Theroux on the Phelpses

The Deux Ex Machina covered it well. Phelps is probably a megalomaniac and some easy questions might have exposed that more.

Thanks for posting the show, we don't get that here. I think some opportunities were missed, traded for an attempt at making an argument from incredulity.

There was quite a lot of manipulation by the family. At the end, the girl could not even go out for a cup of coffee without checking in.

I come closer than a lot of people do to being raised in a cult. ('High demand religion' might be a better term.) :D Some of the parallels were quite noticeable.

Persecution is the engine that keeps this evil puppy going. A reason they protest at funerals is because they have an audience that cannot escape them: They are guaranteed persecution.
 
Beleth said:
Phelps was right about one thing in that documentary: Theroux had the chance to ask some really good, graduate-level questions, and all he asked were grade-school ones.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The first interview he was shut off after one question and in the second interview he stuck to theology as asked and got little or no answer from Phelps (who I got the impression was regretting inviting them there in the first place).

I thought it was an interesting look at the inner workings of a cult - one hateful, bitter, twisted old man who's ideology has infected a group around him through authoritarianism and claims of absolute truth, combined with a feeling of persecution from the outside world (and activities that SURELY are designed purely to invite this persecution. As Louis pointed out, the signs were just completely random if they weren't merely there to invite a hostile response). The younger members of the family in particular were just perfectly ordinary people who happened to hold outrageous views that had been drummed into their heads since birth, presumably.

On the plus side, I didn't see anyone else there who I felt had the ability to hold the cult together when Phelps kicks the bucket (They didn't seem to be able to express their views coherently at all, let alone defend them), and I suspect the cult will disappear shortly after that happens.
 
They did justify the signs: they are references to popular media. I.e. they target the most prominent "fags" and "fag enablers" they see. It's clearly a PR move.
 
They do raise interesting questions. From their perspective they love people enough to want to warn us all about the hell we are going to. What cannot be justified as an act of love?

To my thinking 'love' is not a virtue by itself but needs to include the idea of nurturing. That is what makes love a good, rather than just another tool of power.
 
saizai said:
They did justify the signs: they are references to popular media. I.e. they target the most prominent "fags" and "fag enablers" they see. It's clearly a PR move.
Click to expand...

But they don't. Desmond Tutu, Princess Diana? These people are not prominant gay rights campaigners (though I have heard Desmond Tutu say he favours gay clergy, so there may be at least some "justification" there) It's just designed to evoke a hostile response. Sure they do some post-hoc attempts at justification, but if they were really after protesting about gay rights/sex before marriage they would not be picketing soldiers funerals and holding signs that say "Thank God for 9-11". They want to be hated (or at least Phelps wants that), that's why they mix things that will really piss off Liberals (anti-gay attitude), conservatives (anti-military attitude plus dislike of own country) and everyone with a sense of decency (demonstrating at funerals, celebrating 9-11/Natural disasters etc). There's no way that anyone sane who was sincerely trying to convert someone would use these strategies, so there are three options 1. Phelps is not just unpleasant, but totally delusional 2. He wants them to be hated so they will turn away from outside influences and stick by him 3. He just wants attention and it doesn't matter to him what type of attention it is. Any of these is plausible. that this is a sincere, planned attempt to rally support isn't, in my opinion.

Kopji: I'm not sure that's how they see it at all. Certainly Phelps's daughter (name escapes me) specifically said that what they are doing is absolutely NOT about winning souls to Jesus (whether then she went on to say what it was about I can't remember, she's not the most articulate type). The younger (college age) woman did use this justification at the end, when pushed, but also earlier laughed at the idea of Louis in hell, and said she celebrated God's will whenever someone got cancer and died etc, which kind of undermines her point really. To the kids in the family it really seemed more of a routine than it was about warning people. "Things to do today:Attend college, Do homework, Denounce outside world, Haircut". Just a part of life.
 
Last edited:
The Calvinist worldview is a pretzel logic one, and massively circular. I doubt they could mentally hold onto the idea that the Bible might be wrong, or not an axiomatic standard of truth.

They are not here to 'convert' anyone, they only need to get their message out into the world. The 'elect' will hear the message and respond because God has willed it.
 
I'm a bit of a minority here, but I think it's all an act.

They make money off of lawsuits when people cause damage, or when government agents try to stop their legal protests.

They choose the most outrageous or universally objectionable celebrity targets and claims because it makes it more likely that they will experience problems, which is the basis of their income.
 
PenguinWarrior said:
But they don't. Desmond Tutu, Princess Diana? These people are not prominant gay rights campaigners (though I have heard Desmond Tutu say he favours gay clergy, so there may be at least some "justification" there)
Click to expand...

That's not the point at all. I said it's a PR thing - they target big names in the media who (to their view) are affiliated with fag-enabling. Whether or not they are big names in the world of "actual" fag-enablers (i.e. gay rights campaigners) is irrelevant; they are going for global publicity, not debate. And they do so quite effectively.


Kopji - It's not really circular per se. Yes they have some ... interesting axioms though. However what they're saying is "you're doomed, we're not. god told us to tell everyone what the score is. that's what we're doing."

Your puzzlement at it comes from assuming (incorrectly) that they have a normal person's implicit desire for their actions to change things. They don't, they're simply carrying out their part in the play.
 
saizai said:
That's not the point at all. I said it's a PR thing - they target big names in the media who (to their view) are affiliated with fag-enabling. Whether or not they are big names in the world of "actual" fag-enablers (i.e. gay rights campaigners) is irrelevant; they are going for global publicity, not debate. And they do so quite effectively.
Click to expand...

I guess you would have to consider how you define "effectively." It would seem to be quite ineffective from most perspectives.

I agree with you though. They really aren't interested in changing anything. Maybe they get a sick sense of glee knowing that they will be the only ones in heaven. Which leads to a whole other set of "What if. ." questions that I doubt they have considered.
 
Kopji said:
The Calvinist worldview is a pretzel logic one, and massively circular. I doubt they could mentally hold onto the idea that the Bible might be wrong, or not an axiomatic standard of truth.

They are not here to 'convert' anyone, they only need to get their message out into the world. The 'elect' will hear the message and respond because God has willed it.
Click to expand...

*sigh*
 
RationalReverend said:
The point Calvinism makes is not that men do not have wills, or that they have no volition. Rather, Calvinism points out that if man is born fallen and in the context of original sin, then he will not choose God. God must choose him and change him into someone capable of believing in him. Calvinism is not Hard Determinism, in fact, Puritan Calvinists contributed greatly to the philosophical development of Soft Determinism. Furthermore, even though Calvinism believes God must act in a person to save them, this does not mean that God doesn't use means to do this. Therefore, preaching to people will save no one in and of itself, but God uses preaching as a means to bring people to salvation. I have no idea who the phelps people are and this post should not be viewed as an endorsement of their work, nor as an argument for the Calvinistic viewpoint, it is merely an explanation.
Click to expand...
Calvinism keeps coming up with reference to these guys because this is exactly what they preach and is a foundation of their world view. So what you believe, is what they believe. I am sorry this only elicits a sigh.

Although I understand that their church is often not taken seriously, especially by other Christians... I have not heard anything preached by them that is not a perspective contained in the Bible. The only argument against them seems to be that the Bible should not be taken so seriously.
 
I'm finding Theroux's "Weekend" shows a lot like P&T's BS, but more effective. Where I found BS to have jumped the shark pretty early, being very hit-or-miss, Theroux's show is always interesting and entertaining.
 
PenguinWarrior said:
I don't know about that. The first interview he was shut off after one question and in the second interview he stuck to theology as asked and got little or no answer from Phelps (who I got the impression was regretting inviting them there in the first place).
Click to expand...
The first question he asked was "how many children do you have?".

Phelps may be evil but he isn't stupid. There are only two types of people who would ask that kind of question: one who hasn't done any homework about their interviewee at all; and one who has done their homework, knows the situation between the interviewee and his offspring that have fallen away, and has some sort of unknown agenda in asking such a question. So the interviewer is either unprepared or being tricky -- either way, he's worth making a fool of.

The second interview happened after the first impressions had already been set. By this point it is reasonable to think that Phelps had had a sentence-by-sentence rundown of every single conversation Theroux had had with the rest of the church members, and knew far more about Theroux than Theroux knew about him.

On the plus side, I didn't see anyone else there who I felt had the ability to hold the cult together when Phelps kicks the bucket (They didn't seem to be able to express their views coherently at all, let alone defend them), and I suspect the cult will disappear shortly after that happens.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be too sure about that. I predict a schism rather than a dissolution. That ex-journalist seemed to be pretty good at controlling a conversation, but he's an outsider. There's probably someone else (a man, of course) whose last name is actually Phelps who isn't quite as forceful a speaker but who Grampa likes best. The ex-journalist will say that he has the message; the blood-son will say that he has the lagacy. They will split the rest of the family and the movement will, thankfully, suffer.
 
Kopji said:
Calvinism keeps coming up with reference to these guys because this is exactly what they preach and is a foundation of their world view. So what you believe, is what they believe. I am sorry this only elicits a sigh.

Although I understand that their church is often not taken seriously, especially by other Christians... I have not heard anything preached by them that is not a perspective contained in the Bible. The only argument against them seems to be that the Bible should not be taken so seriously.
Click to expand...

You would do well to study Calvinism. The Phelps are hyper-Calvinists and a cult, and their methodology is not Biblical. Paul for example exhorts us to speak the truth, but to do so in love. So then there is a loving way to speak the truth and an unloving way to speak the truth (not that they are speaking the truth, they are the only people I have ever heard of making the kinds of claims they make). Simply speaking the truth is not enough, it must be spoken in a loving way. I will go on if you want.
 
They would claim that
a) telling people things they don't want to hear is doing so in a loving way (because hypothetically it allows them to change? though they couldn't say that part, being Calvinists...)
b) evangelists make the same claims, with the same 'damned unless you OBEY' approach; they're just that one step more on the 'damned' part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom