Let Him Rest In Peace.

[LNC]

You're half right.

 

Unconscionable? Indeed. WBC is disgusting, and I'm glad to see you recognize this.

 

But unChristian? Hardly. WBC are essentially extreme Calvinists; and last time I checked, Calvinism could still be supported Biblically. Calvinists certainly seem to think so, anyway.

 

They're as Christian as you are, they're just a different kind of Christian. And they're also batshit insane. Your desire to distance yourself from them is understandable, but somewhat dishonest. You'd do better to say "WBC are not the kind of Christians we should be" rather than "WBC are not Christian".

 

Calvinism is not an official doctrine of Christianity, nor is it inspired. Whether or not Calvinism can be supported, the application of it, if that is what drives this group, cannot be. So, I don't think it reflects so much on Calvinism as I didn't see people in Calvin's time acting in this manner and if that was truly the logical consequences of his teaching, it seems more likely that we would have seen this behavior back then than it does that we would see it now. These people have their own brand of beliefs that reflect neither the Bible nor what Calvin taught.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I find nothing in the Bible that supports their behavior and I have already posted some passages that would condemn it. So, unless you can show me in the Bible where their particular behavior is clearly supported, then you assertion is without merit.

 

If they are insane as you said, does that justify their behavior? Wouldn't that indicate that they are not practicing Christianity as dictated in the Bible?

 

The bottom line is that I have shown why I believe that their behavior is unchristian and you have not shown why it is, so I think that my reasoning is justified and yours is not.

 

LNC

[LNC]

It is not unusual that people interpret and apply ideas incorrectly, it has been done throughout history.

 

Are you a Protestant?

 

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. The church of which I am a member is in the Protestant tradition.

 

LNC

[Legion]

I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

[Shyone]

 

I wonder how you know that they are Christians. Do you have some special insight into their hearts and minds? I find it ironic that you accuse me of selectively determining who in history is Christian and yet you determine that these people are Christians, that seems to be hypocritical on your part.

 

One is not allowed to interpret the Scriptures in whatever way they deem best and still be a faithful Christian. Those types of people are generally called apostate.

 

I didn't say that Christians are unchristian, if you will reread my post you will learn that I said that their behavior is unchristian and there is nothing illogical about that, nor is there a violation of the law of identity.

 

Again, you post is based upon a faulty reading and understanding of what I actually wrote in my post as well as a faulty understanding of Christianity.

 

LNC

My criteria are simple and easy to understand. One who calls him or herself a Christian is a Christian. Nothing hypocritical about it. Self-identification. It is you that must decide who is Christian or not, and deny their own self designation. Who are you to know into their hearts?

 

Is behavior the only way to know for you? Perhaps, but then that is rather superficial, and yet complicated. A Christian can sin and be forgiven, no? How much sin, and what beliefs are incorrect? If their beliefs are based on scripture, but their interpretation is different from yours, does that automatically disqualify them from being called Christian?

 

Do you have a list of beliefs by which you judge others?

 

Judging... That's rather Christian of you.

[Skankboy]

We are not allowed as Christians to treat the Bible as some sort of buffet line, picking and choosing the parts we like, taking them out of context and applying them in whatever manner we deem best. That is relativism and that is not being true to the Bible.

Please - every Christian does this to some extent. You interpret the bible to best fit your views, not the other way around. As your views change, your interpretation of the bible changes.

 

Do you follow the laws of Leviticus? Why not? Because YOUR interpretation says "these don't really apply to me". Who's cherry-picking?

 

PS - I know your view on the "inspired" nature of the bible. That's why I said it the way I did. Your point about the interpretation just goes to prove my point. NO ONE knows what's the bible is SUPPOSED to say, but EVERYONE thinks their's is the proper one.

 

I can understand you not wanting to be associated with them. Who would? As it was mentioned before - you are certianly welcome to say "they aren't acting as I believe christians should", but you really have no right to say "they aren't christians". As I understand the theology, only your god can make that determination.

[buffettphan]

WBC came to my city, Richmond VA, on Tuesday. They protested at the Virginia Holocaust Museum, 2 other jewish organizations, and a local high school because a gay-straight alliance group meets there. The curator of the museum invited the WBC protesters (3 adults and one child) to show them what happened when hate goes unchecked. Of course they declined.

 

As a result of the WBC circus, over $10,000 has been collected by counter-protesters and is being donated to the 4 targeted groups. I understand that Pennies In Protest will also send a thank you card to WBC letting them know that without their picketing the fundraising effort wouldn't have happened.

 

I attended a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery last summer. The WBC protesters were there. Disgusting. You have my greatest sympathies.

[Ouroboros]

Let me say that as a Christian I find the behavior of the WBC members unchristian and unconscionable. There is nothing in the Bible that would excuse or condone the behavior of these people. They are wolves in poorly fitting sheep's clothing.

I don't know.

 

I think they're more like wolves without any clothing at all. It's obvious to everyone how ill-fitted they are in society, and how mean-spirited their actions are. So basically they're wolves in wolves clothing. Or perhaps just plainly wolves.

 

Doesn't the phrase "wolves in sheep clothing" mean something which is dangerous, but no one notices? It's more about a person everyone likes, but behind the fur hides some evil mastermind.

[Ouroboros]

I wonder how you know that they are Christians.

I think that is a very good and important question.

 

How do you or I know who is a true or real Christian?

 

WBC claims it has the right Christian faith.

 

You claim you have the right Christian faith.

 

Here I am, outsider to both, trying to make a distinction. What would be the criteria I should use to validate one side or the other?

 

WBC is famous to take the Bible to the extreme literal side. When the Bible says in Leviticus 20 to kill gays, that's what they believe.

 

But if they're not the right Christians--taking the Bible to the extreme literal view--then which one of the more liberal/secular versions of Christianity is the right one?

 

And how can you judge it by the fruit? What is the good fruit of a Christian? That he manages to vote in Prop 8 in California because of homophobia?

 

And if the fruit is the judgment, then would it mean that a Jew, an agnostic, or an atheist doing good deeds are Christian?

 

What are the expected fruits really?

 

 

Do you have some special insight into their hearts and minds?

Good point. And if God only knows, then are you any different in knowing the hearts or minds of those who call themselves Christian?

 

One is not allowed to interpret the Scriptures in whatever way they deem best and still be a faithful Christian. Those types of people are generally called apostate.

During my 45 year long life, I have met so many different kinds of Christians and so many kinds of interpretations. Who decides what the true dogma is supposed to be? You? It's not like there is a central organization dictating what should be the tenets of the church... no wait, there is one, the Pope, but he's not Christian, so now we're back to square one...

 

I didn't say that Christians are unchristian, if you will reread my post you will learn that I said that their behavior is unchristian and there is nothing illogical about that, nor is there a violation of the law of identity.

In what sense are they unchristian? They speak their mind? They are open about their beliefs? They believe homosexuality is evil and that God hates it? Which part is it that makes them unchristian?

 

I'm just curious. And I'm glad that we finally can move into some other topics of discussion.

[godsfavoritecolor]

Thank you LNC!

 

Your posts and your signature have inspired me to create a new signature.

[Non-Redneck]

 

One is not allowed to interpret the Scriptures in whatever way they deem best and still be a faithful Christian. Those types of people are generally called apostate.

 

LNC

 

BWAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh. That made my day. So you're saying all of Protestant Christianity is apostate? How else do you explain the different sects of Christianity that came from the Roman Catholic Church, each according to their own interpretation of the Bible. Have you even studied Christian history? (I suspect not)

 

Do you consider the Church of England apostate? After all, it was founded by one king wanting a new wife and broke from Rome when he found a different interpretation.

 

Early Christian Church fathers wanted to ban certain books that are currently in the Bible. Are they apostates?

Luther wanted to drop several books from the New Testament. Is he an apostate?

Early Protestant Bibles had the Apocrypha as pat of it, but later Protestant sects completely dropped the Apocrypha. Are they apostates?

 

Then there's the matter of which Bible as at least 5 canons exist (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian). How do you know you've picked the right Bible to interpret?

 

 

Geez, I could on with this sh*t.

[LNC]

My criteria are simple and easy to understand. One who calls him or herself a Christian is a Christian. Nothing hypocritical about it. Self-identification. It is you that must decide who is Christian or not, and deny their own self designation. Who are you to know into their hearts?

 

Is behavior the only way to know for you? Perhaps, but then that is rather superficial, and yet complicated. A Christian can sin and be forgiven, no? How much sin, and what beliefs are incorrect? If their beliefs are based on scripture, but their interpretation is different from yours, does that automatically disqualify them from being called Christian?

 

Do you have a list of beliefs by which you judge others?

 

Judging... That's rather Christian of you.

 

I think you mean that your criteria is simplistic, overly simplistic at that. Sorry, that is not what Jesus or any of the other NT writers set as the standard. Judas would have considered himself a follower of Christ, what would later come to be known as a Christian, except Jesus said that he never was a Christian. Jesus called him a son of destruction in John 17 and said that he was lost.

 

I have also given two passages to indicate that we can judge Christians by their fruit and you have given me no indication, other than your assertion, that someone can just call himself a Christian and he automatically is one. I'm afraid that your word is not evidence.

 

We can not always be certain based upon a person's behavior; however, in some cases the behavior is so egregious and the person unrepentant of that behavior that we know that they are not walking with Jesus, despite what they may say about themselves. I'm sure you are familiar also with the passage that states:

 

On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

 

So, again, here is more evidence that one cannot merely call him or herself a Christian and, thus become one. Jesus describes people who show up on judgement day thinking that they are Christians and even claiming to have done works in the name of Christ, and yet, Jesus declares that he never knew them.

 

I never said that I was judging anyone's beliefs, I believe that is what you are doing. BTW, the Bible never says that we cannot judge others, that is a mistaken understanding of that passage, it says not to have a judgmental attitude. I don't have a judgmental attitude toward these people as many have displayed on this thread, I am simply looking at their fruit and discerning that it is not in keeping with Christian principles.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Please - every Christian does this to some extent. You interpret the bible to best fit your views, not the other way around. As your views change, your interpretation of the bible changes.

 

Do you follow the laws of Leviticus? Why not? Because YOUR interpretation says "these don't really apply to me". Who's cherry-picking?

 

PS - I know your view on the "inspired" nature of the bible. That's why I said it the way I did. Your point about the interpretation just goes to prove my point. NO ONE knows what's the bible is SUPPOSED to say, but EVERYONE thinks their's is the proper one.

 

I can understand you not wanting to be associated with them. Who would? As it was mentioned before - you are certianly welcome to say "they aren't acting as I believe christians should", but you really have no right to say "they aren't christians". As I understand the theology, only your god can make that determination.

 

How do you know how I interpret the Bible? How do you know that I interpret it incorrectly? That would require that you know the correct interpretation and to know that I am interpreting it incorrectly. If you believe that to be the case, maybe you could point out when and how I have done that.

 

I personally don't follow the ceremonial or the civil laws of Leviticus as I am not nor was I a Jew living in that time period. As for the moral laws, those are universal and even predated being codified during the Levitical period. You simply don't understand the differentiation of the OT law enough to know these distinctions, which is why you make this unsubstantiated charge. This is a common mistake that skeptics make.

 

I know what the Bible is supposed to say as it is written out for anyone to read. It is also not as difficult to interpret as most people think. There are only a few small places (mainly in apocalyptic genre) that get difficult to interpret; however, that doesn't affect doctrine, only what we believe about what will happen in the future.

 

If you read over my posts, I have never come out and said that they are not Christians as I cannot see into their hearts, I can only judge their actions, which is what I have done. It is you and others who seem to be able to judge their hearts and declare them to be Christians - I claim no such insight. However, since you agree that only God can make such determination, then I will say that we cannot know whether they are Christians and that their behavior doesn't reflect Christ.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I don't know.

 

I think they're more like wolves without any clothing at all. It's obvious to everyone how ill-fitted they are in society, and how mean-spirited their actions are. So basically they're wolves in wolves clothing. Or perhaps just plainly wolves.

 

Doesn't the phrase "wolves in sheep clothing" mean something which is dangerous, but no one notices? It's more about a person everyone likes, but behind the fur hides some evil mastermind.

 

I guess that's a good point. However, since they call themselves Christians, I would suggest that they are trying to clothe themselves in sheep's clothing, even though it is a shabby disguise.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

My criteria are simple and easy to understand. One who calls him or herself a Christian is a Christian. Nothing hypocritical about it. Self-identification. It is you that must decide who is Christian or not, and deny their own self designation. Who are you to know into their hearts?

 

Is behavior the only way to know for you? Perhaps, but then that is rather superficial, and yet complicated. A Christian can sin and be forgiven, no? How much sin, and what beliefs are incorrect? If their beliefs are based on scripture, but their interpretation is different from yours, does that automatically disqualify them from being called Christian?

 

Do you have a list of beliefs by which you judge others?

 

Judging... That's rather Christian of you.

 

I think you mean that your criteria is simplistic, overly simplistic at that. Sorry, that is not what Jesus or any of the other NT writers set as the standard. Judas would have considered himself a follower of Christ, what would later come to be known as a Christian, except Jesus said that he never was a Christian. Jesus called him a son of destruction in John 17 and said that he was lost.

 

Interesting that you chose Judas. You must not think much of the Gospel of Judas. If it weren't for Judas, Jesus wouldn't have been crucified, and you would wear a rocking chair around your neck instead of a cross.

 

Would Jesus have forgiven even Judas?

 

 

I have also given two passages to indicate that we can judge Christians by their fruit and you have given me no indication, other than your assertion, that someone can just call himself a Christian and he automatically is one. I'm afraid that your word is not evidence.

 

According to Acts 11, the name "Christian" wasn't invented until Barnabas and Saul went to Antioch. But whatever...

 

We can not always be certain based upon a person's behavior; however, in some cases the behavior is so egregious and the person unrepentant of that behavior that we know that they are not walking with Jesus, despite what they may say about themselves. I'm sure you are familiar also with the passage that states:

 

On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

 

I gather that the one making this judgement is not you according to the passage above. But you still feel youself qualified.

 

Matthew 7

1. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

2. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

4. How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

5. You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

 

 

So, again, here is more evidence that one cannot merely call him or herself a Christian and, thus become one. Jesus describes people who show up on judgement day thinking that they are Christians and even claiming to have done works in the name of Christ, and yet, Jesus declares that he never knew them.

 

I never said that I was judging anyone's beliefs, I believe that is what you are doing. BTW, the Bible never says that we cannot judge others, that is a mistaken understanding of that passage, it says not to have a judgmental attitude. I don't have a judgmental attitude toward these people as many have displayed on this thread, I am simply looking at their fruit and discerning that it is not in keeping with Christian principles.

 

LNC

 

Main Entry: judge

Part of Speech: verb

Definition: make decision from evidence; deduce

Synonyms: act on, adjudge, adjudicate, appraise, appreciate, approximate, arbitrate, arrive, ascertain, assess, check, collect, conclude, condemn, consider, criticize, decide, decree, deduct, derive, determine, discern, distinguish, doom, draw, esteem, estimate, evaluate, examine, find, gather, give a hearing, make, make out, mediate, pass sentence, place, pronounce sentence, put, rate, reckon, referee, resolve, review, rule, sentence, settle, sit, size up, suppose, test, try, umpire, value

 

You have taken on the mantle of Jesus yourself to "discern" whether a person is a Christian or not based on his or her behavior.

 

What's worse is that you DO base this on beliefs. One says he is of a certain sect, you say, "He is not a Christian." Why? Because of the beliefs of that sect. Without even knowing of whom I speak, you would judge him or her.

 

And they would say the same of you. So take that plank out of your eye.

[LNC]

I think that is a very good and important question.

 

How do you or I know who is a true or real Christian?

 

WBC claims it has the right Christian faith.

 

You claim you have the right Christian faith.

 

Here I am, outsider to both, trying to make a distinction. What would be the criteria I should use to validate one side or the other?

 

WBC is famous to take the Bible to the extreme literal side. When the Bible says in Leviticus 20 to kill gays, that's what they believe.

 

But if they're not the right Christians--taking the Bible to the extreme literal view--then which one of the more liberal/secular versions of Christianity is the right one?

 

And how can you judge it by the fruit? What is the good fruit of a Christian? That he manages to vote in Prop 8 in California because of homophobia?

 

And if the fruit is the judgment, then would it mean that a Jew, an agnostic, or an atheist doing good deeds are Christian?

 

What are the expected fruits really?

 

I actually don't think that they take the Bible literally since Leviticus also sets up the whole system of animal sacrifice for the atonement of sins and I don't see them making those animal sacrifices. I don't think that they abide by the dietary restrictions either as far as I know. So, they are not as literal as you may think. If they or you believe that the OT laws still apply in the way that Israel was told to keep them, then why didn't Jesus stone the woman who anointed his feet with her tears rather than forgiving her. Even the Pharisees knew what kind of woman she was. Or, how about the demoniac, the woman at the well, or the leper surely he was forbidden from associating with them according to OT law, but he didn't disassociate himself from them, but rather healed two of them. Jesus was a Rabbi, he should have known better if, in fact, the law still applied in his day as it did in the earlier times. Does that mean that Jesus was cherry picking? Does that mean that Jesus wasn't a real Christian? Wait, that doesn't make sense...It seems that either the WBC people are right or Jesus is right, but both cannot be. I'll go with Jesus.

 

See my earlier posts regarding your fruit question.

 

Good point. And if God only knows, then are you any different in knowing the hearts or minds of those who call themselves Christian?

 

I never made that claim as you will find out if you reread my posts. I can only judge their fruits, which look to be on the rotten side.

 

During my 45 year long life, I have met so many different kinds of Christians and so many kinds of interpretations. Who decides what the true dogma is supposed to be? You? It's not like there is a central organization dictating what should be the tenets of the church... no wait, there is one, the Pope, but he's not Christian, so now we're back to square one...

 

It is not like the Scriptures are that hard to understand. There is a proper methodology for interpretation of texts, including the Bible and that is the method that determines whether an interpretation is accurate. It is no different from interpreting philosophical writers of the past, we apply reason and methods in understanding their writings. I don't belong to the postmodern wing of philosophical thought that believes that interpretation is up to the interpreter. In fact, I don't even believe that a postmodernist would allow anyone to come along and interpret their books in whatever manner they like.

 

In what sense are they unchristian? They speak their mind? They are open about their beliefs? They believe homosexuality is evil and that God hates it? Which part is it that makes them unchristian?

 

I'm just curious. And I'm glad that we finally can move into some other topics of discussion.

 

Again, I am saying that their behavior is unchristian. If it were not unchristian then this thread would not have started up in the first place. I think it is quite obvious that they display hateful behavior toward other people, which is not acting like Christ. Homosexuality, adultery, pride, envy, etc. are all behaviors and practices which God calls sin; however, one can hate sin but still love the sinner. The WBC people seem to lump the sinner in with the sin and condemn both, which is not their place to do. They have usurped God's role, which is itself a sin. That is being unchristian.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Thank you LNC!

 

Your posts and your signature have inspired me to create a new signature.

 

What truth do you know and from what have you been set free? I thought that atheism was currently being defined as not having enough faith to believe that God (or gods) exist. Do you define it differently?

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

I guess that's a good point. However, since they call themselves Christians, I would suggest that they are trying to clothe themselves in sheep's clothing, even though it is a shabby disguise.

Perhaps they're really clothing themselves in goat's clothing.

[Hungrydingo]

WBC came to my city, Richmond VA, on Tuesday. They protested at the Virginia Holocaust Museum, 2 other jewish organizations, and a local high school because a gay-straight alliance group meets there. The curator of the museum invited the WBC protesters (3 adults and one child) to show them what happened when hate goes unchecked. Of course they declined.

 

As a result of the WBC circus, over $10,000 has been collected by counter-protesters and is being donated to the 4 targeted groups. I understand that Pennies In Protest will also send a thank you card to WBC letting them know that without their picketing the fundraising effort wouldn't have happened.

 

I attended a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery last summer. The WBC protesters were there. Disgusting. You have my greatest sympathies.

 

I suppose if you're going to respond to the WBC trolls that is the best way to do it. Rubbing it in their faces and trolling right back at them. Even if I knew they were going to be in town, I wouldn't counter protest or even acknowledge them, and I'd encourage everyone I know to do the same thing. If you ignore them, I honestly think that's the worst thing you could possibly do to them.

[Dagan]

I know what the Bible is supposed to say as it is written out for anyone to read.

 

Except for the millions of people who could not read in the ancient world and until about 150 years ago, and who had to rely on what the priests told them.

 

Except for the millions of people who were not allowed to own their own copies of the bible and read it for themselves.

 

Except for the millions of people today who cannot read and do not have access to the bible.

 

Good plan God! Give the most important message in the history of the universe to a small group of barely-literate fanatics who can't even agree among themselves what it means, who to tell and what to do next. Let them spread different, sometimes contradictory versions of that message around the ancient world. Let them fight doctrinal wars among each other. Let them corrupt the message and fuck each other over while they use it to grab political power. Let them use it to hurt and enslave others and prevent others from seeing that message for themselves. No, no, don't intervene, don't get up, free will and all. Let people suffer in deluded misery for, oh, a time, two times, and half a time, or maybe a thousand-year reign or so.

 

And then burn 'em all because it's their fault they didn't hear your word and accept your son/you/your ghostly apparition.

 

It's like it's impossible to win... unless you do EXACTLY what the priests/church/pope tells you... hmmm...

 

And to the topic, why are the WBC any worse than Seventh-Day Adventists, who let people die because they refuse blood transfusions? How are they any worse than someone from church who sends me endless racist bullshit emails cloaked in religious language? How are they any worse than John Calvin, who burned people alive to enforce his reforms? Or Luther, who basically advocated murdering Jews ("We are at fault in not slaying them" he said)? Or biblical reformers in the books of Kings and Judges who murdered thousands to "bring the people back to the ways of the lord?"

 

WBC represents the ugliness incarnate that is in all Christians' hearts.

[Ouroboros]

I actually don't think that they take the Bible literally since Leviticus also sets up the whole system of animal sacrifice for the atonement of sins and I don't see them making those animal sacrifices. I don't think that they abide by the dietary restrictions either as far as I know. So, they are not as literal as you may think.

Good points.

 

If they or you believe that the OT laws still apply in the way that Israel was told to keep them, then why didn't Jesus stone the woman who anointed his feet with her tears rather than forgiving her. Even the Pharisees knew what kind of woman she was. Or, how about the demoniac, the woman at the well, or the leper surely he was forbidden from associating with them according to OT law, but he didn't disassociate himself from them, but rather healed two of them. Jesus was a Rabbi, he should have known better if, in fact, the law still applied in his day as it did in the earlier times. Does that mean that Jesus was cherry picking?

I think he was.

 

Does that mean that Jesus wasn't a real Christian? Wait, that doesn't make sense...It seems that either the WBC people are right or Jesus is right, but both cannot be. I'll go with Jesus.

Did Christianity exist before the death of Jesus? Just a thought...

 

 

It is not like the Scriptures are that hard to understand. There is a proper methodology for interpretation of texts, including the Bible and that is the method that determines whether an interpretation is accurate. It is no different from interpreting philosophical writers of the past, we apply reason and methods in understanding their writings. I don't belong to the postmodern wing of philosophical thought that believes that interpretation is up to the interpreter. In fact, I don't even believe that a postmodernist would allow anyone to come along and interpret their books in whatever manner they like.

If the scriptures are not so hard to understand, then why are there so many misunderstandings? And why is it necessary to have teachers who teach the "proper" interpretations?

 

Christianity has changed many times, and it's not one kind of thought.

 

Again, I am saying that their behavior is unchristian. If it were not unchristian then this thread would not have started up in the first place. I think it is quite obvious that they display hateful behavior toward other people, which is not acting like Christ.

So what about telling what you would believe is the truth? I mean, the WBC doesn't physically go into a fight with anyone, they're just telling their point of view. Freedom of speech, etc.

 

What about if you would stand up and say something against gays, or that gays are supposed to be stoned according to the Bible, are you hateful or do you consider yourself caring for the people and wanting to save them?

 

Homosexuality, adultery, pride, envy, etc. are all behaviors and practices which God calls sin; however, one can hate sin but still love the sinner. The WBC people seem to lump the sinner in with the sin and condemn both, which is not their place to do. They have usurped God's role, which is itself a sin. That is being unchristian.

I have to think about that.

[Shyone]

Again, I am saying that their behavior is unchristian. If it were not unchristian then this thread would not have started up in the first place. I think it is quite obvious that they display hateful behavior toward other people, which is not acting like Christ. Homosexuality, adultery, pride, envy, etc. are all behaviors and practices which God calls sin; however, one can hate sin but still love the sinner. The WBC people seem to lump the sinner in with the sin and condemn both, which is not their place to do. They have usurped God's role, which is itself a sin. That is being unchristian.

 

LNC

I realize that this discussion is about the WBC, but I have also noted that you apply the unchristian label to people of other sects. Do you now deny that you have done so? If you consider everyone you don't know who claims to be a Christian as a Christian regardless of their particular beliefs or sect, then I have no reason to disagree with you.

 

And being in another sect is not, strictly speaking, a "behavior" but rather the adoption of a set of beliefs or doctrines.

 

You assume (probably correctly) that the Westboror Baptist Church members all "behave" the same way, but I don't know that you really know every member of their congregation. Are there some that don't behave badly, but believe in their doctrines, that you would accept as Christian?

 

I mean, since you're not judging their beliefs and all...

[LNC]

BWAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh. That made my day. So you're saying all of Protestant Christianity is apostate? How else do you explain the different sects of Christianity that came from the Roman Catholic Church, each according to their own interpretation of the Bible. Have you even studied Christian history? (I suspect not)

 

Do you consider the Church of England apostate? After all, it was founded by one king wanting a new wife and broke from Rome when he found a different interpretation.

 

Early Christian Church fathers wanted to ban certain books that are currently in the Bible. Are they apostates?

Luther wanted to drop several books from the New Testament. Is he an apostate?

Early Protestant Bibles had the Apocrypha as pat of it, but later Protestant sects completely dropped the Apocrypha. Are they apostates?

 

Then there's the matter of which Bible as at least 5 canons exist (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopian). How do you know you've picked the right Bible to interpret?

 

 

Geez, I could on with this sh*t.

 

Hey, glad I could tickle your funny bone, but I don't think I said that all of Protestant Christianity was apostate, nor did I give any indication of that. I think you are doing some creative interpretation of my posts.

 

I don't dispute that there are different denominations of Protestant Christianity, most of which would agree on the essential doctrines of the faith and only differ on the non-essentials. However, most denominations would also agree on most of the non-essentials as well and only have different denominations from a geographic or cultural heritage. Yes, I have taken post-graduate courses in church history and read in the field regularly, how about you? I am suspecting that you haven't done enough reading from your post as you seem to think that each denomination interprets the Bible significantly different from the other. I have been a part of three different churches since becoming a follower of Christ and each has been a different denomination; however, none has differed in doctrine from the other. BTW, I changed churches because of geographic moves that I made, not out of division with any of the churches.

 

Regarding the Church of England, it had a shaky foundation and some troubled years early on with the succession of monarchs in England; however, it also had some strong roots and, in fact, I consider the Westminster Catechism to be a stellar work. Lately, I think that it has drifted from its moorings; however, the Anglican Church in Africa and in the U.S. is growing quite strong. The reason that the Church of England has lost its mooring is because they have abandoned the Bible, not because they have legitimately reinterpreted it.

 

Regarding the Canon, are you referring to Marcion? If so, he was declared a heretic and an apostate, so yes, I would agree with the early church fathers regarding him. Irenaeus recognized the four Gospels in the mid second century and Origin was using the 27 books by the late second or early third century. The canon was settled by the fourth century. The only NT books that were questioned were Hebrews, James, 2 & 3 John and Revelation, however, that was settled well before the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Carthage.

 

Early Protestants came out of the Roman Catholic Church so it is no wonder that they would have the Apocrypha in their Bibles until they came up with their own versions. But there was no question as to whether they belonged in the Bible as they were not a part of the canon accepted by the Jews (the Apocrypha was made up of intertestimental works that were not recognized as a part of the Jewish canon). So, why would I consider the early Protestants apostate since those were the only Bibles available in a common language (Latin).

 

The Protestant Church goes with Judaism as to which books are canonical from the OT and there is no dispute among the various denominations regarding the NT. I guess if I would trust a reliable source for canonicity of the OT, I would go with the Jews themselves as it is their book. Do you have a good reason to think differently? Is there a good reason to accept the Apocrypha as being canonical? Do you know when the Catholic church declared the Apocrypha to be canonical? The answer is that the Roman Catholic church did not officially recognize those books until after the Protestants (and some Catholics) decided to exclude them. In 1546 the Council of Trent acted to declare them official. They have been disputed over time and many church fathers never recognized them.

 

There are clear standards that were applied to recognize canonicity, that is how we recognize the 27 books of the NT that we have today.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I guess that's a good point. However, since they call themselves Christians, I would suggest that they are trying to clothe themselves in sheep's clothing, even though it is a shabby disguise.

Perhaps they're really clothing themselves in goat's clothing.

 

That is an even better description!

 

LNC

[LNC]

Except for the millions of people who could not read in the ancient world and until about 150 years ago, and who had to rely on what the priests told them.

 

Except for the millions of people who were not allowed to own their own copies of the bible and read it for themselves.

 

Except for the millions of people today who cannot read and do not have access to the bible.

 

Good plan God! Give the most important message in the history of the universe to a small group of barely-literate fanatics who can't even agree among themselves what it means, who to tell and what to do next. Let them spread different, sometimes contradictory versions of that message around the ancient world. Let them fight doctrinal wars among each other. Let them corrupt the message and fuck each other over while they use it to grab political power. Let them use it to hurt and enslave others and prevent others from seeing that message for themselves. No, no, don't intervene, don't get up, free will and all. Let people suffer in deluded misery for, oh, a time, two times, and half a time, or maybe a thousand-year reign or so.

 

And then burn 'em all because it's their fault they didn't hear your word and accept your son/you/your ghostly apparition.

 

It's like it's impossible to win... unless you do EXACTLY what the priests/church/pope tells you... hmmm...

 

And to the topic, why are the WBC any worse than Seventh-Day Adventists, who let people die because they refuse blood transfusions? How are they any worse than someone from church who sends me endless racist bullshit emails cloaked in religious language? How are they any worse than John Calvin, who burned people alive to enforce his reforms? Or Luther, who basically advocated murdering Jews ("We are at fault in not slaying them" he said)? Or biblical reformers in the books of Kings and Judges who murdered thousands to "bring the people back to the ways of the lord?"

 

WBC represents the ugliness incarnate that is in all Christians' hearts.

 

Sure, the early church was an oral culture which is why there wasn't an immediate pressing need to write the accounts right away. It seemed to work well as the word spread widely before the first word was committed to vellum and parchment. So, apparently it was a good plan! Once it was written down it spread even more widely due to the fact that Koine Greek was such a common language and that is the language in which the Septuagint and NT were written. Another stroke of great timing and planning!

 

Then there is the fact that Christianity was a great catalyst to the spread of literacy as people wanted to read the Bible by themselves. Wow, another great advancement in society with the advancement of Christianity. Who was it that started the most of the universities of the world at that time? You're right, Christians! They also started most of the hospitals, but that's another story. Go down the list of great universities and you will see that they were started by Christians - Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, University of Chicago...the list goes on and on.

 

Can you tell me, of all the offenses that you listed, where any of them is advocated in the NT? Second, can you give me a basis for objective morality apart from the existence of God? I never claimed to be perfect or to know of any perfect Christian, save Jesus himself. Yes, there were a lot of Christians that did ugly things in the past and some who do so in the present. Whether the members of WBC or the Seventh Day Adventist Church are really Christians, I cannot say. As I said, I can only judge their actions.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

There are clear standards that were applied to recognize canonicity, that is how we recognize the 27 books of the NT that we have today.

 

LNC

What clear standards?

 

It seems to have been a gradual process, and the inclusion of texts was determined mostly by vote, but they were voting on lists compiled by some people like Eusabius, the Forger.

 

Irenaeus used the following standard in his list: "A work could be accepted as canonical if the early church fathers used it."

 

Does that about sum it up?