Last I saw, it was more like 1 family, with just a few other members.

If anyone is interested in learning more about their twisted views, here'* their site
http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Good luck reading, I could only get past the 2nd page.
Interestingly, they trace their routs through Martin Luther and Calvinism, neither of which have any place in a Baptist Church.
But that is a whole different story.

I'm surprised they have not been killed yet.

Say that a LITTLE LOUDER.......a few times.......in a large public area.....




(maybe someone will take the hint)

Not trying to start an argument, but that looks more like it is talking about a religious government, such as a theocracy. You could say a king has a divine power which is the reason he rules, and therefore should not be opposed. I wouldn't say it applies so much to a democracy, since picketing and opposing those that are in office is part of the system. We vote for them, and if they're doing something wrong we have to show our displeasure so they can change to keep office.

Then again, I don't really feel God instituted any authority, so it would be hard for me to feel the way you do. But hey, you not picketing or opposing your leadership is fine with me, to each his own. I'm just interpreting this passage the way I was taught in my world religions course.

We can all agree that whether or not there is a God, I'm pretty sure he would not agree with these wacko gay bashers. If you don't like gay people, you don't have to torture the families of fallen soldiers.

It'* bad enough reading about it. Wanna really make your blood boil.....

Shirley Phelps Roper

i like this quotation, and i support our current President, much like i supported his predecessor and will support his successors. i will continue to pray for God to be with him in his decisions.

but this quotation begs the question: should people living in Germany during the 30'* and early 40'* have supported Hitler without question, simply because of what Romans says? After all, here is a man who is in authority which derives from God . . .

how do Christians (myself included), reconcile this counterexample? and upon reconciling this counter-example, how do we respond to people who are inclined to compare Bush to Hitler, and object on the same grounds?

I think it is a good question, and this is how I would answer it. The passage is saying that we have to submit to authorities and continue to act justly. It specifically talks about doing what is right, not what is wrong. So if you want to question the president'* actions that is fine, but to resort to name calling is clearly not what a Christian should be doing. Obviously the Hitler scenario is an interesting one. He was brought down because of his evilness, it was just too late. Who knows though, maybe it was all part of God'* master plan. Or maybe someone along the line went against His will allowing Hitler to gain power. I like to think that when it comes down to life and death like that, God wouldn't condemn you for going against someone like Hitler as long as you didn't do something like renounce God to save your life.

If you read the bible there are multiple sceneories relating to Rulers that can be related to Hitler. Grimm gots it, submit to authorities and continue to act justly. God, for us that beleive, is the almighty power. The Word is what we should live by, if a King or in our case our president tells you to do something unjustly or against God'* words then you follow Gods words. We could what if this to death, but that is the ultimate response to those situations. A good book to read on Authority and such is Under Cover great book.

This may sound a bit extreme, but it is my position that the Westburrough Baptist Church should be EXTERMINATED, root and branch. Failing that, take the kids and lock the parents away in mental wards.
These people have chosen out every negative aspect of Judeo-Christian dogma, thrown away the rest, then added their own twisted beliefs into the mix. They terrify me. Truly they do.
I'm an avid listener of the Ron & Fez show on XM, and they have done several phone interviews with Shirley Phelps Roper, the spokeswoman for the WBC and daughter of it'* founder. They don't support her, far from it, but in the midst of their half-civil ridicule, they do ask earnest questions, and the answers are incredible.
These people see themselves as the modern-day family of Noah, they think that their beliefs and actions mean they will be the only people spared when a new (proverbial)flood comes. She actually believes this crap to the bottom-most depths of her soul, you can hear it in her voice...

While I tend to agree, and personally wouldn't mind taking a shot at this bunch of loosers, that'* not a viable solution. Just taking out one whacko bunch makes room for another to step into the void.

What I am pleased about is the ruling against them, even if they manage to avoid the settlement or get it overturned. It affirms the idea that the first amendment isn't a shield to hide behind in all cases. While it provides protection for the right to speak freely, it doesn't protect you from the consequences of that speech in an inappropriate forum or malicious speech (kinda like the old example of yelling "fire" in a crowd.) What they say is thier own business, but how they are going about expressing it is completely inappropriate. Perhaps it will deter some of the other radicals from the bs they are trying to get away with it.