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

[Whateverist]

We differ on things that in the end want amount to a hill of beans.

You think religous war, genocide, witch burnings, and child soldiers is the equivalent of a "hill of beans"?

In comparison with the privilege of tossing God's salad for all eternity with elevator music as background music .. such things simply do not register.

[Aractus]

---

There are some Christians out there in Kansas...I was thinking about this yesterday. I ranted about it to my word processor..

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
them. Many even said that they shared their extreme stance on homosexuality, but drew the line at picketing soldiers' funerals.The group is seen as a hate group by most Americans for the same reason people turn to hospitals over prayer. 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. 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 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. 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’?
-----------------------------------------------------


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.”


-----------------------------------------------------

When I peered outside to see the wind begin to pick up as Hurricane Sandy crept closer to my home state, I jokingly said to the person next to me that this was the result of gay marriage. Well, it was written in the bible that God does, at least, control the weather.

Isaiah 45:5-7

-King James: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

-New International: “I form the light and create darkness,I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

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.
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? 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! why everyone couldn’t just instantaneously be eliminated is beyond me..I guess that’d be less dramatic.) It is CLEARY WRONG. It never happened. I mean, shouldn’t someone begin to notice a trend by that story? The WBC is the American equivalent of
conservative Islam in that it follows its holy book word for word. This also has me thinking- what is the difference between a cult and a church? A wizard and a prophet?

---

- but what's with the necroposting, why not just make a new thread?

In any case I'll respond later tonight, just wanted to say welcome to the new member!

---

The ignorance of the WBC narrowly surpasses your own. They, of course, do a great deal of damage. Moral of the story: ignorance can be harmful. Wise up or you might be as bad as them.

Damage to who exactly? Just trying to clarify your post - thanks.

[fr0d0]

Damage to who exactly? Just trying to clarify your post - thanks.

To themselves and anyone within earshot of their bile I'd say.

[Whore Of Babylon]

I realized it was an old post after I submitted it. D'oh! I was exhausted. I have much to learn. The first response I had ever received on this forum was one calling me ignorant, so yours is a breath of fresh air!

[Aractus]

Aha, well for the record I don't see WBC as representative of Xianity, I'll post a detailed response later - going out to dinner now I'm afraid!

[Zen Badger]

Aha, well for the record I don't see WBC as representative of Xianity, I'll post a detailed response later - going out to dinner now I'm afraid!

You reckon?

Hatred... Check

Intolerance... Check

Naked bigoty.... Check

Misogyny..... Check

Mindless obedience to a dictatorial patricarch who thinks he's gods best buddy... Check.

Blind adherence to an outdated book that is full of factual errors..... Check.

Persecution of gays.... Check.

Seems very christian to me.

In fact, probably more christian than you are.

[Aractus]

OK, time to pick apart your post.

There are some Christians out there in Kansas...I was thinking about this yesterday. I ranted about it to my word processor..

So this is why there are random line-breaks throughout your post??

Will someone please explain to me why the Westboro Baptist Church is not representative of Christianity?

OK let's start here. We need to consider two things - 1. what is Christianity, and 2. What is representative of Christianity.

WBC is not the first non-christian organization to use the Christian Bible; and they won't be the last, so the point you make later on about a biblical basis is essentially moot.

Also, you addressed their fixation on homosexuality, but not on funerals. You probably aren't aware of what verse of the Bible WBC is "following" by picketing funerals:

• Luke 9:57-62:
  
  As they were going along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” And Jesus said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Yet another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

There are many clear examples in the Bible of text that is not supposed to be taken literally - some are meant to be figurative (ie figure of speech) some may be somewhat literal - and others may be literal in the right context. Now if you took the text literally then Jesus is saying to the disciple to leave his father to rot where he is! Intuition alone is enough to tell you that you're probably missing something there. Yet it seems this is exactly what WBC believe that Jesus is saying!

If you take it in context, the disciple that says "Lord let me first go and bury my father" could mean anything from "my father hasn't got long to live" to "I must mourn ritualistically for my father". The former conveys the meaning that he must first care for his father until his death, that latter would be attributed to the usual Jewish burial practises of the time - yes a full year of mourning! Either case, Christ calls him in the now, not in the 1-5-10 year future. Depending on where Christ is in his ministry at this point (and you can't count on it being chronological in the Gospels) he may well have less than 12 months of his ministry left.

In our culture we just have the one funeral, and then go about our business. You would find precious few scholars who would argue for a ruthlessly literalistic reading of that verse.

Even if you take the ruthlessly literalistic reading here, Christ is still talking directly to somewhat who would follow him, whom he had just called. He isn't preaching to the masses that are not following him, if that makes sense.

What is Christianity? A Christian is someone who has accepted Jesus as their saviour and repented of their sins before God.

Christianity is the new covenant with God through Jesus, that surpasses all older covenants between God and man. For instance, between God and Abraham, God and Jacob, God and Moses, etc.

Jesus repeatedly found corruption in the religious leaders of contemporary Judaism in the first century. Corruption isn't a new concept. There were entire separatist sects, like the Samaritans, who the Palestinian Jews resented very greatly and certainly did not regard as representative of Judaism, and furthermore there were great tensions between them as well.

To be representative of Christianity one must hold firstly the teachings of Christ and the derivative Christian values.

• But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

WBC totally fail at witnessing the "lesser-great commandment" as quoted by Jesus above. We are not called to judge the world, we are not allowed to judge the world - God alone has that responsibility - we are only allowed to judge ourselves (in the Xian Church). Romans 2-3 is a good explanation of this. But there is an ever better example, and one that WBC uses to justify their position on ex-communication:

• 1 Corinthians 5:
  
  It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
  
  For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgement on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
  
  Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
  
  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Truthfully though, WBC is not alone in failing to interoperate this passage correctly. If they were completely literalist about it, then it would only mean to ex-communicate members in your Church involved in incest!! And surprisingly enough, some people actually believe this is what Paul means in this epistle.

What is made abundantly clear and beyond any kind of argument is that we are to judge ourselves, and let God be the judge of the world. WBC totally disregard this - while they do judge themselves, they also judge the world though they are instructed in the Bible not to. Worse still they preach it with hate and not with love.

All of this is why WBC is not representative of Christianity.

[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.

[Whore Of Babylon]

"Also, you addressed their fixation on homosexuality, but not on funerals. You probably aren't aware of what verse of the Bible WBC is "following" by picketing funerals:

Luke 9:57-62:

As they were going along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” To another he said, “Follow me.” But he said, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” And Jesus said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Yet another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home.” Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”"

There are line-breaks, but it's still a rant!


i didn't address funerals I know. but I was given the passages
isaiah 58:1
2 timothy 4:2
psalm 68:11

---

I feel like I owe you a more detailed response. It may come later. Love your enthusiasm, by the way. I love commas too, if you can't already tell.,, I'm starving, though.

---

as i reply to myself haha

[Aractus]

Haha, you don't owe me anything. So long as you don't come back with the typical atheist "see you're entire argument is that only you and the other anglicans know how to interpret the bible" response I'm happy.

You were "given" the passages from who?