Let Him Rest In Peace.

[NotBlinded]

LNC, your ego stinks. I can see you sitting there, in my mind's eye, on your computer just so satisfied with yourself and your post graduate classes so to become set above others.

 

If what you profess to be Christianity is Christianity, you are not a Christian. Your fruit is pretty rotten to be setting yourself above others in this manner. There are several people here that surpass your education, so don't feel so damn self-righteous. And wipe that smug look off your face as you set back and read what you have written.

 

Sheesh...

[NotBlinded]

Second, can you give me a basis for objective morality apart from the existence of God?

Well that's about one of the stupidest questions I have ever seen. It's like asking for a basis for subjective morality apart from the existence of humans. Same result.

 

I'm not going into this further in this thread though, but really, why throw in the word objective?

[Phanta]

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.

 

Why was it important to stone her in one period of time and to forgive her in another period? What changed? What would the consequences have been for just forgiving her in OT times, without the stoning? Why would the consequences be different in the time she actually existed?

 

Phanta

[The-Captain]

Why was it important to stone her in one period of time and to forgive her in another period? What changed? What would the consequences have been for just forgiving her in OT times, without the stoning? Why would the consequences be different in the time she actually existed?

 

Phanta

 

This is one of my greatest issues with Christianity. How can you ignore or explain away the morally repugnant actions of the OT that were sanctioned by the God that supposedly never changes? What does this say about him?

[Non-Redneck]

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.

 

Jesus didn't stone her because the Torah required the person who had actually witnessed the crime to throw the first stone. Jesus had not witnessed any adultery, so he had no legal right to throw the first stone. Apparently neither had anybody else witnessed her actions (including any of the Pharisees). If they did, they didn't think to accuss her and stone her.

 

Jesus didn't change anything, he just had no legal right under the Torah to stone her.

[centauri]

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.

What mistake would that be?

Where does the new covenant, as defined by the Hebrew scriptures, state that some laws would become obsolete?

Where do the Hebrew scriptures declare that some of God’s laws would be nullified when a king messiah arrives?

What does God warn his people, which would include Jesus, not to do to the law?

What law was Jesus referring to in Matt 5:18-20?

Where do the Hebrew scriptures state that the Levitical priesthood would not be functioning in the messianic era?

[Non-Redneck]

This is true cognitive dissonance at work here.

 

 

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.

 

 

You wrote : "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"

 

Protestants starting interpreting the Bible differently from the RCC. That seems pretty apostate to me based on what you wrote. Oh silly me, you actually meant "interpret the Scriptures differently from mainline Protestants in whatever way they deem best". That is your definition of apostate.

 

 

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.

 

Yes, so during the Reformation, these Protestants were so in agreement on essential doctrines that they started killing and persecuting each other. Many Protestant sects today (mainly fundie or evangelical or Baptist) consider other sects to be heretics.

 

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.

 

Cognitive dissonance again. The Church of England broke with Rome because the King wanted to divorce his wife and RCC wouldn't allow it. The foundation is corrupt. It was never founded on the Bible, unless you consider the adultry to be biblical.

 

 

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.

 

So it took FOUR CENTURIES to figure out what books were real? Even if the Bible was real, it proves its God is stupid. And even then the Christians still got it wrong as modern scholarship has proven that several NT books were not written by Paul and others are questionable. Plus different churches still have different canons (at least five that I am aware of).

 

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

 

The only reason the OT is what it is is because the Jews hurried to assemble their books while they were being deported to Babylon. The "intertestimental works" were not considered sacred simply because they weren't written in Hebrew. The "intertestimental works" are simply the same thing as the OT, but written in a different language.

 

The only clear standards that were applied to recognize some books and canon were whether some corrupt Christians thought they could justify their own theology from it. Like Martin Luther, he thought some books should be thrown out, but didn't for fear of public backlash.

 

Some of us have realized that all the books of the Bible should be thrown out because it's all bullsh*t. The amount of cognitive dissonance in your posts astounds me. You sound like Jack Chick to me.

[LNC]

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

 

I guess it depends on how you define Christianity. However, since Jesus was the emulation of what Christianity was to be, I would say, yes.

 

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.

 

I guess the same could be asked about the U.S. Constitution. The liberals interpret it as a "living document" while conservatives are strict constructionists. So, which has the proper interpretation? Why is it necessary to have the Supreme Court to interpret it (and sometimes to reinterpret it)?

 

Everything you said about Christianity could be said about the Constitution, yet, is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind? I don't think so. It comes from people trying to put their own spin on the original for their own selfish reasons. Yet, the original is still before us and written in languages that we can understand. We can also look to history to help us to interpret the documents in context.

 

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?

 

What I believe is the truth on this issue is written in the NT. The only people that Jesus condemned in person were people who were acting like the WBC members, those who were Pharisaical and judgmental. Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery (although that story is not believed to be in the original manuscripts) or the woman who washed his feet with her tears (even though the Pharisees did) or the woman at the well (even though she was a Samaritan and was living with a man, though unmarried), etc.

 

I don't believe that gays are to be stoned according to the Bible. Paul never called for that in his writing. I believe that I do care for people. I used to live in Chicago and my next door neighbor, who was a good friend of my wife and me, was openly homosexual. In fact, many in my neighborhood, including our alderwoman, were homosexual. I don't think it is a lifestyle that we were designed for; however, I can still love those who practice it.

 

I have to think about that.

 

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

I guess it depends on how you define Christianity. However, since Jesus was the emulation of what Christianity was to be, I would say, yes.

But isn't Christianity also the definition of believing in the salvation through Jesus? In other words, Christians of that kind wouldn't really exist until after the supposed act.

 

I guess the same could be asked about the U.S. Constitution. The liberals interpret it as a "living document" while conservatives are strict constructionists. So, which has the proper interpretation? Why is it necessary to have the Supreme Court to interpret it (and sometimes to reinterpret it)?

So who is the Supreme Court of Christianity?

 

Everything you said about Christianity could be said about the Constitution, yet, is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind? I don't think so. It comes from people trying to put their own spin on the original for their own selfish reasons. Yet, the original is still before us and written in languages that we can understand. We can also look to history to help us to interpret the documents in context.

I can see that, but... (as usual ) the Constitution--as a living document--is in effect reinterpreted time and time, over again. So are you suggesting that Christianity is changing because the interpretation and the new insights? So there is no absolutely correct way of being Christian. To be a right Christian 200 years ago was different and it was still the "real" kind.

 

What I believe is the truth on this issue is written in the NT. The only people that Jesus condemned in person were people who were acting like the WBC members, those who were Pharisaical and judgmental. Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery (although that story is not believed to be in the original manuscripts) or the woman who washed his feet with her tears (even though the Pharisees did) or the woman at the well (even though she was a Samaritan and was living with a man, though unmarried), etc.

How about when Jesus said things like that they had to hate their father and mother and follow him, or that they should let the dead bury the dead? How about the words that he had not come to create peace but to create division and wars? (If I recall correctly)

 

I don't believe that gays are to be stoned according to the Bible. Paul never called for that in his writing. I believe that I do care for people. I used to live in Chicago and my next door neighbor, who was a good friend of my wife and me, was openly homosexual. In fact, many in my neighborhood, including our alderwoman, were homosexual. I don't think it is a lifestyle that we were designed for; however, I can still love those who practice it.

Good.

 

So your view is that when some pageant woman tells the media that she believes in the Bible, and that the Bible clearly states that homosexuals are to be stoned, you believe they have stepped out of Christian love and into self-righteous sin (or something similar)?

 

If that's the case, why doesn't anyone--real Christian--stand up and defend the true love-Gospel? I mean, publicly and stick it to the hate-mongers we see so much of today.

[agnosticator]

I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

Almost thou hath persuadeth me to become a Christian! Pert near close, but nigh plum brutha!

[agnosticator]

And to the topic, why are the WBC any worse than Seventh-Day Adventists, who let people die because they refuse blood transfusions?

 

I don't mean to be picky, but I can't stop myself. It's Jehovah Witnesses, not SDA's.

[centauri]

Mainstream Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the art of rationalization.

Westboro Baptist has responses that rationalize their behavior, which they consider to be perfectly appropriate for true Christians.

Christianity is a subjective belief system that has no monopoly on absolutes, moral or otherwise.

From the Westboro FAQ guide:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html

 

How can you call yourself a Christian?

 

Because Christ died for our sins, and we faithfully uphold His Word. Most "Christians" today are Christians by name only, and should be ashamed of themselves. They are cowardly, lukewarm, and ashamed of Christ's Word. They have substituted their own pathetic ideas for God's clear commandments.

 

Why don't you leave it up to God and stop wasting your time telling people that they are wrong?

 

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? I, the Lord, search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." (Jeremiah 17:9-10). This being the exclusive prerogative of God, we leave it alone, knowing that we can never convince someone that they are doing something wrong.

 

What we do is what we are commanded to do. There are two verses that show our commission well: "CRY aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins." (Isaiah 58:1); and "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2). We preach.

 

We preach the unvarnished word which the Bible calls "a more sure word of prophecy, unto which ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts;" (2 Peter 1:19). For we know of a certainty that we are commanded to preach and we know "after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." (1 Corinthians 1:21).

 

So, we certainly know that we have absolutely no power or ability to show anyone where he or she went wrong. Everything begins and ends at the commandment of God and we are altogether content to leave all matters of the heart to Him. This in no wise means that we should leave off preaching, for we are expressly commanded to do so, however it is received. As God thrice reminds Ezekiel: "Whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear (for they are a rebellious house), yet shall know that there hath been a prophet among them." (Ezekiel 2:5; 2:7; and 3:11).

 

Doesn't the Bible say not to judge?

 

Yes. However, you may not understand what that means. It means not to judge unrighteously, it means not to judge using your human judgment, and it means not to judge hypocritically. In other words, don't substitute your judgment for God's, and don't judge other people when you are guilty of impenitently engaging in the same sins (i.e., Don't cast the first stone). However, there are several verses in the Bible where we are told to judge. "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" John 7:24. "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man" I Corinthians 2:15. "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" I Corinthians 6:2. (more on the site)

 

Doesn't the Bible say to love your neighbor?

 

Yes. Does that mean to lie to him and tell him what he wants to hear? No. It means to tell him the truth, and warn him to flee from the wrath to come. As we are commanded in Leviticus 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." Here, loving your neighbour is defined as rebuking him, and not allowing sin to come upon him. Further, we have never suggested that we don't love our neighbor. We're not saying "We hate fags" - we're saying "God hates fags." The purest, most exalted form of love is to tell people the truth, especially about weighty matters such as life and death, sin, righteousness, judgment to come, Heaven and Hell.

 

But remember, David said: "Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? Am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred; I count them mine enemies." Psalm 139:21, 22. David hated God's enemies with a perfect, spiritual hatred (as opposed to the fickle human emotion of hatred), just as all of God's elect do.

[Shyone]

 

From the Westboro FAQ guide:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html

 

How can you call yourself a Christian?

Now that you have posted the Good and True Words that should Guide the People to Righteousness, I would fully expect our resident Christians to join their fold. How could a Christian possibly dispute what they have written? It is clearly scriptural, and it should make any Christian that isn't a member of their church cringe with shame.

 

As for me, I'd rather just sit here and type.

[Kurari]

They're as Christian as you are, they're just a different kind of Christian.

 

Agreed. "Christianity" is really an umbrella term for over 34,000+ groups surrounding the belief that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior.

 

After that, it's anything goes, really. There is little cohesion outside of the belief in Jesus.

[Dagan]

And to the topic, why are the WBC any worse than Seventh-Day Adventists, who let people die because they refuse blood transfusions?

 

I don't mean to be picky, but I can't stop myself. It's Jehovah Witnesses, not SDA's.

 

My bad. I knew it was one or the other but I wasnt sure which so I guessed. Thanks for the correction!

[Dagan]

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!

 

"seemed..." "apparently..." not very strong choices of words there.

 

No, the reason why there wasn't an immediate pressing need to write the accounts down is because all the early Christians -- Paul himself included, judging by some of his earliest writings -- believed Jesus was coming back tout de suite. When they realized this wasn't happening, and finally scrambled to get it all down, there had been quite a lot of doctrinal infighting, a lot of time to re-think what Jesus "really" said and a lot of time to write documents that reflect that.

 

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!

 

Which version spread? The version endorsed by the Jerusalem church? Or by Paul? Or one of the less popular "heretical" versions, which had all their manuscripts destroyed by the more popular sects? Which one was right?

 

And how common was written Greek, really? I suspect the average believer could read a couple of words at best, certainly not an entire gospel or epistle. And even if they could, reproducing the documents wasn't cheap or easy. I posit that most believers just believed whatever they were told, and the priests/deacons/elders maintained control over their churches because they were the only ones who could copy, read and interpret the scriptures/gospels/epistles.

 

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.

 

That's like Al Gore claiming he invented the Internet. The printing press did more for literacy than Christianity ever did. And the printing press came along thanks to the Northern and Italian Renaissances and the rise of humanistic thinking, which I grant, was inspired in part by a desire to return to a "pure" faith but mostly, Christianity was just along for the ride.

 

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.

 

Duh, that's because everyone was -- or at least said they were -- Christian at the time. Those who didn't were ostracized, or at the very least frowned upon and denied opportunities that people who professed Christianity would get. In any society where the vast majority of people hold an opinion, those who go against that opinion will be looked down on.

 

Can you tell me, of all the offenses that you listed, where any of them is advocated in the NT?

 

Can you tell me where Jesus said the old OT laws are redundant? Because I want to hear it from him. Was it Jesus or Paul who said that the laws are for the Jews, not the Gentiles. Does that mean I don't have to tithe? Or as a Christian am I some kind of Jew-Gentile hybrid, and the preacher can tell me which "Jew" laws I have to follow and which ones I don't? Who decides? I want to know, I want a crystal-clear answer here, because we are talking about the eternal state of people's souls here. Some of these old laws have curses and death attached to them for those who don't follow them. People have staked their souls on this. Does God make it crystal-clear? Or does something get lost in the translation from one dead spoken language (Aramaic) to getting written down in another dead language (Koine Greek) translated to another (Latin) to another (Victorian English) finally to modern English?

 

Second, can you give me a basis for objective morality apart from the existence of God?

 

 

Why throw out a red herring? I'll bite though -- no, because there is no objective morality. We have an evolved society based on the wisdom of groups, which has come to hold many things as universal moral truths because they are proven practical wisdom. We have all agreed, by forming a society, to follow these common moral laws which would destroy the society if broken. Don't kill your brothers. Don't steal your brother's food -- a weak brother cannot fight or hunt, and an angry brother will hurt you. Don't fuck your brother's wife -- an angry brother splinters the tribe, but happy families are healthy, are good hunters and look out for others. Don't betray your tribe -- together, we are strong. Always look out for the weak, the young and the old -- we looked out for you when you were young, and we will look out for you when you are weak or old. Today it is your turn to look out for us.

 

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.

 

And so I judge your actions. You have a condescending attitude, you take a pusillanimous approach to direct questions and if that doesn't work you try and baffle with bullshit.

 

I still say the WBC represents the ugliness incarnate that resides in all Christians' hearts. This ugliness shows itself in different ways. Some people choose to focus on biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, and claim, as Paul lays out in Romans, that it is a sign of a sick and decadent and evil people. Others choose to focus on prohibitions against blood in meat. Others choose to condemn anyone who leaves their church as "never was a true Christian." Others gossip. Others try and show off their vast storehouse of knowledge gained in 200-level bible college classes on an Internet forum, debating with the "lost sheep" in an attempt to either prove they were never true Christians, or win them back.

 

The common denominator in all Christians' hearts is a willingness to condemn to eternal hell and torture those who do not agree with their beliefs. That is sick and ugly.

 

And I ask again -- why would God spread the most important message EVAR in a way that leaves millions of people condemned to burn in hell forever, thorugh no fault of their own except for being born in the wrong place and time?

[Kathlene]

They're as Christian as you are, they're just a different kind of Christian.

 

Agreed. "Christianity" is really an umbrella term for over 34,000+ groups surrounding the belief that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior.

 

After that, it's anything goes, really. There is little cohesion outside of the belief in Jesus.

So...if the Klu Klux Klan says they represent Christ us christians should just agree with them, and say yeah brothers whatever! er....NO. There are times when there are sects that represent the christian faith, and looking back on the westboro post that someone linked in here, I can clearly see they have taken a select few verses and formed themselves a viscious disgusting doctrine in there. Yeah there are thousands of groups under christianity. Like I have always said all along. Common sense and a solid foundation.

[dagnarus]

They're as Christian as you are, they're just a different kind of Christian.

 

Agreed. "Christianity" is really an umbrella term for over 34,000+ groups surrounding the belief that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior.

 

After that, it's anything goes, really. There is little cohesion outside of the belief in Jesus.

So...if the Klu Klux Klan says they represent Christ us christians should just agree with them, and say yeah brothers whatever! er....NO. There are times when there are sects that represent the christian faith, and looking back on the westboro post that someone linked in here, I can clearly see they have taken a select few verses and formed themselves a viscious disgusting doctrine in there. Yeah there are thousands of groups under christianity. Like I have always said all along. Common sense and a solid foundation.

 

And you took some few select verses and made a religion of sunshine and lollipops. There principles are just as founded on biblical doctrine as yours, if not more so, deal with it.

[Shyone]

 

So...if the Klu Klux Klan says they represent Christ us christians should just agree with them, and say yeah brothers whatever! er....NO. There are times when there are sects that represent the christian faith, and looking back on the westboro post that someone linked in here, I can clearly see they have taken a select few verses and formed themselves a viscious disgusting doctrine in there. Yeah there are thousands of groups under christianity. Like I have always said all along. Common sense and a solid foundation.

You don't like some of their doctrines, but you know they are Christians because they believe in Jesus. Not just believe, but worship.

 

Christianity has its own history of rejecting outsiders, supporting slavery, and even violence, but you know that.

 

The Old Testament God (aka Jesus) was a racist homophobe who slaughtered even the children of other "peoples" because they were different. Now THAT is a viscious disgusting doctrine in there.

 

People can justify everything good in the bible, and people can justify everything bad. It is the goodness or badness of the people interpreting that makes the difference.

[chefranden]

 

 

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.

 

I wonder how we know that you are Christian. Probably because you said so. They say so, so they are Christians to me. I guess it is fair though, because they would say you aren't a Christian. I love it when Christians mix it up (shank each other) like this. I go read John 17 and giggle all the way through it.

 

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.

 

This doesn't tell me anything, because they would call you an apostate. Who's right? I can't tell, though I tend to come down on their side, since their actions more closely match biblegod's character. Compared to them you are a bit more new agey.

 

Who is it that does this not allowing any way? Fred? The Pope? God? You? Who ever does it is not very effective.

[chefranden]

The problem with your last statement is that it is the manuscript that is inspired, not the interpreter. So, I don't find that idea to be problematic at all.

 

LNC

 

How do we know that you have interpreted it properly? Because you say so? If you are not a Calvinist they would say that you interpreted improperly. I'm sure you are as confident in your interpretation as any Calvinist. But where does that leave me? As it is written, "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." I guess that this is one of those prayers where God says no. When y'all get it worked out, come back and see me.

 

I have to say that Calvinism explains the existence of atheists and Muslims, better than your view. We are obviously not chosen for grace. I couldn't choose to believe if you set my butt on fire. If you did set my butt on fire I'd probably say, "I believe" but I wouldn't, 'cause I couldn't. Once you find out Santa ain't real, you stop sending him letters.

[Ouroboros]

So...if the Klu Klux Klan says they represent Christ us christians should just agree with them, and say yeah brothers whatever!

That's the problem

 

One group claims to know the right interpretation of the Bible, and call themselves Christian. Another group does the same thing. Which group is right? The one you belong to, or the one you don't belong to? How can we decide? In the case of Westboro, I'd say you're winning because you're nicer, but what about two different, but equally nice, congregations? Are both right?

 

Let's say that you and LNC belong to two completely different congregations. Which one of you have the right kind of "Christianity"? For instance, if I remember it right, LNC is a follower of William Lane Craig. And Craig is someone who justifies the genocides in the Old Testament. He says that God did a good thing by killing the Amalakites (or whatever they were called). Let's say that you don't agree. Then there is a split in interpretation of the Bible and what is considered God's goodness. So which one of you should I listen to? You who judge it based on how nice and lovely we all should be? Or should I listen to Craig's very rationalized argument to why God sometimes murder people to further the religious cause?

 

er....NO. There are times when there are sects that represent the christian faith, and looking back on the westboro post that someone linked in here, I can clearly see they have taken a select few verses and formed themselves a viscious disgusting doctrine in there.

And so have many other Christians done in the past, and Christians still do. So are they not Christian for doing this, or is this an example of how screwed up many Christians are? It's very obvious that there are no guiding light to the correct interpretation of the Bible since people can make all these misinterpretations. You might consider WBC evil and misled, but still, do you really think they are doing this on purpose? Are they misunderstanding the Bible or are they misconstruing the Bible on purpose?

 

How about misinterpretations by other Christians in the past? Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Martin Luther, ... Did they misinterpret by mistake, misunderstanding, or by evil intentions?

 

Yeah there are thousands of groups under christianity. Like I have always said all along. Common sense and a solid foundation.

What is common sense when the majority of Christians suddenly are pulling for persecution of minorities?

 

What I'm hearing is that you are telling us, and LNC too, that you two somehow know what the True Christianity is, while the people in WBC does not. But the funny thing, as an outsider I have to look at both sides arguments, and the people at WBC (in interviews) tell us listeners that liberal Christians like you and LNC are deceived by the Devil and sin enablers. You are enabling Satan to control and pervert society because you do not stand up for the truth of the Bible.

 

To summarize:

* according to you and LNC, WBC are false

* according to WBC, you and LNC are false

 

Which one should we believe and why?

 

To explain this further to you, in another thread on this site we're discussing following topic:

Apparently it's now legal in Virginia to fire or refuse to hire someone on the basis of sexual orientation: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/18/20419

The Washington Post is reporting on a change in state hiring policy enacted by new Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

 

Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell has signed an executive order barring discrimination in the state workforce on grounds that include race, sex, religion and age, but not sexual orientation.

 

Previous governors included sexual orientation.

 

There really is no way to translate this action other than that McDonnell believes that sexual orientation, in and of itself, can and should be used as a sole cause for firing state employees or denying promotion. This action by their governor is an open invitation for supervisors or managers to fire or demote employees. And it is likely to happen.

Basically, a Christian governor is instituting state persecution against a minority, in the name of Christian morality. Is he a false and evil Christian in Satan's service, or is he a good and righteous Christian doing the right thing? Perhaps he is misinterpreting the Old Testament too? Is he doing this from hate or from love? Is he doing this because he hates the sin but love the sinner? Or is he doing this because he's a scared little homophobe who uses his religious backing to excuse his self-serving agenda? Is this the kind of people Christianity generates? Is this the fruit of the spirit, and what Christianity is all about?

 

---

 

Then we have the question about the fruit of the spirit as a guide to judge the "correctness" of Christianity. How about we would say: You would know if someone is a true atheist (or Muslim, or Hindu, or ...) by their fruit.

 

So if someone who calls himself an atheist and do bad things, then by the fruit we'd know that he's not a true atheist. But if he does good, then we know he is a true atheist. (or Muslim, or Hindu, or ...)

 

How and why is that a good measurement of correctness of whatever said belief a person has?

[agnosticator]

My bad. I knew it was one or the other but I wasnt sure which so I guessed. Thanks for the correction!

 

Every time I make guess with a 50% chance of being right, I choose the wrong answer.

 

 

...you take a pusillanimous approach to direct questions...

 

Are you implying LNC is a pussy? I have to add that word to my vocabulary.

[centauri]

...There are times when there are sects that represent the christian faith, and looking back on the westboro post that someone linked in here, I can clearly see they have taken a select few verses and formed themselves a viscious disgusting doctrine in there. Yeah there are thousands of groups under christianity. Like I have always said all along. Common sense and a solid foundation.

But as they proclaim, they’re just doing what God commands.

If people can’t handle the truth of God’s word, then that’s not their problem because they’re just the messengers.

Human common sense has nothing to do with it because the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.

According to John 16, the Holy Spirit was sent to believers and its role was to convict the world of sin.

The Holy Spirit would instruct believers and would speak through them.

The Westboro Christians have the Holy Spirit and serve as a conduit and instrument of God.

You can’t prove that they don’t have the Holy Spirit because there is no way to validate such a thing.

 

As chefranden pointed out, in John 17, Jesus prayed for all believers to display complete unity and that this would be a sign that he was really sent from God.

Like so many of the promises made by “Jesus”, that prayer has been a failure.

 

One person’s “disgusting doctrine” is another person’s “holy judgment”, which renders the issue subjective.

I know plenty of Christians that swoon over the thought of unbelievers being roasted in hell for the sin of unbelief.

A local politician even bragged that “every knee will bow to Jesus” and that evil, unbelieving, commie, liberal, secular humanists will pay for their sins in hell.

God Bless America!

[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...

 

No, actually, I apply the label "unchristian" to particular behavior, I didn't actually apply it to an people. I have already made that point in other posts. I don't consider their unchristian behavior to be being part of another "sect," I am considering their behavior toward others (at schools, funerals, etc.)

 

Since I am addressing behavior and the people exhibiting that behavior, it only applies to those people. Hope that helps.

 

LNC