EDIT: It seems that he has now proclaimed that because we use certain Scripture, that equates us with Westboro.
The Reader will note that I do no such thing. It is not the citation of the relevant Scripture that is the issue; it is the interpretation of the teachings that is the matter at hand. As I said previously, Westboro's adherents are principally guilty of taking many of the very same verses cited in the False Witness Union thread grossly out of context, and using that misrepresentation to justify their position that God Hates X (X being somewhat variable, according to Mr. Phelps' tastes).
Given that the members of the False Witness Union are also often strangers to Biblical context, I don't think I'm particularly unjustified in noting the similarity in their thinking. And herein is the caution. It is right to hate sin -- all righteous people ought to hate sin. But we are human and flawed, and we too easily conflate the sinner and the sin; in that act, we become hateful toward the sinner, and in so doing we become what the fanatics of Westboro have become. We become as murderers in the eyes of God.
My point is that it starts with interpretation or, more accurately, misinterpretation. My initial remark was, and remains, that since the denizens of the False Witness Union have in the past demonstrated little to no talent at Scriptural interpretation, their exultation of God's hatred seems a perilously close flirtation with justification for their own hatreds.
And indeed, the watcher's own hatred (of Catholics) leads him to commit an act of false witness almost immediately after saying the above.
In essence, he is demeaning the use of the Word of God.
I've no problem with the use of the Word of God, as the Reader will know. In plain point of fact, I often make use of the word of God. Here is a recent example. My personal website is full of many more such examples.
What I object to is the incorrect use of Scripture -- simply citing the Bible is, after all, not enough, because the Bible does not self-interpret. This is what causes the Westboro problem -- the adherents thereof interpret the teachings concerning God's hatred as justification for their own hatred. Some of the denizens of the False Witness Union have demonstrated a similar thinking in the past, and continue to demonstrate it in their current anti-Catholic threads. Some of them also demonstrate it on the various religion threads that appear in OT.
Indeed, the watcher himself is one of the worst offenders where interpretation of Scripture is concerned, because he doesn't even attempt to do it. He is content to vomit out a wall of quotes from Scripture free from any notion of context, and then uses absolutely no exegesis to tie them to his point. And since Scripture does not self-interpret, he is left looking as though he has just committed multiple instances of non-sequitur.
He comes by it naturally since the Roman Catholic Church has declared that it traditions and teachings, when they contradict the Word of God, take precedence over the very Word of God.
What's really funny about this example of false witness is that the watcher's own citations contradict it later. It is true that the Church holds that the revelation that the Spirit brings through apostolic tradition is essentially equal to the revelation of Scripture (since we do not presume that God has finished speaking to humanity), but equality is not the same thing as abgoration. Tradition does not abrogate Scripture, and Scripture does not abrogate Tradition, because the two are both aspects of God's divine revelation to humanity. Scripture is finalized and need not be added to. Tradition is ongoing, and reflects that God continues to speak to humanity as humanity continues to exist in His creation.
And here's the real kicker. There is nothing in Tradition which is not in harmony with Scripture, and nothing in Scripture which is not in harmony with Tradition. God's revelation does not contradict God's revelation, after all.
What follows in the False Witness Union post is hardly worth commenting on, as it is the watcher's usual collection of anti-papist rhetoric which he cites from various sources in substitution for doing his own research and thinking. Misrepresentations and misinterpretations of statements, cherry-picked and taken grossly out of context, are the norm in his statements, as is the mistaken belief that were the Pope's position truly valid, the Pope himself would be sinless. That is nowhere stated in Catholic doctrine, and it is the height of ignorance to suppose that the Pope's authority in the Church is diminished because he commits sin. Every human being is a sinner, including the authors that the watcher cites; note, however, that he doesn't suggest that we disregard them.
The discussion of Catholic persecution of Protestants is interesting, but the watcher conveniently glosses over the fact that various Protestant groups persecuted Catholics as well -- every side has blood on its hands as far as this bit of history is concerned. Such appeals to emotional revulsion add nothing to the argument, as both sides are guilty, and I do hope that the good Reader is able to resist such blatant attempts at emotional manipulation. It is another form of false witness on the part of the watcher.
Footnote: what really makes me chuckle is how the watcher insists on only attacking Roman Catholicism. Since I am baptized in the Eastern (Ukrainian) Rite of Catholicism, can I infer that his critiques do not actually apply to me?