Rant of logic: There is no such thing as a "Christian"

[Aractus]

Part II ...

Will someone please explain to me why the Westboro Baptist Church is not representative of Christianity? I asked the Yahoo! Answers community this question (it was quick) and was not at all surprised by the responses I received. Although I worded myself clearly, each and every "answer" I read consisted of whether or not the user agreed with
[Westboro Baptist Church]. Many even said that they shared their extreme stance on homosexuality, but drew the line at picketing soldiers' funerals.

Well that'd be because Americans are hardly representative of Christianity to begin with. You have churches in the USA that are somewhat similar to WBC in their approach.

The group is seen as a hate group by most Americans for the same reason people turn to hospitals over prayer.

"For the same reason"?

I think you have two separate issues here. Any pressure group can be political/religious/cultural then can be hateful/violent/peaceful/pacifist. They can be intelligent, they can be lunatics. They can be law abiding or criminal. Etc.

WBC is a hate group, check, but they aren't a "cult" and they aren't ignorant/stupid. They also are not violent or criminal. The reason why they're seen as "hateful" is because that's what they are, and it has nothing to do with prayer or modern medicine.

Scientology rejects modern medicine, why not focus on them instead?

Over the years, people began to notice that telekinetically communicating to their deity was far less successful in alleviating illnesses than allowing for a mortal physician to diagnose and treat them. Said people have become less Christian because they have gained knowledge through experience. They reject some of the words of a group of Ancient Middle-Eastern peasents, but, unfortunately, still accept the rest.

Incorrect. You're assuming the Bible is - or is supposed to be - a medical textbook. Hardly.

But just because the Kansas church is not representative of the views most contemporary Christians hold doesn't mean they don't firmly adhere to the Bible.

I've already demonstrated above that they do not.

I get tired of hearing people say that Westboro Baptist is not interpreting the bible correctly. As is with many other novels, the bible has dozens of different versions.

This will probably be why fr0d0 called you ignorant. There are so many things wrong in that single statement it's difficult to quantify:

1. The Bible is not a novel, novels didn't even exist for at least another 1000 years after the completion of the New Testament; and then even that would be in Japan (The Tale of Genij). We wouldn't see novels in Europe for another 400-500 years after that still.
2. How many novels have "dozens of different versions"??
3. You seem to indicate that the "dozens of different versions" of the Bible simply relates to the translations. All the translations are made from a combination of underlying texts in either Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac or Latin or a combination thereof. To make matters worse, you have the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics who cannot agree upon the canon of the New Testament! But regardless, that doesn't mean they have different versions of the books in the NT, so your point boils down to this... Old Testament text versions: 1. Hebrew (MT/DSS), 2. Greek (LXX/Theodotion), 3. Latin (Vulgate). I only count FOUR versions, and all are derived from the original Hebrew text. I can't justify counting the DSS separately from the MT because they are too identical to each other, despite representing different textual traditions. New Testament versions: 1. Greek, 2. Latin (Vulgate), 3. Syriac. I seem to count THREE versions, all derived from the original Greek text. If you wanted to be truly cynical you could point out the thousands of minor differences in the Greek, but that hardly means "dozens of versions", and the bulk of the differences are inconsequential ("Christ Jesus"/"Jesus Christ", etc)

The KJV was based on the wrong Greek text (ROFL). I brought this up with a pastor one time who doesn't believe in textual criticism. He said the KJV was translated from the "original greek" I said "no it wasn't, it was translated from a printed text of the greek - a critical text". I mean he agreed that the LXX is totally corrupted (yet the Catholics base their OT on their incomplete copies of it), a position you only attain through textual criticism.

One of the biggest offences in the NIV (although there are a few) is Hebrews 11:11. They changed that verse in the 2011 version, but it still shows how biased the translation was. The KJV contains the Comma Johanneum, which isn't found in any original greek manuscript older than the 16th century (where it was intentionally put in to it)! Besides that it was only found in Jerome's Vulgate.

Two of the primary versions are the King James version, completed in 1611, and the New International version, published in the 20th century.

Leviticus 18:22

-King James: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
abomination."

-New International : "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one
does with a woman; that is detestable."

How can they be interpreting this passage wrong? Did ‘abomination’ have a different meaning in the 17th century? How about the word ‘not’?

"Abomination" and "Detestable" are used throughout the OT in various ways to describe things that are disagreeable to God, to the Hebrews/Jews and to pagans. It isn't as strictly "literal" as it may seem.

I read somewhere that a priest discredits signs the second he sees the words "God Hates.." because God is not even capable of it.

Romans 9:13

-King James: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"

-New International: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

You are correct that God can love and hate whoever he chooses to. Romans quotes Malachi. Malachi clearly uses the word "Jacob" to mean the nation of "Israel", thus it is only logical to conclude his use of the word "Esau" means the nation of "Edom". If this is not the case, then we don't know why God hates Esau, possibly it's because Esau hated God, but we aren't told. It could be because he didn't value his birthright, and sold it to Jacob for a single meal, but I find that difficult to reconcile with Malachi's clear use of the word "Jacob" as meaning the nation of Israel, I don't think God hated Esau rather than Edom, but you can decide for yourself.

Although God is capable of anything, storms such as hurricanes follow a predictable, measurable pattern. You’d think he’d have a greater arsenal and we’d be hitwith something entirely new by now with all these homosexual acts we are “enabling”. Why doesn’t the truth make sense? Say there IS the god looking down on us that was outlined before we knew the Earth was round, is it not possible that, along with his existence, there are things called storms? No? Then the Bible is entirely fiction. Just like that. I know it is impossible to dismiss something as ludicrous when you actually believe the fate of your eternity hangs in the balance, but buying into something out of fear is why the Middle East is as backward as it is and why Islamic Jihad likely be a problem for as long as human beings exist.

No you wouldn't, God never destroyed anyone in the Bible for homosexual acts. He destroys Sodom for being prideful, inhospitable, lazy and over-fed, but not for their sexual immorality (see Ezekiel 16:49).

I always hear that the Westboro Baptist Church cannot be used as ammunition by atheists. Why not? It is Christianity in all it’s glory. The church members are, just as they say, true Christians. The reason that most contemporary Christians view their actions as wrong is
because THEY ARE CLEARLY WRONG. You know that sickening feeling that comes with watching them protest the funerals of soldiers who died overseas?

No I don't, because it doesn't "sicken me". They're just voicing their own opinion. They're being no more disrespectful than most of the world I'm afraid, so why should that especially bother me?

That feeling (although not as intense) should not be dismissed when readingthat someone rounded up all the species in the world and put them on a boat because the earth was about to be flooded (again with the storms, God!

Noah didn't build a boat, he built an Ark. A boat is intended for sea-travel, an ark is not, it is simply intended to do the same thing a bunker would do in war - protect you from the elements. Even if the entire world flooded - if that was possible - there would still be no way that the Ark would travel very far away from its starting position, and certainly not around the world as you seem to imagine.

God tested Noah's faith. Noah could simply have journeyed his way to freedom by leaving his home and living somewhere else. Although it probably happened a lot longer ago than most people think, Noah could still have chosen to walk his way to safety in a distant, foreign land, and more than likely he would have known he could do this.