News Baptist minister calls for Obama's death

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Death
Click For Summary
Pastor Steven Anderson's controversial sermon, which included a call for President Obama to "die and go to Hell," has sparked significant debate regarding the boundaries of free speech and hate speech within religious contexts. Anderson defends his rhetoric as a form of tough love intended to provoke action among his followers, asserting that God embodies wrath and vengeance. Critics argue that such statements are not only extreme but also antithetical to Christian teachings that advocate for love and forgiveness. The discussion also touches on the implications of his words, particularly in light of past violent incidents involving individuals who have attended similar sermons. While some participants in the discussion emphasize the need to hold Anderson accountable for his inflammatory remarks, others point out that he did not explicitly threaten violence, raising questions about the legal definitions of hate speech and incitement. The conversation reflects broader concerns about the influence of radical religious figures and the potential for their teachings to incite real-world violence, as well as the media's role in framing such narratives.
  • #31
He said that he didn't! If you want to be a preacher, I guess you only need to hang out a sign saying that you're a preacher.
Doesn't that make sense?
I mean the only authority really qualified to decide who gets to be a preacher has been a bit silent on the whole issue since that trouble with his kid.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
mgb_phys said:
Doesn't that make sense?
I mean the only authority really qualified to decide who gets to be a preacher has been a bit silent on the whole issue since that trouble with his kid.

Well, we usually don't wait for an email from THAT authority, but it would nice to know that your preacher actually knows something about religion as well as a few other things. Otherwise you just have some guy talking nonsense, like this guy does. It is painfully clear, for example, that he has no understand of even basic principles. This sort of "church" has more in common with Jonestown, and Heaven's Gate, than it does religion. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this guy is dangerous.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
but it would nice to know that your preacher actually knows something about religion, as well as a few other things.
Isn't the whole point of baptists that they reject church hierarchy?
In fact it's really a bit of a problem for any protestant religion - you can't really reject Rome and then insist that preachers are licensed by some other authority instead.

Otherwise you just have some guy talking nonsense, like this guy does.
Well, if you are going to ban people from pulpits for talking nonsense :-p
 
  • #34
mgb_phys said:
Isn't the whole point of baptists that they reject church hierarchy?
In fact it's really a bit of a problem for any protestant religion - you can't really reject Rome and then insist that preachers are licensed by some other authority instead.

Any group can select qualified [educated and intelligent] individuals and require the proper study. Theology is not only an extension of the Catholic church. Specific interpretations are one element of religion, but there is also a rich history to study. The ability to translate from the original languages in the proper context is the basis for any serious religion. It is as much about history as interpretation. But, I should add, any ten-year old could read the New Testament and see the problem here. It doesn't take a college degree to see that this is not NT Christianty. If anything, it appears to be cult led by one man.

Well, if you are going to ban people from pulpits for talking nonsense :-p

...and those who don't understand it and take cheap shots.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Ivan Seeking said:
Any group can select qualified [educated and intelligent] individuals and require the proper study.
Yes this guy is obviously several Oprahs short of a daytime TV show - but it is the congregation that select the preacher in a Baptist church an so he wouldn't need to be authorized by any authority.

Theology is not only an extension of the Catholic church.
The idea of an ordained priesthood with special access to god who are the only access to the sacrements, as opposed to anybody being able to preach, is one of the reasons for the protestant split from the Catholic church.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
drankin said:
Find a single passage in the New Testament of the bible that supports your argument (that's the part that created Christianity). Send it to me via PM because this is not the forum to bash/endorse religion. Otherwise you are just posting unsupported nonsense.

And were not even talking about homosexuals or "lewd" people or mass murders. We're talking about a pastor who is off his rocker praying for the death of the President.

Correct. Jesus didn't even mention homosexuals in the Gospels. But he sure spent a lot of time and energy condemning bad church leaders. Lots of time.

Paul in his letters only mentioned homosexuals in the context of what Christians should not be doing.

Not once did either say we should kill or even pray against our leaders. Quite the opposite. Paul said we should pray FOR our leaders. And keep in mind that the best Roman leaders were far worst than the worst US presidents.

I have only one question to this preacher: "Don't you ever read your Bible?" The answer is apparently not.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
I didn't bother reading the entire thread. The sermon he gave was pretty intense though. Wow.

funny part:

'gay means happy. I am happy I'm joyfull. He is a f----t'.

hahahaha that is classic.
 
  • #38
Ivan Seeking said:
Pastor Anderson holds no college degree but has well over 100 chapters of the Bible committed to memory, including almost half of the New Testament.
http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page2.html

If he memorized the print in a math book, would that make him a mathematician?
I'm wondering if he ever cracked open a math book, as the KJV has 260 chapters in the New Testament alone.
mgb_phys said:
The idea of an ordained priesthood with special access to god who are the only access to the sacrements, as opposed to anybody being able to preach, is one of the reasons for the protestant split from the Catholic church.
Sure, but the intent was never for people to just to go at it swinging blind.
 
  • #39
kyleb said:
WhoWee, I think that is a bit too far off the topic of this thread to bother with here.

Also, I had meant to address this in my previous reply:

Perhaps all he was trying to accomplish is justify his hate an demonetization, but I don't see how one could reasonable argue that is all he was doing. Particularly his "ought to be aborted" would surely be taken as encouragement towards that end by anyone ardently anti-choice and predisposed towards violence.

My point is the Preacher spoke for about an hour total? He said far worse things directly about Barney Frank and nobody commented. By comparison, the Obama comments were insignificant.
 
  • #40
By the way, the old fire and brimstone preachers used to tell their congregations they were going straight to Hell - in fiery detail. To say the prayers of this man regarding the eternal destiny of an advocate of baby killing is to go to Hell is not out of context with old style preaching - it's very consistent. Are we sure he didn't follow up with a prayer to save Obama's soul?

This thread is nonsense. The original post in the thread was from the Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner.
 
  • #41
Two points:

1) Read 'The Authoritarians' by Bob Altemeyer. Very chilling but good and illuminating of the habits of these wackjobs.

2) These are the kind of people that really makes me more inclined by the day to arm myself against raging fundies. Especially because I'm an atheist.
 
  • #42
WhoWee said:
My point is the Preacher spoke for about an hour total? He said far worse things directly about Barney Frank and nobody commented. By comparison, the Obama comments were insignificant.
I've only listened to a bit of the videos, which was more than I would have preferred to. What specifically are you suggesting was sad in regard Frank which is any worse than the "ought to be aborted" comment?
WhoWee said:
To say the prayers of this man regarding the eternal destiny of an advocate of baby killing...
If you want to take issue with our laws differentiation between a baby and a fetus, then please commit to a reasonable discussion about that rather than demonising our President for supporting the law. I am personally anti-abortion, but pro-choice, and am far more concerned about our politicians across both sides of the isle advocating wars based on propaganda which kill uncounted massed, babies and otherwise.
 
  • #43
Ivan Seeking said:
His church:http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/index.html

New Testament church! :smile: Yeah, I could tell by his sermon.

So they are not Baptist, but "separated Baptists", which probably means, "I'm a church because I say so".

... If you want to be a preacher, I guess you only need to hang out a sign saying that you're a preacher.


http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/page2.html

If he memorized the print in a math book, would that make him a mathematician? While I realize that many people here have no respect for or understanding of religion, it is important to understand that this is not representitive of your classic preacher. For example, one reason that Catholic priests were often held in high regard in small communities, is that they were often the better educated people; priests [or ministers], and doctors. The same can be said of proper Baptists and many other religions. There is such a thing as formal theological training, which generally includes a respectable general education, for most mainstream churches.
Then here's where I would find fault with the media in this case: why do they grant this clown the title 'pastor' or 'reverend'? Take that title off this story and there is no story. Though the media is still loose with crackpot or pseudo-scientific claims, they are still far more discerning on technical subjects than in stories about religion. If they run the story on some wild technical claim, they rarely grant the crackpot the title of scientist or engineer, or at the very least they'll preface with 'self proclaimed'. Also the media nearly always immediately follows the technical crackpot claim with a statement from a valid scientist or engineer. In this case, why doesn't a reporter call up a respected divinity school for a background comment? No, in the case of religion Ivan's quite right in saying one 'only need to hang out a sign saying that you're a preacher'
 
Last edited:
  • #44
Ivan Seeking said:
Consider the irony of needing a language warning for a Baptist minister, in a science forum!

This is a few pages back...but I'm quite curious, where is the irony in that?
 
  • #45
kyleb said:
I've only listened to a bit of the videos, which was more than I would have preferred to. What specifically are you suggesting was sad in regard Frank which is any worse than the "ought to be aborted" comment?

If you want to take issue with our laws differentiation between a baby and a fetus, then please commit to a reasonable discussion about that rather than demonising our President for supporting the law. I am personally anti-abortion, but pro-choice, and am far more concerned about our politicians across both sides of the isle advocating wars based on propaganda which kill uncounted massed, babies and otherwise.

Do you see what happens when you take a comment out of context? I'm "demonising our President"?
 
  • #46
I took your "an advocate of baby killing" comment in the context it was presented.
 
  • #47
WhoWee said:
Do you see what happens when you take a comment out of context? I'm "demonising our President"?

If "baby killer" wasn't an attempt to demonize the president by using emotionally charged words for purposes where they weren't meant to apply, you certainly didn't communicate well.

I'm not interested in a religious debate, but nowhere did I say that the New Testament encourages genocide or murder; I said the Bible encourages these crimes, and the Bible is part of Christianity, which is part of religion. You may try to portray "real" Christians as believing in only the New Testament, but that doesn't make Old-Testament believers any less Christian or less religious. Consider the fact that Genesis is part of the Old Testament, and that disbelief in evolution is a major problem in the United States and in other countries.
 
  • #48
ideasrule said:
If "baby killer" wasn't an attempt to demonize the president by using emotionally charged words for purposes where they weren't meant to apply, you certainly didn't communicate well.

I'm not interested in a religious debate, but nowhere did I say that the New Testament encourages genocide or murder; I said the Bible encourages these crimes, and the Bible is part of Christianity, which is part of religion. You may try to portray "real" Christians as believing in only the New Testament, but that doesn't make Old-Testament believers any less Christian or less religious. Consider the fact that Genesis is part of the Old Testament, and that disbelief in evolution is a major problem in the United States and in other countries.
People can draw their beliefs from whatever source they like, but the New Testament is the defining story of Christianity. Christianity is not defined by the Old Testament regardless of what additional beliefs people have, nor is it redefined by some crackpot who memorizes bibles or even phone books.
 
  • #49
kyleb said:
I took your "an advocate of baby killing" comment in the context it was presented.
ideasrule said:
If "baby killer" wasn't an attempt to demonize the president by using emotionally charged words for purposes where they weren't meant to apply, you certainly didn't communicate well.

I believe he was making a statement from the perspective of the 'preacher'. Its a common device in communicating ideas and seemed pretty obvious to me anyway. But I suppose you can always find fault with just about anything anyone says if you are looking for it. Obama's "My Muslim heritage" comment comes to mind.
 
  • #50
I suppose we all have to remember that these morons have the critical thinking skills of pond scum.
 
  • #51
kldickson said:
I suppose we all have to remember that these morons have the critical thinking skills of pond scum.
:confused:
Morons !? I thought he was Baptist. hehehe

Don't be putting down Pond Scum. Some of my best friends evolved from Pond scum.
 
  • #52
TheStatutoryApe said:
I believe he was making a statement from the perspective of the 'preacher'. Its a common device in communicating ideas and seemed pretty obvious to me anyway. But I suppose you can always find fault with just about anything anyone says if you are looking for it. Obama's "My Muslim heritage" comment comes to mind.

After re-reading WhoWee's post, I believe you're right. Apologies to WhoWee!:redface:
 
  • #53
TheStatutoryApe said:
I believe he was making a statement from the perspective of the 'preacher'. Its a common device in communicating ideas and seemed pretty obvious to me anyway.
But you can't quote anything from his statements to substantiate your interpretation, can you?
TheStatutoryApe said:
But I suppose you can always find fault with just about anything anyone says if you are looking for it.
Rather, one can excuse just about anything if one cares to dream up an explanation rather addressing what was said. WhoWee said nothing to qualify his statement as being a perspective separate from his own, and even went so far as to endorse such demonetization as "consistent" and by calling it "prayer".
TheStatutoryApe said:
Obama's "My Muslim heritage" comment comes to mind.
Obama has some Muslim heritage, I am guessing you are referring to his "my Muslim faith" misstatement. Regardless, you are abstracting here rather than addressing the topic at hand.