Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is related to the situation of Kim Davis, the Kentucky court clerk who tried to prevent gay marriages and is now sitting in jail. It seems that the Westboro people have a deep hatred for Kim Davis. They said the following on their Twitter account:



Apparently the WBC people are outraged over Kim's four marriages to three different men. Strangely, they are also upset over her violation of her oath.

So what do you think? Is WBC sincere in their preachings or not? I keep vacillating between the two poles but it seems to me that they're as crazy as they seem and they're not faking it.

twitter.com/WBCSaysRepent

Also, they've previously supported Chick-Fil-A over its president's controversial remarks about gay marriage but I don't think that Dan Cathy wants their help.

They're consistent. They don't turn a blind eye towards Kim Davis' transgressions against their religious beliefs, so in this case at least they are certainly not hypocrites.

I am not surprised.

The Westboro Baptist Church has no desire to court allies, they're like the McPoyles from It's Always Sunny--content to be a weird cesspool of strange ideas and inbreeding.

Okay hold on a second, she's been married 4 times, but only to 3 different men. Soo..she got married to a guy, divorced him, and then decided to get married to him again? This is the same woman going to jail to honor her Christian values?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Westboro Baptist Church has no desire to court allies, they're like the McPoyles from It's Always Sunny--content to be a weird cesspool of strange ideas and inbreeding. spot on always sunny reference

I'm glad you're lumping all the Christians together based on one lunatic fringe group (wwe reference), but it makes your point even more ignorant.

Which is another weird thing, why be a Christian and then ignore the teachings of one of THE major figures of the religion?

Hypocrites exist in all forms of life but most people don't make sweeping generalizations.

I wonder how long she will sit in jail before this is over?

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm glad you're lumping all the Christians together based on one lunatic fringe group (wwe reference), but it makes your point even more ignorant.

Your posts typically sound more seething crazy then the WBC.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Your posts typically sound more seething crazy then the WBC.

And your posts show nothing but emotional bias towards the religious groups. It's both sad and amusing.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Hypocrites exist in all forms of life but most people don't make sweeping generalizations.


I don't know, I think you are giving people too much credit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know, I think you are giving people too much credit.

elaborate

Originally posted by psmith81992
elaborate

Like, people make sweeping generalizations all the time...I literally just did in my generalization about people....

I don't generally generalize the general populace, but they are generally generic people.

Generally speaking, of course.

Originally posted by NemeBro
They're consistent. They don't turn a blind eye towards Kim Davis' transgressions against their religious beliefs, so in this case at least they are certainly not hypocrites.

I am not surprised.
Most zealots sre very dedicated, yes.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay hold on a second, she's been married 4 times, but only to 3 different men. Soo..she got married to a guy, divorced him, and then decided to get married to him again? This is the same woman going to jail to honor her Christian values?

Husband 1 divorced her because she was pregnant with twins from Husband 3. She then married Husband 2, who adopted the aforementioned twins. When she and Husband 2 divorced, she married Husband 3, who is the father of the twins. When she and Husband 3 divorced, she remarried Husband 2. Because Jesus.

Wait so not only has she gotten divorced, but she is a skanky ass cheater as well. What a piece of sh*t. I'm guessing her children have also had a whole lot of "uncles" over the years.

Lets just fire this piece of trash and be done with it. Changes need to be made if we can't fire an elected official for refusing to do her job. It just makes the country look insane if we are saying "we can't fire her for not doing her job" but we can put her in prison for not doing her job. Which means we'd rather throw away tax dollars imprisoning this woman as opposed to firing her. No wonder Iran thinks they could defeat us.

Originally posted by Surtur
Wait so not only has she gotten divorced, but she is a skanky ass cheater as well. What a piece of sh*t. I'm guessing her children have also had a whole lot of "uncles" over the years.

Lets just fire this piece of trash and be done with it. Changes need to be made if we can't fire an elected official for refusing to do her job. It just makes the country look insane if we are saying "we can't fire her for not doing her job" but we can put her in prison for not doing her job. Which means we'd rather throw away tax dollars imprisoning this woman as opposed to firing her. No wonder Iran thinks they could defeat us.

1. This country IS insane. If Kim Davis is fired, it'll still BE insane. The two phenomena are mutually exclusive.

2. The"truly conservative Christians" you or someone else mentioned won't be accepting of an NIV interpretation of the Bible. There are differences between the two texts that often change the meaning of entire passages. Note that I am NOT saying there is a significant difference between accepted KJV and NIV for what you quoted in this particular thread.

3. Kim Davis's now well-known affairs occurred BEFORE her 2011 conversion. The last being apparently 2 years prior, minimum, at least according to Wikipedia:

Davis has been married four times to three different men. The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, who were adopted by her second husband, Joe, who is also her fourth and current husband.


4. Iran is insane, too, in case you were wondering.

only god himself knows if wbc are a genuine christian cult or a group of highly skilled irl trolls... but whatever they are, they're top notch entertainment imo

here's an oldie but goodie:

UZJpUmYHdwo

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Husband 1 divorced her because she was pregnant with twins from Husband 3. She then married Husband 2, who adopted the aforementioned twins. When she and Husband 2 divorced, she married Husband 3, who is the father of the twins. When she and Husband 3 divorced, she remarried Husband 2. Because Jesus. this is why monogamy is unrealistic. clearly polygamy is where it's at.

muslims and mormons know what i'm saying.

Originally posted by red g jacks
this is why monogamy is unrealistic. clearly polygamy is where it's at.

muslims and mormons know what i'm saying.

Again, nearly all the behavior Surtur or whoever cited to brand Kim Davis a "skanky cheater", or "hypocrite", or what have you, occurred BEFORE she became markedly religious.

2008 being the year of her most recent divorce.

2011 the year of her religious conversion.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Again, nearly all the behavior Surtur or whoever cited to brand Kim Davis a "skanky cheater", or "hypocrite", or what have you, occurred BEFORE she became markedly religious.

2008 being the year of her most recent divorce.

2011 the year of her religious conversion.

You DO realize surtur is not going to make this distinction, right?

so she's only been a saint for 4 years is what you're saying

she hasn't earned her stripes yet

she's been a saint for about as long as OJ simpson has

so she needs to step aside as clerk and let someone who has the ability to actually do the job take her place

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Again, nearly all the behavior Surtur or whoever cited to brand Kim Davis a "skanky cheater", or "hypocrite", or what have you, occurred BEFORE she became markedly religious.

2008 being the year of her most recent divorce.

2011 the year of her religious conversion.

Okay so she is a skanky cheater. Conversion or no conversion. Not sure what being a skank has to do with religion. Skanks can be religious or non religious.

She is also still a hypocrite. Cheats, divorces, has kids out of wed lock, etc. but then suddenly decides now she is religious and now she has to take a stand?

Nope, still a hypocrite really. "I can act like a piece of shit, but once I convert suddenly I can judge others and try to determine how they should live their lives."

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so she is a skanky cheater. Conversion or no conversion.

She is also still a hypocrite. Cheats, divorces, has kids out of wed lock, etc. but then suddenly decides now she is religious and now she has to take a stand?

Nope, still a hypocrite really. "I can act like a piece of shit, but once I convert suddenly I can judge others and try to determine how they should live their lives."

So your only response is closing your ears and screaming, "nope"?

No, my response is "chick is still a hypocrite".

Originally posted by Surtur
No, my response is "chick is still a hypocrite".

Yes, despite the evidence presented to you, it's equivalent to you screaming "no"

But that isn't any evidence suggesting she isn't a hypocrite though.

She acted like a piece of shit, found religion, and suddenly thought this gave her the right to judge others, etc.

Yet I'm sure if her transgressions were brought up to her she'd spout some stupid bullshit like "oh I wasn't religious then" as an excuse.

Originally posted by Surtur
But that isn't any evidence suggesting she isn't a hypocrite though.

She acted like a piece of shit, found religion, and suddenly thought this gave her the right to judge others, etc.

Yet I'm sure if her transgressions were brought up to her she'd spout some stupid bullshit like "oh I wasn't religious then" as an excuse.

You have to have evidence she was a hypocrite before we are supposed to present evidence that she isn't. It doesn't seem that there's evidence of hypocrisy here.

Dude this isn't a damn court of law it is an internet forum. This comes down to the realm of opinion really and yeah, in my opinion this woman is a hypocrite.

I mean I even explained why in my mind she is still a hypocrite. You certainly don't have to like it or agree..that is your prerogative.

Originally posted by Surtur
Dude this isn't a damn court of law it is an internet forum. This comes down to the realm of opinion really and yeah, in my opinion this woman is a hypocrite.

I mean I even explained why in my mind she is still a hypocrite. You certainly don't have to like it or agree.

It's a forum for debate and opinion is meaningless unless it's backed up by an argument. I think Taylor Swift is god but I can't prove it.

Actually no..you seem confused. This *is* about opinion. I didn't begin a discussion about her being a hypocrite as a form of a debate, but rather the sharing of an opinion in a topic that wasn't specifically created to debate whether or not she is hypocritical.

If you are looking to specifically debate someone on the subject I'm sure you could create a topic and find someone willing to participate.

Originally posted by Surtur
Actually no..you seem confused. This *is* about opinion. I didn't begin a discussion about her being a hypocrite as a form of a debate, but rather the sharing of an opinion in a topic that wasn't specifically created to debate whether or not she is hypocritical.

If you are looking to specifically debate someone on the subject I'm sure you could create a topic and find someone willing to participate.

Everyone here is proving you wrong with facts, yet your response is "well this is my opinion", so it's no wonder we disregard it.

i would say that it's not necessarily hypocritical to change your ways and then condemn behavior that you used to engage in

if we go by that standard then former gang members that speak out against gang violence are hypocrites

i will say however that she is being obnoxious, hypocrite or no. so i really have no sympathy for her.

if you decide you want to adhere to some religious standard then that's fine. when you abuse your power to force that standard on others then you become obnoxious.

just like it's fine if a muslim or a jew wants to not eat pork. a muslim or jew who is hired to a deli and then refuses to slice my ham is being obnoxious though.

so i'm glad she got in trouble for her bs

Originally posted by psmith81992
Everyone here is proving you wrong with facts, yet your response is "well this is my opinion", so it's no wonder we disregard it.

But you haven't provided any facts that prove me wrong. I even explained why I still found it hypocritical.

So again: it's fine if you want to disregard it. Who cares?

Originally posted by Surtur
But you haven't provided any facts that prove me wrong. I even explained why I still found it hypocritical.

So again: it's fine if you want to disregard it. Who cares?

I'm sorry, but this isn't middle school when you yell out a bunch of nonsense and then say, "prove me wrong." That's not how this works. It was explained to you the woman's marriage situation and how, if accurate, it doesn't portray her as a hypocrite. You simply responded with "nope, still a hypocrite".

Originally posted by red g jacks
i would say that it's not necessarily hypocritical to change your ways and then condemn behavior that you used to engage in

if we go by that standard then former gang members that speak out against gang violence are hypocrites

i will say however that she is being obnoxious, hypocrite or no. so i really have no sympathy for her.

if you decide you want to adhere to some religious standard then that's fine. when you abuse your power to force that standard on others then you become obnoxious.

just like it's fine if a muslim or a jew wants to not eat pork. a muslim or jew who is hired to a deli and then refuses to slice my ham is being obnoxious though.

so i'm glad she got in trouble for her bs

But see to me it's totally hypocritical and this is again why I say it comes down to opinion.

Let me give you an example. This skank is a cheater. Okay, she finds religion. Now, if she wants to use that to say "Because of my beliefs I will never ever cheat again" then FINE super awesome. But if she were to go to another cheating female and be condemning her and judging her for shit she did before? That is hypocritical.

You might say "but she isn't condemning people for doing what she did" but she still feels that because she has now found religion it gives her the right to dictate what others should do or how they should live their lives.

That is hypocritical to me, if you want to use religion to fix up your own life fine.

See, your entire argument boils down to "I hate religion so I'm going to be emotional about it even when I'm wrong."

Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm sorry, but this isn't middle school when you yell out a bunch of nonsense and then say, "prove me wrong." That's not how this works. It was explained to you the woman's marriage situation and how, if accurate, it doesn't portray her as a hypocrite. You simply responded with "nope, still a hypocrite".

But again: I gave reasons why I felt she is still a hypocrite. It is irrelevant whether or not you agree. If this isn't middle school please stop behaving in a manner that suggests you do not know this.

Originally posted by psmith81992
See, your entire argument boils down to "I hate religion so I'm going to be emotional about it even when I'm wrong."

No, my argument boils down to what I just said and the reasons I still believe she is a hypocrite.

But let us go over this wacky chain of events:

-person points out she wasn't religious when she did her shady stuff
-I point out reasons that despite that I still find it hypocritical
-You say I am just sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "nope" despite the fact I explained quite clearly why I still felt she was..which for me a prerequisite of the whole "sticking your fingers in your ears" thing is the person not really bothering to explain themselves
-I then explain in even more detail why I feel the way I do, then a poster singles out a single sentence out of said explanation and say "this shows you just must hate religion".

Yet this person says things like "we aren't in middle school" without even the slightest hint of irony.

Originally posted by Surtur
But see to me it's totally hypocritical and this is again why I say it comes down to opinion.

Let me give you an example. This skank is a cheater. Okay, she finds religion. Now, if she wants to use that to say "Because of my beliefs I will never ever cheat again" then FINE super awesome. But if she were to go to another cheating female and be condemning her and judging her for shit she did before? That is hypocritical.

You might say "but she isn't condemning people for doing what she did" but she still feels that because she has now found religion it gives her the right to dictate what others should do or how they should live their lives.

That is hypocritical to me, if you want to use religion to fix up your own life fine. so then... using my example... i'd like you to answer these questions, if you don't mind:

would you also say that when a former gang member & murderer reforms their life and then goes around speaking out against and condemning gang violence, that makes them hypocritical?

if not, the why not? they are doing the same thing you're accusing this woman of doing... namely judging people for doing shit they used to do.

if you say yes they are hypocritical, then it seems like in that case being hypocritical is a good thing. unless we want to say that it's a bad thing for former gang members to use their experience and knowledge to help combat and speak out against gang violence.

it seems to me that the only difference between my example and what you're saying this woman is doing is that we can all agree gang violence is bad... where as we can't all agree that sex outside heterosexual monogamy is bad. and i agree with you there. i don't think it's a big deal at all. i think the people who are worked up about what others do in their bedrooms are living in the wrong century. but they're not necessarily hypocrites.

a hypocrite to me would be the anti-gay pastor/politician who is then busted for visiting male prostitutes while they are still actively condemning homosexuality.

I actually don't think your example quit fits though when it comes to gangs and here is why: this woman had a change of heart and then used her job to try to impress her own religious views on people.

So to use your example, if this woman cheated and then found religion and then went around giving talks to people on how to avoid adultery? THAT would be awesome and that is more akin to your example. She isn't using past mistakes to try to better the world. She is using her religious conversion as an excuse to condemn shit she knows nothing about.

but i don't think that distinction has much to do with hypocrisy

going around an verbally condemning adultery is no less judgmental than refusing to issue marriage licences. it's just that you can judge people all you like, you can't transgress against them on the basis of that judgement though.

that is just once again her being obnoxious and abusing her power. which i agree she should be condemned for. i'm glad they made an example of her for that.

I feel it all ties in. Is there more of an abuse of power then anything else? Of course. The hypocrisy for me comes in her judging people. Now she's found religioun and suddenly it gives her the right to judge the lifestyles of others? Not only to judge, but to impose her own beliefs on them by saying who can or can't be allowed to marry?

So either she is judging people or we have the much worse alternative: she gives two shits about gay people getting married and is merely against it because the bible told her to be against it. If that is the case then she isn't a hypocrite, just a sheep.

we'll just have to agree to disagree then i guess

my only point is that the potential for redemption is important

i don't agree with her views or her abuse of power though. and if she had been a lifelong christian, i would feel the same way.

i get why it seems different... does make her seem like a johnny-come-lately type of half assed martyr.. just don't know that hypocrite is the right word

But the problem is you are seeing this through the wrong kind of example. There is no redemption here. Just go back to your example about the gang member and violence and then talking out against violence. That is someone using their own experience with a subject in order to talk to people about it and try to make the world a bit of a safer place.

This woman isn't doing that though. There is no redemption here. There is nothing to redeem and if becoming religious made her this way this woman was actually *more *tolerant when she was cheating and all that jazz.

This woman uses a religion that talks about love and understanding to promote her ideas that are just the opposite. I saw an article today saying she was freed. Hopefully this will cause her 15 minutes of fame to run out.

To paraphrase a Facebook meme I saw, it's funny that this woman is so against homosexuality, even though adultery made God's top ten list.

I think she should just resign. Though of course it didn't take long after being freed for this woman to be out giving statements.

Also they seriously played "eye of the tiger" for her. I swear to god it's like nobody really needs to even say anything about this because the people involved just..do it all for you.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-orders-kim-davis-freed-kentucky-jail-n423541

They talk about her as if she is some kind of freedom fighter.

The title of the article says she "vows" to keep on pressing. Last I checked when it came to vows this woman wasn't very good at honoring them.

@Surtur. I agree with you on how you can see this woman as being a hypocrite. I can't see her being any better than the Pharisees of the old days. Jesus said that if any have not sinned, let that person cast the first stone. She may have the knowledge of a Sage, but if she has no love, understanding, or compassion for people, and places her beliefs above those virtues, she may as well be clapping with one hand.

Same sex marriages are/should no longer be a concern of Christians. It is something that God can only judge, and it has now become the law of the land. Anyone breaking the law should go to jail. The idea that this woman raises one above the other is what makes her a hypocrite. Hopefully she and many others will receive a revelation on this subject.

Originally posted by Stoic
@Surtur. I agree with you on how you can see this woman as being a hypocrite. I can't see her being any better than the Pharisees of the old days. Jesus said that if any have not sinned, let that person cast the first stone. She may have the knowledge of a Sage, but if she has no love, understanding, or compassion for people, and places her beliefs above those virtues, she may as well be clapping with one hand.

Same sex marriages are/should no longer be a concern of Christians. It is something that God can only judge, and it has now become the law of the land. Anyone breaking the law should go to jail. The idea that this woman raises one above the other is what makes her a hypocrite. Hopefully she and many others will receive a revelation on this subject.



Why are you pretending that you read and understood what is written in the Bible? Jesus told that same woman that was to be stoned to STOP sinning, He didn't tell her to go out and commit more adultery.

I'll get to your other points as time permits, if no one else responds to them. There's a LOT of misinformation you've typed here that needs addressing.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Kim Davis's now well-known affairs occurred BEFORE her 2011 conversion. The last being apparently 2 years prior, minimum, at least according to Wikipedia:

Davis has been married four times to three different men. The first three marriages ended in divorce in 1994, 2006, and 2008. She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband. Her third husband is the biological father of the twins, who were adopted by her second husband, Joe, who is also her fourth and current husband.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Again, nearly all the behavior Surtur or whoever cited to brand Kim Davis a "skanky cheater", or "hypocrite", or what have you, occurred BEFORE she became markedly religious.

2008 being the year of her most recent divorce.

2011 the year of her religious conversion.

So Baptists are not Christians? Because Kim Davis was a Baptist for at least 27 years before "converting" to Apostolic Christianity and becoming Pentecostal four years ago. Just check the records of the Rowan County Clerk.

When I was a kid, we had this odd felt banner with Linus from Peanuts on it, along with a quote of his. It hung in a couple different rooms through the years. It said "It doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you're sincere."

Obviously the quote itself is benign, and in the context of Charles Schultz's life's work, can't be seen as anything but endearing. And I always thought it was a nice sentiment, a piece of profound wisdom. At least until I was a certain age, and realized the potential folly of it. Kind of a shame when sincerity isn't always paired with kindness. The former alone isn't enough to be justifiable.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
This is related to the situation of Kim Davis, the Kentucky court clerk who tried to prevent gay marriages and is now sitting in jail. It seems that the Westboro people have a deep hatred for Kim Davis. They said the following on their Twitter account:



Apparently the WBC people are outraged over Kim's four marriages to three different men. Strangely, they are also upset over her violation of her oath.

So what do you think? Is WBC sincere in their preachings or not? I keep vacillating between the two poles but it seems to me that they're as crazy as they seem and they're not faking it.

twitter.com/WBCSaysRepent

Also, they've previously supported Chick-Fil-A over its president's controversial remarks about gay marriage but I don't think that Dan Cathy wants their help.

Unless she is Catholic, I don't see the point/relevance of her being remarried. It is however a fact that gay/lesbian relationships have the shortest life on relationsips.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So Baptists are not Christians? Because Kim Davis was a Baptist for at least 27 years before "converting" to Apostolic Christianity and becoming Pentecostal four years ago. Just check the records of the Rowan County Clerk.

I'm sure Baptists are A okay with adultery and all that jazz. Let us all be grateful she eventually found the lord..and used the lord to try to dictate how others live their lives..like a good Christian.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It is however a fact that gay/lesbian relationships have the shortest life on relationsips.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

*checks how many failed relationships this chick has* She must be secretly lesbian then.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm sure Baptists are A okay with adultery and all that jazz. Let us all be grateful she eventually found the lord..and used the lord to try to dictate how others live their lives..like a good Christian.



*checks how many failed relationships this chick has* She must be secretly lesbian then.

The sad thing is this woman isn't the only person doing this..just the only one receiving any attention. Probably because with her you had people actually filing some kind of charges/complaint.

But this is just going to lead to more people refusing to do their job and us not being able to fire them for it. This is ultimately what makes us look the worst. Not that this woman doesn't want gays getting married, but that we apparently have to sit here and take this and let these people do what they want. I'm guessing some kind of committee would need to be called to even think about getting rid of these people.

Just change the rule, make it so these people can be fired immediately. Doesn't mean you make it in a way that allows you to get rid of elected officials for silly reasons, but if they are refusing to do their duties? They need to be gone instead of continuing to collect a paycheck.

Originally posted by Surtur
The sad thing is this woman isn't the only person doing this..just the only one receiving any attention. Probably because with her you had people actually filing some kind of charges/complaint.

But this is just going to lead to more people refusing to do their job and us not being able to fire them for it. This is ultimately what makes us look the worst. Not that this woman doesn't want gays getting married, but that we apparently have to sit here and take this and let these people do what they want. I'm guessing some kind of committee would need to be called to even think about getting rid of these people.

Just change the rule, make it so these people can be fired immediately. Doesn't mean you make it in a way that allows you to get rid of elected officials for silly reasons, but if they are refusing to do their duties? They need to be gone instead of continuing to collect a paycheck.

🐋

Rules must be followed ... so just change the rule ...
That's pretty much the point of civil disobedience.

yea, no need to change the rule imo. i'm fine with the current solution

leave her in jail until her martyr batteries run out of juice

and if she's like the energizer bunny in that regard... then maybe she'll just grow old and die behind bars. who cares?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It is however a fact that gay/lesbian relationships have the shortest life on relationsips.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

It is a fact that the Family Research Council is an anti-gay hate group.




Originally posted by Surtur
I'm sure Baptists are A okay with adultery and all that jazz. Let us all be grateful she eventually found the lord..and used the lord to try to dictate how others live their lives..like a good Christian.

Unless or until she divorces her current husband, and either remarries her first husband or chooses to remain celibate for life, then she is committing adultery.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
🐋

Rules must be followed ... so just change the rule ...
That's pretty much the point of civil disobedience.

When the rule keeps dipshits like Kim Davis employed yes they need to be changed.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea, no need to change the rule imo. i'm fine with the current solution

leave her in jail until her martyr batteries run out of juice

and if she's like the energizer bunny in that regard... then maybe she'll just grow old and die behind bars. who cares?

But then you aren't fine with the current solution since Davis has been set free. Not only has she been set free, but her stunt has no doubt inspired OTHERS to refuse to do their jobs.

Originally posted by Surtur
When the rule keeps dipshits like Kim Davis employed yes they need to be changed.



But then you aren't fine with the current solution since Davis has been set free. Not only has she been set free, but her stunt has no doubt inspired OTHERS to refuse to do their jobs.

How has sitting in jail inspired others to refuse to do their jobs?

Originally posted by psmith81992
How has sitting in jail inspired others to refuse to do their jobs?

If you have to ask this then I'm afraid there isn't a single answer I could give to satisfy you.

EDIT: Though you realize, and this shouldn't even have to be pointed out since it should of been obvious, but I will anyways, that I was talking about people specifically in her same line of work refusing to give out licenses. If you can't see how this would inspire others to do similar things then I'm afraid there is nothing I can say.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So Baptists are not Christians? Because Kim Davis was a Baptist for at least 27 years before "converting" to Apostolic Christianity and becoming Pentecostal four years ago. Just check the records of the Rowan County Clerk.



Biblically speaking, no -- many if not most Baptists are NOT Christian.

Without actually endorsing everything this man asserts, I recommend you click and read the following article to learn SOME of the reasons this is so.
http://www.wordsoftruth.net/wotvol10/wotbulletin12202009.html

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
So Baptists are not Christians? Because Kim Davis was a Baptist for at least 27 years before "converting" to Apostolic Christianity and becoming Pentecostal four years ago. Just check the records of the Rowan County Clerk.

A 'No True Scotsman'

The problem, among many others, though, is that the Bible actually outlines what Christians are supposed to do and even what qualifies one to be a Christian.

On a basic level, even Surtur, along with many of the rest of you, recognize you are creating straw men. You talk of Kim Davis being hypocritical for not condoning gay unions, for instance. But Kim Davis is no longer (to MY knowledge) engaging in sex outside of marriage, as she did BEFORE her 2011 conversion. Nor does she condone what she once did.

We're such the case, you might have a point.

As such is NOT the case, you don't.

bluewaterrider is right. You can only objectively prove that Kim Davis is a hypocrite if you provide evidence that she condones her former actions.

I mean, she's still a cvnt who is paying the price for her stupidity, but she's not a hypocrite.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Biblically speaking, no -- many if not most Baptists are NOT Christian.

Without actually endorsing everything this man asserts, I recommend you click and read the following article to learn SOME of the reasons this is so.
http://www.wordsoftruth.net/wotvol10/wotbulletin12202009.html

That will be news to the approximately 50,000,000 Americans who are Baptists, which is the second largest Christian denomination in the United States after Catholics.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The problem, among many others, though, is that the Bible actually outlines what Christians are supposed to do and even what qualifies one to be a Christian.

On a basic level, even Surtur, along with many of the rest of you, recognize you are creating straw men. You talk of Kim Davis being hypocritical for not condoning gay unions, for instance. But Kim Davis is no longer (to MY knowledge) engaging in sex outside of marriage, as she did BEFORE her 2011 conversion. Nor does she condone what she once did.

We're such the case, you might have a point.

As such is NOT the case, you don't.

Actually, Stoic made a fine point for why she is hypocritical. You don't have to agree of course, but you aren't the authority on hypocrisy in general.

If you care to debate the inner workings of hypocrisy you can surely create a topic to do that I'm sure some will oblige. Personally, it's not a huge deal to me what you choose to label this woman as.

Originally posted by NemeBro
bluewaterrider is right. You can only objectively prove that Kim Davis is a hypocrite if you provide evidence that she condones her former actions.

I mean, she's still a cvnt who is paying the price for her stupidity, but she's not a hypocrite.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The problem, among many others, though, is that the Bible actually outlines what Christians are supposed to do and even what qualifies one to be a Christian.

On a basic level, even Surtur, along with many of the rest of you, recognize you are creating straw men. You talk of Kim Davis being hypocritical for not condoning gay unions, for instance. But Kim Davis is no longer (to MY knowledge) engaging in sex outside of marriage, as she did BEFORE her 2011 conversion. Nor does she condone what she once did.

We're such the case, you might have a point.

As such is NOT the case, you don't.

Wrong. Davis is an Apostolic Christian. They believe that a divorced woman must reconcile with her first husband or remain celibate for life. Otherwise, she is committing adultery, even if she marries another man. She is unrepentant and living in sin according to her own beliefs right now.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wrong. Davis is an Apostolic Christian. They believe that a divorced woman must reconcile with her first husband or remain celibate for life. Otherwise, she is committing adultery, even if she marries another man. She is unrepentant and living in sin according to her own beliefs right now.

You must be wrong because that would make her a hypocrite.

Originally posted by NemeBro
bluewaterrider is right. You can only objectively prove that Kim Davis is a hypocrite if you provide evidence that she condones her former actions.

I mean, she's still a cvnt who is paying the price for her stupidity, but she's not a hypocrite.

You must have missed this:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Unless or until she divorces her current husband, and either remarries her first husband or chooses to remain celibate for life, then she is committing adultery.

She de facto condones her former actions, because according to her own beliefs, she is committing adultery right now.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That will be news to the approximately 50,000,000 Americans who are Baptists, which is the second largest Christian denomination in the United States after Catholics.

Would that you were correct, but the chance of this ever being SEEN by even 1 percent of the fifty million people you mentioned is probably slimmer than the chance of you winning the lottery this weekend.


Admit that you're straw manning and be done with it -- even many of the Baptists you're "championing" for this thread would balk at you trying to use the Catholic Church as an example of a Bible-practicing organization.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Biblically speaking, no -- many if not most Baptists are NOT Christian.



Wow... I usually agree with pretty much everything you say religion-related but saying Baptists aren't Christians is probably the stupidest statement I've ever read in GDF. It's also extremely insulting to people (like me) who have the same beliefs as people who are Baptists. It's even more stupid than when you claimed Catholics aren't Christians either. I guess it's a good thing that nobody needs your approval of what a Christian is, eh Blue?


Did you appoint yourself the official judge of who is and isn't Christian? Maybe you should take a good look at yourself and judge whether you really are because it seems to me you aren't when you go around telling people they aren't Christian because you don't like their religious denomination.


Oh, and your "source" in the link is obviously biased just like you are.

Originally posted by Surtur
When the rule keeps dipshits like Kim Davis employed yes they need to be changed.



But then you aren't fine with the current solution since Davis has been set free. Not only has she been set free, but her stunt has no doubt inspired OTHERS to refuse to do their jobs. oh... nah didn't realize that. in reality i'd keep her in jail until her term is up or whatever.

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.- Acts 2:38


Whoever believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.- Mark 16:16



I guess John the baptist (a martyr of Christ who lost his head) wasn't a Christian either according to you, huh? LOL. Despite the fact that he was a true follower of Him. Do you not think someone who dies for the Word of Christ is a Christian? Seriously?


I'm not going to reply or read anymore of your posts on this matter because you're insulting millions of people who have baptist beliefs (including me). Not going to get into a heated argument and get banned over a moron who makes my blood boil by making the ridiculously stupid claim that Baptists aren't true Christians.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Catholic Church as an example of a Bible-practicing organization.

Organizations aren't human though. There could easily be more "real christians" that consider themselves catholics than is other organization based on sheer numbers and statistics.

Personally I am under the impression that you are arguing more about speech than about actual experience.

Originally posted by Star428
I'm not going to reply or read anymore of your posts on this matter because you're insulting millions of people who have baptist beliefs (including me). Not going to get into a heated argument and get banned over a moron who makes my blood boil by making the ridiculously stupid claim that Baptists aren't true Christians.

Would you say catholics are christians? You can probably tell why I ask this kind of question.

Yes, I would say they are.


Christian (noun)- a person who has received Christian baptism OR is a believer in Jesus Christ and His teachings.


Or a more biblical definition:


Christian- person who has put faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ, including His death on the cross as payment for sins and His resurrection on the third day.


IMO, anyone who accepts the fact that Christ is the Son of God who died on the cross to pay for our sins and that he rose from the dead 3 days later and who makes an earnest effort to follow His teachings is a Christian.

Originally posted by Star428
Yes, I would say they are.


Christian (noun)- a person who has received Christian baptism OR is a believer in Jesus Christ and His teachings.

I'd assume that's the conventional meaning myself, I was a bit puzzled the first time that appreciation was challenged. Thanks for your reply

Let me answer the remainder of your first post here to me. These questions strike me as too important to do otherwise.


Originally posted by Star428


... "source" in the link is obviously biased just like you are.

I am biased in one way in discussions like this, and that is, never having seen it fail, I'm inclined to believe the King James Version of the Bible is trustworthy, and increasingly, I'm suspecting, accurate in what it describes. Certainly it's prediction that people would exchange natural desires and persecute ...
well, let's just say many Bible passages seem far more resonant now than they did a decade ago.

Regarding the source of that information, I have no idea why you put "source" in quotes. I did not write that article. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, do I have any affiliation or prior contact with that author. I'm interested in knowing if you have an actual response to any of the things he wrote. I'd be more than willing to discuss those sub-topics with you if you do. I'm also curious to know what kind of source you'd consider neutral or non-biased in a discussion on religious matters. I don't think true neutrality exists where such is the subject. I'm wondering what proof of the opposite COULD look like, let alone whether you could relate it here.

Alright, if you want to get into that sort of thing, take it t the religion area.

But bluewaterrider, please be very cautious in future about how you throw around a fringe opinion saying masses of people, including many here, have no right to call themselves Christians.

Post removed, as re: above.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Husband 1 divorced her because she was pregnant with twins from Husband 3. She then married Husband 2, who adopted the aforementioned twins. When she and Husband 2 divorced, she married Husband 3, who is the father of the twins. When she and Husband 3 divorced, she remarried Husband 2. Because Jesus.

I just learned today that Husband 2/4 is her first cousin! Just when you thought she could not be any more of a moral failure.

Did she have any children with him?

Also, I wasn't aware that her religion dictates that she is committing adultery if she marries any man save her first husband. She is a hypocrite assuming that is true.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I just learned today that Husband 2/4 is her first cousin! Just when you thought she could not be any more of a moral failure.

So she double-dipped the incest. Hmmmm

Eww I hope she didn't have any kids with hubby #2 then.