spirit and the reality of the Cross. In short, it is yet another sign of God's work in the world through the Word and Sacrament.  [... or rather, this topic is the whole raison d'etre of Word and Sacrament.]

emperorbma   |2008-11-17 09:13:36 [This leads me to a useful aside, since this is a similar topic:] ... and with all this, is it any wonder that the "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" is such a grave offense? It undermines the very office by which God brings us to Salvation, not that it's a particularly more grave sin than any other. No true Christian can commit this, because no Christian is an unbeliever who vehemently assails the work and the Word of God. God's grace is freely given to all, but only received by those who keep the faith that He establishes and not even all unbelievers have committed the Blasphemy of the Spirit! Only those which persistently remain in hostile unbelief despite knowing the truth. Even in the unbeliever, God's grace continues to work to bring to Salvation. Thus, of the unwilling God makes willing. Even so, some will resist His work and some still do so in a manner which seeks to drive even faithful hearts away. That's the gravity of the offence that Christ was warning the Pharisees about. What's more, the Blasphemy of the Spirit can only be known for certain when a person dies in such a state of hostile unbelief, for God's grace may yet bring them to repent when they are alive. As was said above, God makes of the unwilling willing. Yet after death, they are as the virgins without oil in their lamps. It is clear that if they have committed it, however, they will maintain such a state quite vehemently into eternity as they have deliberately undermined the work of the very author of all true repentance in their own heart... The work of grace and faith are all an intricate tapestry rooted in the work of each person of the Holy Trinity and Scripture provides the unifying testimony. The order is, as I have said before, important: Grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone. This order and none other will suffice.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-11-17 09:27:11 but you're still being a bit circular. Where is the claim that scripture is infallibly inspired? God's not a liar if he never says that this is infallibly inspired (nor does, for that matter, inspiration requisite infallibility). All of the above argument hinges on a prior assumption that scripture must be perfectly and infallibly inspired. I can hypothetically believe firmly in the infallibility and truth of God, and not of scripture, and you haven't demonstrated, logically, why that can't be the case.

emperorbma   |2008-11-17 16:32:33 You're quite right that Scripture doesn't explicitly say "Scripture is infallible."  In fact, the term would be anachronistic because it the term describes an observation of the Church with regards to the purpose of Scripture and its role is in Salvation. The reason why there is a debate on the matter at all is because no one has a consistently accepted definition of "infallibility" and what it means. No one who is a faithful Christian, however, would call the Bible a pack of lies meant to deceive people away from Christ. Some think infallibility of Scripture means that Scripture must be an accurate scientific treatise of all things. I don't concur with this viewpoint. Others think that infallibility is with respect to its Divinely inspired purpose, which is the view that I take.  Therefore, we must ask ourselves what that purpose is... It is written in Luke 1:3:4, "it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." The purpose of Scripture is that we may be certain that Jesus is Lord. It is a part of the confirming ministry of the Holy Spirit that reveals who Christ is. If we do not have faith that Jesus is Lord then the Scripture itself is voided of its truest and most central meaning and is, quite reasonably, considered "just another book." However, for the Christian it is the doctrinal bulwark and anchor that firmly roots us in the Salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ. A good example of this is seen in Christ's own ministry: Quote: John 10:33-38 The Jews answered him, It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your Law, I said, you are gods? (Psalm 82:6) If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, You are blaspheming, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. From the mouth of Christ Himself, the "Scripture cannot be broken." Yet, its truth did not rest in its own assertions but in the work and person of Jesus Christ Himself as He fulfills His Father's Will. The only way that Scripture may be used in an infallible manner is if it is an anchor to the infallibility of God Himself. The Scripture is only fulfilled in the work and person of Jesus Christ and through the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Thusly, if we say we have faith in Christ, but do not have faith that the Scripture declares truthfully who He is, then on what basis do we make this claim and how may we be certain of its truth? The Word of God exists as a means of grace by which God creates and sustains saving faith in us. Without it, on what basis do we believe? Indeed, it is also written: "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (Romans 10:17) The Scripture, then, is nothing less than the unchanging Word of Christ as revealed by the Holy Spirit to those who were inspired to write it down. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says "no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." It wasn't an "automatic dictation machine," though, and God used the writing styles and personalities of those whom He chose to inspire as well. In a way, I'm not really sure if anyone could demonstrate this logically. Rather, it is entirely rooted in the faith that we proclaim and inseparable from it. Basically, if we undermine Scriptural authority we also undermine Christ Himself.  Scriptural infallibility, in many ways, is the same as the doctrine of the Trinity... something which we can see being declared in Scripture but that isn't spelled out for us in black and white.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-11-17 21:54:48 emperorbma wrote: Thusly, if we say we have faith in Christ, but do not have faith that the Scripture declares truthfully who He is, then on what basis do we make this claim and how may we be certain of its truth? The Word of God exists as a means of grace by which God creates and sustains saving faith in us. Without it, on what basis do we believe? By the same means the patriarchs used. By the same means the evangelists knew and testified to.  By the same means that countless people of all nations have turned to God. By the only means we can approach God. By God Himself, His Word and His Spirit. Without the direction of Whom any attempt at reading Scripture is made foolish. We know God only through God. He may use Scriptures to aid us, but by no means must or does exclusively. Should also say authority and infallibility are different coins altogether. To the extent that Scripture is true, if we undermine it we undermine Christ who is Truth, but rejecting untruth by no means undermines Christ. Your logic keeps starting from Scripture must be true rather than Christ must be true (not saying that's what you believe but that's how your reasoning keeps appearing).

emperorbma   |2008-11-17 23:35:59 Quote: emperorbma wrote: ... the Holy Spirit is the real crux of this matter. [...] The Word of God exists as a means of grace by which God creates and sustains saving faith in us. Without it, on what basis do we believe? ... By God Himself, His Word and His Spirit. I said that already, though. How would one believe apart from that work, however? That would be impossible. Quote: Should also say authority and infallibility are different coins altogether. You see, I think the issue here is that you are somehow distinguishing Scripture from the work of the Spirit and of Christ Himself. I don't really make the same distinction between living and written Word that you seem to be. I'm not saying the Bible is a mini-Jesus, but rather that its doctrine, teaching and message comes from Christ Himself. The "written Word" is a conduit of the Living Word by the power of the Holy Spirit. (i.e. "it is impossible to faithfully understand Scripture apart from the work of the Holy Spirit.") After all, is not the same Word of God responsible for the creation of light from nothing when God said "let there be light?" In a sense, Scripture basically serves as the point of Divine self-revelation to the entire Church for all generations. It is the unchanging norm of doctrine and faith through which God establishes His Church. As Christ is the cornerstone, Scripture is the anchor that ties us to Him. In a sense, the only true doctrine of Scripture is that of Christ Himself. As humans, we are all fallible and have to rely on limited and imperfect interpretations which are guided by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit, but no interpretation actually replaces the message of Christ Himself. Rather, our fallible doctrines and interpretations represent, at best, "faithful and true interpretations" which His Spirit guided us toward. In that vein, that is what I consider authoritative teaching... that which is "faithful and true" to Christ's own message (i.e. the Scripture). As I see it, being Lutheran, that "doctrinal corpus" and symbol of the faith is the Book of Concord. For the Eastern Orthodox it is probably the traditions of the Church Fathers...

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2008-11-18 15:17:04 agh, I typed a nice response and then it died. first point of clarification, when I said "His Word" I meant Christ, not scripture (I'm uncomfortable about confusing the two). It is certainly possible to come to christ without scripture, scripture itself attest to the fact plentifully. Emperor wrote: It is the unchanging norm of doctrine and faith through which God establishes His Church. How can this be? The church preexists scripture. How can scripture establish the church? I think you've reversed it a bit.  Scripture is a product of the Church through Christ, not the church is a product of Scripture through Christ. Furthermore, I think "unchanging" is an interesting descriptor given the canonization processes as well as the malleability and range before and after (including some of the adjustments Luther himself considered.)

emperorbma   |2008-11-18 16:36:15 Quote: agh, I typed a nice response and then it died. Yeah, I share in your frustration. That has happened to me before. Quote: first point of clarification, when I said "His Word" I meant Christ, not scripture (I'm uncomfortable about confusing the two). Yes, I know this. That's kind of what keyed me into what the issue might be. Quote: It is certainly possible to come to christ without scripture, scripture itself attest to the fact plentifully. But that's just it, I never actually said a person could only come to faith only through Bible-thumping. In fact, even Dr. Martin Luther himself noted that "God writes the Gospel, not in the Bible alone, but also on trees, and the flowers and the clouds and stars." If that is so, it would be rather inconsistent to say that Scripture was the only Divine revelation. The point of sola Scriptura, however, is that no true Christian teaching or faith will ever be able to genuinely contradict or disagree with Scripture. It means that no tradition of any man or Church can replace Scriptural teaching nor undermine what Scripture itself teaches because it represents the work of the Holy Spirit. If it does, it is no longer Christian because it has essentially rejected the Spirit that has established it. Quote: How can this be? The church preexists scripture. How can scripture establish the church? I think you've reversed it a bit. Scripture is a product of the Church through Christ, not the church is a product of Scripture through Christ. The thing is, the Apostles themselves refer to Scripture. Obviously, it isn't the full Canon that has been accepted today but it is certainly an attitude that Christ is the fulfillment of Scripture. Quote: Furthermore, I think "unchanging" is an interesting descriptor given the canonization processes as well as the malleability and range before and after (including some of the adjustments Luther himself considered.) The Bible, in terms of sola Scriptura, represents the authoritative doctrinal norm for the Christian faith in its pure, God-inspired form. However, it does not mean that it is the only source of Divinely inspired truth. Rather, it is only the normative source. This is why we have many books and creeds that expand and clarify the teaching of Scripture for the believer. See, even being sola Scriptura is not saying that we have to prove our faith through Scriptural syllogism. However, a true faith will accurately reflect the Scriptural syllogisms that are presented in the doctrinal corpus espoused. Quote: How can this be? The church preexists scripture. How can scripture establish the church? Not exactly. Even the Apostles themselves specifically referred to Scripture. I grant that it wasn't the comprehensive Old/New Testament framework of today but, rather the Tanakh, but the point is clear that even then the Apostles considered Christ to be the fulfillment of Scriptural teaching. Many of the Apostles' works were recognized as also being Scriptural in authority. In a way, the book is kind of open here. Lutherans technically do not have a closed canon, although it is highly unlikely that we will expand it. The thing of the matter is that, to some extent, even the preaching of a Pastor on Sunday carries some degree of Divine inspiration.  With that said, no matter how good a sermon on Sunday is, it still isn't going to warrant canonization and Scripture is already complete for the purposes of Salvation. What is also clear, however, is that Divine inspiration will never contradict Divine inspiration. There is the core principle being espoused here, however... We know for a fact that Scripture is inspired... however, we don't know that a Pastor hasn't made a mistake in preparing a sermon or become a turncoat against the Cross. The principle of sola Scriptura is as much insurance as it is a part of our blessed assurance. The Popes criticized the Reformation on the authority of their institution, not on the basis of God's own inspired dogma.  That is the fatal flaw that we have always rejected as Protestants. That is what we mean when we say that a regular believer armed with a Bible is far more powerful than any Pope without one. If a Pope is armed with the Bible, then insofar as he remains faithful to it he may well be considered a true teacher. Of course, as a Lutheran I think the office of the Papacy itself, by its very definition is contradictory to Scripture. Even so, it is not a total preclusion of Popes espousing genuine Christian dogma. In effect, at the point of deviation from Scripture, we favor the Word of God that we know for a fact to be God's Word over the presumption of a man to claim to be God's only representative. Scripture basically trumps any preacher contradicting it because Scripture is, without any shadow of a doubt, inspired by God Himself. In fact, the same also applies to the believer. If the [former] believer deviates from Scripture, than anyone with Scripture on their side is superior doctrinally.  In fact, on the basis of his rhetoric, Luther also feared his own self as much as any Pope. Likewise, it's not that Lutherans think Luther was incapable of error because God knows he was. Rather, it is because we think that, by God's grace, he didn't err in faithfully teaching and restoring the Gospel's true message. That is the veneration and respect that is afforded to the Protestant Reformers; not an authority like that of Popes as some may accuse. (... and I'm not saying you did. Rather, I am thinking about some Catholic apologists I have read) Quote: I think you've reversed it a bit. Scripture is a product of the Church through Christ, not the church is a product of Scripture through Christ. Furthermore, I think "unchanging" is an interesting descriptor given the canonization processes as well as the malleability and range before and after (including some of the adjustments Luther himself considered.) The thing is, there may well be variation in some of the ways Scripture is translated but the point of "unchanging" is that the Holy Spirit Himself has preserved the core and essential meaning of Scripture from decay. Even if someone had attempted to corrupt it, the core principle of God the Savior and Redeemer, through the Messiah, remains untainted because the Holy Spirit has preserved it.

PinocchiosFurniture  - Nut Cases   |2008-11-12 22:14:59 "Bash Back" is apparantly a small bunch of radical anti-capitalist, anarchist, homosexuals who even most "mainstream" homosexuals denounce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bash_Bac k But then again, so too, is Bill Donahue and his "Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights"...who few mainstream Catholics support. The point is that the actions of "Bash Back" should not be taken any more seriously to represent sincere and sensible gay rights activists who lobby peaceably for civil change any more than Bill Donahue should be taken seriously as a true spokesman for sincere and sensible Roman Catholics looking to promote the faith.

laika   |2008-11-12 23:52:30 PinocchiosFurniture wrote: "Bash Back" is apparantly a small bunch of radical anti-capitalist, anarchist, homosexuals who even most "mainstream" homosexuals denounce. i have no idea what a mainstream homosexual is, but Bash Back sounds more like Fred Phelps than the Pope of Ave Sharia, don't you think?

emperorbma   |2008-11-13 00:07:39 Quote: Ave Sharia nandeska? [trans: What's that?]

Entity   |2008-11-13 08:58:21 Bash Back sounds more like Fred Phelps Has Fred Phelps ever interrupted a gathering of homosexuals in this manner? I know he is offensive, but I think his protests take place outside the building and do not involve vandalism.

wezlo   |2008-11-13 16:07:19 I think the Fred Phelps similarities are perfect.

laika  - re:   |2008-11-13 00:35:41 emperorbma wrote: Quote: Ave Sharia nandeska? [trans: What's that?] the RC theme town of Ave Maria down in South Florida that the pizza guy is building. he wants so many restrictions and it sounds so Stepfordian that people refer to it as Ave Sharia. get it?

emperorbma   |2008-11-13 08:33:58 Ah...

wezlo  - Great...   |2008-11-13 11:27:26 You know, rather than calling for investigations and issuing press releases complaining about gay fascists it would be nice if perhaps people might issue a press release saying, "You know you hate us, but we forgive you." And cease all further action except ways to make that forgiveness tangible.

holmegm  - re: Great...   |2008-11-13 12:15:53 wezlo wrote: You know, rather than calling for investigations and issuing press releases complaining about gay fascists it would be nice if perhaps people might issue a press release saying, "You know you hate us, but we forgive you." And cease all further action except ways to make that forgiveness tangible. Well, this one blog (which I know nothing about, BTW) claims: Michigan liberals attack Lansing congregation i... RightMichigan wrote: The church's response? After things settled down, the blasphemy ended, the lewd props removed and the families safe from fear of additional men and women running into and past them the pastor took the stage and led the congregation in one more prayer... not for retribution, or divine justice or a celestial comeuppance (that's what I'd have prayed for) but instead that the troubled individuals who'd just defiled the Lord's house, so full of anger and hate, would know Jesus' love in their lives and God's peace that exceeds human understanding.

wezlo   |2008-11-13 16:05:49 That's not bad...

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."