NationStates Jolt Archive

I found this little video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSvY2Up2EA&mode=related&search=) on YouTube. Not sure if others have seen it. Basically, this guy (an atheist) does something I found rather clever. He interviews Shirley Phelps and proclaims that she is a true Christian, and that she is right to castigate all other Christians for being frauds - a great weapon in the hands of an atheist. I am not too well versed with the Bible, but I tend to agree with this guy. Thoughts?

I don't believe she is a Christian at all, and I think the best thing that could possibly happen to the Phelpses is that they should be allowed to emigrate to some little island and inbreed to their hearts content someplace where they need not deal with fags, and other undesirables -- in other words, the rest of the world.

Damn that was a long rant and he could have made his point without stroking her ego and giving her a platform to speak from

....in other words, the rest of the world.

...:( alas we humans be aggressive creatures...

Damn that was a long rant and he could have made his point without stroking her ego and giving her a platform to speak from
Indeed it was. I thought it to be very clever myself. I don't see why she is not considered a true Christian - she takes the Bible literally.

Indeed it was. I thought it to be very clever myself. I don't see why she is not considered a true Christian - she takes the Bible literally.

Literal interpretation of the Bible does not a Christian make.

When Jesus said "It is not what enters your mouth that will defile you, but what comes out." He was specifically lambasting the Pharisees for their literal interpretation of the scripture. His message was that literal interpretation will not save you, but rather devotion to God and your fellow man will.

Indeed it was. I thought it to be very clever myself. I don't see why she is not considered a true Christian - she takes the Bible literally.

People would like to pretend that bigotry and discrimination are not Christian values, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. So what perturbs this illusion, the truth about the very intolerant nature of Christianity, is dubbed "unchristian". Muslims do a similar thing with Islam - well, at least those that know to attempt an obfuscation to make it seem not as bad as it is.

Literal interpretation of the Bible does not a Christian make.

When Jesus said "It is not what enters your mouth that will defile you, but what comes out." He was specifically lambasting the Pharisees for their literal interpretation of the scripture. His message was that literal interpretation will not save you, but rather devotion to God and your fellow man will.

She seems very devoted and speaks a, by Christians, not so often told truth: that the Christian deity is not a particularly nice character and indeed does not "love all". Sure, it's nice to pretend otherwise because worshipping it and convincing others to worship it become so much easier that way, but not everyone buys it. She hasn't. She loves her god no matter its jealousy and temper, and that at least seems much more honest.

Literal interpretation of the Bible does not a Christian make.

When Jesus said "It is not what enters your mouth that will defile you, but what comes out." He was specifically lambasting the Pharisees for their literal interpretation of the scripture. His message was that literal interpretation will not save you, but rather devotion to God and your fellow man will.
Interpretation is a highly subjective process, and given man's inherent fallibility one prone to error. The Bible is meant to be God's word, and thus infallible (of course we all know it was written by men). So why not take it literally? I do not question Phelps' devotion to God, even though her sanity is another issue entirely.

Shoot her lol :mp5:


Sorry, my inner n00b go control for a second.

This woman is a weirdo and a pretty shit human being

Hey, Skgorria, when you and I go to the US, we've GOT to go and look at the human monkeys that are the Phelps's. It'll be just like visiting the zoo!

A true Christian is someone who follows Yeshua and be nailed to a cross.

Hey, Skgorria, when you and I go to the US, we've GOT to go and look at the human monkeys that are the Phelps's. It'll be just like visiting the zoo!

Except this time we can throw shit at the animals :cool:

That we can, that we can. :D

Interpretation is a highly subjective process, and given man's inherent fallibility one prone to error. The Bible is meant to be God's word, and thus infallible (of course we all know it was written by men). So why not take it literally? I do not question Phelps' devotion to God, even though her sanity is another issue entirely.

The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible is that there are considerable parts of the Old Testament that are contradicted by the Gospels. The Gospels are meant to be the direct words/life of Christ, the namesake of Christianity.

The whole bit of homosexuality actually stems from the book of Leviticus, which also has the rule about food, for which i refer you back to the first Christ quote i mentioned. She quoted Paul's Letter to the Romans extensively, although that book of the Bible really just says "follow the rules." Assuming you take the words of Christ to be more valuable than the book of Leviticus, then her entire argument is moot.

Phelps? Isn't that just a misspelling of Phibes?

The problem with a literal interpretation of the Bible is that there are considerable parts of the Old Testament that are contradicted by the Gospels. The Gospels are meant to be the direct words/life of Christ, the namesake of Christianity.

The whole bit of homosexuality actually stems from the book of Leviticus, which also has the rule about food, for which i refer you back to the first Christ quote i mentioned. She quoted Paul's Letter to the Romans extensively, although that book of the Bible really just says "follow the rules." Assuming you take the words of Christ to be more valuable than the book of Leviticus, then her entire argument is moot.
Isn't this mostly cherry-picking though? If it were any other document, I would be inclined to agree that a broad construction could make sense in some cases. Religious documents purport to be the word of whichever God mandated them. That the Bible has contradictions should lead people to reconsider whether it is truly as holy as it is made up to be.

Of course, there is this new argument that the God Jesus referred to was not the OT God, and I think this is corroborated by the Gospel of Judas, but I might be wrong on this. This would alter things considerably.

Isn't this mostly cherry-picking though? If it were any other document, I would be inclined to agree that a broad construction could make sense in some cases. Religious documents purport to be the word of whichever God mandated them. That the Bible has contradictions should lead people to reconsider whether it is truly as holy as it is made up to be.

Of course, there is this new argument that the God Jesus referred to was not the OT God, and I think this is corroborated by the Gospel of Judas, but I might be wrong on this. This would alter things considerably.
Well, then maybe Jesus' god is in fact Enki, whose violently distorted and judified interpretation the OT god is... :)

I don't claim to be an x-purt on the Bible, but I'm reasonably sure it says things about "loving thy neighbor", and similar things.

Isn't this mostly cherry-picking though? If it were any other document, I would be inclined to agree that a broad construction could make sense in some cases. Religious documents purport to be the word of whichever God mandated them. That the Bible has contradictions should lead people to reconsider whether it is truly as holy as it is made up to be.

Of course, there is this new argument that the God Jesus referred to was not the OT God, and I think this is corroborated by the Gospel of Judas, but I might be wrong on this. This would alter things considerably.

The variety of fundamentalists i have spoke to on the matter say that the Old Testament God was the same as the New Testament, however the sacrifice made by Christ made him forgving (b/c before the OT God demanded sacrifices of animals/people). What i was taught, growing up as a Christian, was that we should attempt to model our lives after Christ, ie-selflessness, sacrifice, service of others etc. My HS theology teacher put it most simply for me; he asked the class if we thought the Christ we knew would ever condemn homosexuals. After a brief debate, we ultimately determined that the Christ we had studied would most likely seek to include homosexuals into his group of followers.

Literal interpretation of the Bible does not a Christian make.

When Jesus said "It is not what enters your mouth that will defile you, but what comes out." He was specifically lambasting the Pharisees for their literal interpretation of the scripture. His message was that literal interpretation will not save you, but rather devotion to God and your fellow man will.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son to die for us for whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

I found this little video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSvY2Up2EA&mode=related&search=) on YouTube. Not sure if others have seen it. Basically, this guy (an atheist) does something I found rather clever. He interviews Shirley Phelps and proclaims that she is a true Christian, and that she is right to castigate all other Christians for being frauds - a great weapon in the hands of an atheist. I am not too well versed with the Bible, but I tend to agree with this guy. Thoughts?

I consider myself a true Christian for I believe in the Lord Savior Jesus Christ.

However, Ms. Phelps needs to study the Bible a bit more as does Mr. Phelps.

A true Christian is someone who follows Yeshua and be nailed to a cross.

Um yea...:rolleyes:

I don't claim to be an x-purt on the Bible, but I'm reasonably sure it says things about "loving thy neighbor", and similar things.although there is some talk of "loving thy neighbor" in the bible, there is no according acting in it...

I don't claim to be an x-purt on the Bible, but I'm reasonably sure it says things about "loving thy neighbor", and similar things.

You are most correct Romanar.

Could someone please explain to me why everyone thinks the Phelps family is incestuous?

Could someone please explain to me why everyone thinks the Phelps family is incestuous?

Probably because he hails from Kansas. *shrugs* I have no proof that it is and without it, I will not make claims.

I echo your statement though. Provide proof that they are incestuous those who believe they are.

People would like to pretend that bigotry and discrimination are not Christian values, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. So what perturbs this illusion, the truth about the very intolerant nature of Christianity, is dubbed "unchristian". Muslims do a similar thing with Islam - well, at least those that know to attempt an obfuscation to make it seem not as bad as it is.

I'm willing to bet you argue against those who suggest that rampant promiscuity and abuse of children are 'gay' values.

Could someone please explain to me why everyone thinks the Phelps family is incestuous?

They should be. I'm always saying that they should go fuck themselves. :D

Isn't this mostly cherry-picking though? If it were any other document, I would be inclined to agree that a broad construction could make sense in some cases. Religious documents purport to be the word of whichever God mandated them. That the Bible has contradictions should lead people to reconsider whether it is truly as holy as it is made up to be.

Of course, there is this new argument that the God Jesus referred to was not the OT God, and I think this is corroborated by the Gospel of Judas, but I might be wrong on this. This would alter things considerably.

If you accept Jesus as the living incarnation of God, then 'cherry picking' is actually the very best way to read the scripture. Since the Old Testament texts were given to men, most of the New Testament texts are commentaries by men... and only the words of Jesus come with the specific absolute assurance of issuing straight 'from the mouth of God'.

One could argue, where the 'red text' (in most bibles) conflicts with any other text, the other text is automatically wrong.

I'm willing to bet you argue against those who suggest that rampant promiscuity

If it is, I wish it were more so. Where are all these sluts hiding? I mean, I do my best, but I need backup since I can only service so many!

and abuse of children are 'gay' values.

They would be wrong about this, seeing as most paedophiles are heterosexual (and heaven knows how much straight men love them their lolita fantasies - just ask the Olsen Twins and Britney/Christina), and I didn't know that us homosexualists had a book of common values seeing as its neither a philosophy nor a lifestyle - I though the only thing we had in common was our love of the cock (lesbians like pussies, I gather) and no one ever gave me a book that tells me to kill heterosexuals or abuse children, like Christians have for homosexuals and Muslims have for young girls - while one need only read the Bible/Koran and look at the history and present of Christianity and Islam (hmm, they love themselves their Pat Buchanans and George Bushes and hang-the-fags Saudi Arabia) and see for themselves that it ain't exactly sunshine and lollipops and tolerance and love.

"Religion of Love" and "Religion of Peace" my ass, which rocks.

and no one ever gave me a book that tells me to kill heterosexuals or abuse children, like Christians have for homosexuals and Muslims have for young girls - while one need only read the Bible/Koran and look at the history and present of Christianity and Islam (hmm, they love themselves their Pat Buchanans and George Bushes and hang-the-fags Saudi Arabia) and see for themselves that it ain't exactly sunshine and lollipops and tolerance and love.

"Religion of Love" and "Religion of Peace" my ass, which rocks.

And in this you have much in common with neonazis, Fass. You both are intolerant towards religion and both offer these same, tired arguments like "religion of peace lol" to justify your hatred.

And in this you have much in common with neonazis, Fass. You both are intolerant towards religion and both offer these same, tired arguments like "religion of peace lol" to justify your hatred.

Even though it is pretty much a known fact that most of the Nazi leadership were practicing Christians?

Though how they could based on what they did to the Jews is up for debate.

And in this you have much in common with neonazis, Fass. You both are intolerant towards religion and both offer these same, tired arguments like "religion of peace lol" to justify your hatred.

I'm funny that way, in that when I read "they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" I don't go: "oh, super! What a neat idea! Can I be the first on the chopping block, please, oh, please?". I am not going to be tolerant of ideas that propagate that I be killed, which both Christianity and Islam do as well Nazism, so you won't see me losing sleep over it, especially since I don't propagate that anyone be killed or not be allowed to worship whatever little pixie they like. I'll stand there and counter and expose their nonsense, though, you can bet your ass, well mine at least, on that.

I found this little video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSvY2Up2EA&mode=related&search=) on YouTube. Not sure if others have seen it. Basically, this guy (an atheist) does something I found rather clever. He interviews Shirley Phelps and proclaims that she is a true Christian, and that she is right to castigate all other Christians for being frauds - a great weapon in the hands of an atheist. I am not too well versed with the Bible, but I tend to agree with this guy. Thoughts?

The problem is the abstract nature of the word "true" in this case. Who gets to judge as to what is true and what is false in Christianity? Who's the arbiter? We're talking about a widely disparate group of religions that depend to a greater or lesser extent on a book that's old for starters, and has been unreliably copied and translated over the centuries. How can anyone pull a definitive "truth" out of that mess?

Even though it is pretty much a known fact that most of the Nazi leadership were practicing Christians?
source?

source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Private_statements

Granted it is wikipedia but it is the best I can come up at the moment.

The problem is the abstract nature of the word "true" in this case. Who gets to judge as to what is true and what is false in Christianity? Who's the arbiter?:D first Logic, then Reason. After that Christianity is finished... :p

:D first Logic, then Reason. After that Christianity is finished... :p

And yet, you have Christians that do use logic and reason and thus Christianity is still around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Private_statements

Granted it is wikipedia but it is the best I can come up at the moment.
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."- Adolf Hitler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_christianity

granted it's wikipedia, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment.

however, my problem was not you claiming that they were Christian, but that they were "practicing Christians", I would like to know exactly what you mean by that.

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."- Adolf Hitler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_christianity

granted it's wikipedia, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment.

however, my problem was not you claiming that they were Christian, but that they were "practicing Christians", I would like to know exactly what you mean by that.

You know what? I do not know myself. LOL

Since no one else has said it yet, let me be the first to point out that the Amazing Atheist needs an amazing shave and haircut.

And yet, you have Christians that do use logic and reason and thus Christianity is still around.

It's not like logic and reason are magic wands that obliterate teh stoopid on their own. People have to use them correctly. Take that however you wish.

It's not like logic and reason are magic wands that obliterate teh stoopid on their own. People have to use them correctly. Take that however you wish.

I do agree with what you are saying. They are not magic wands and you are always going to have stupid people, even among the non-religious.

Sure she's a true Christian.

But she is not THE true Christian. Anyone who professes to believe in the Christian faith is a Christian, even if they are undesirable.

Sure she's a true Christian.

But she is not THE true Christian. Anyone who professes to believe in the Christian faith is a Christian, even if they are undesirable.

I disagree.

Christians worship Christ. Despite what this wench, Shirley Phelps Roeper says, she doesn't worship Christ. She worships the Westboro Baptist Church.

Now obviously, she's an extreme example of religious nutcases, but I find that more and more often, so-called christians fail to realize that they're worshiping an institution(or a book) above the ideals behind it.

I disagree.

Christians worship Christ. Despite what this wench, Shirley Phelps Roeper says, she doesn't worship Christ. She worships the Westboro Baptist Church.

Now obviously, she's an extreme example of religious nutcases, but I find that more and more often, so-called christians fail to realize that they're worshiping an institution(or a book) above the ideals behind it.

Sad but so very true.

The Phelps family is more concerned with feeding their addiction to hate than anything remotely religious.

'Twould be really nice indeed if everyone would quit trotting out members of the lunatic fringe and insisting they represent anyone or anything but their own whacked out beliefs.

The old testament has a lot of things in it that became somewhat of a moot point after Christ. Any biblical references to God being a vengeful God pretty much ended at that point. Christ's message to man was one of love. For all. Which by extension would eliminate all forms of hatred. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

If any Christian says anything that contadicts the basic concept of "love thy fellow man as you would thyself", they are NOT a true Christian.

You'd think that would be obvious.

If it is, I wish it were more so. Where are all these sluts hiding? I mean, I do my best, but I need backup since I can only service so many!

They would be wrong about this, seeing as most paedophiles are heterosexual (and heaven knows how much straight men love them their lolita fantasies - just ask the Olsen Twins and Britney/Christina), and I didn't know that us homosexualists had a book of common values seeing as its neither a philosophy nor a lifestyle - I though the only thing we had in common was our love of the cock (lesbians like pussies, I gather) and no one ever gave me a book that tells me to kill heterosexuals or abuse children, like Christians have for homosexuals and Muslims have for young girls - while one need only read the Bible/Koran and look at the history and present of Christianity and Islam (hmm, they love themselves their Pat Buchanans and George Bushes and hang-the-fags Saudi Arabia) and see for themselves that it ain't exactly sunshine and lollipops and tolerance and love.

"Religion of Love" and "Religion of Peace" my ass, which rocks.

Not all homosexuals are rampantly promiscuous. Not all homosexuals are seeking to have their wicked ways with children.

Both things might be true for some homosexuals, but they are not universal banners that can be fairly applied to ALL homosexuals, or to 'being' a homosexual.

There is a parallel there.

At the moment, you run the risk of being seen as exactly the kind of conservativistic 'moraliser' that is such a problem on the landscape of American politics... only reading 'gay' for 'straight' and 'anti-Christian' for 'anti-gay'. Maybe that's the platform you want... but I'd have to hope not.

At the moment, you run the risk of being seen as exactly the kind of conservativistic 'moraliser' that is such a problem on the landscape of American politics... only reading 'gay' for 'straight' and 'anti-Christian' for 'anti-gay'. Maybe that's the platform you want... but I'd have to hope not.

That sentence makes no sense. Are you trying to say that I have a... *gasp*... gay agendum?

That sentence makes no sense. Are you trying to say that I have a... *gasp*... gay agendum?

No.

I'm pointing out that you are risking coming over as the gay version of the militaristically 'moral' Neocon movement.

No.

I'm pointing out that you are risking coming over as the gay version of the militaristically 'moral' Neocon movement.

And the morality I dictated was? That religion is bad and that straight people be ready to have a finger pointed straight back at them if they start pointing theirs at gay people? Oh, what a fucking a nightmare.

Think about the people most devoted to the old testament for a moment, lets not even think about the new testement and the huge number of contradictions in it that disregard much of the law of the old testament. Lets think about the new testament. The most devoted group to the old testament, who have studied it for thousands of years, are the jews. Judaism contains the smallest amount of extremism or preaching fundamentalists. You will find it a very difficult task to find any Jew that believes in any of the nonsensicle rubbish that the phelps believe in. The thing is, the people who studie the Bible more are actually among the least radicalised groups. I don't understand it when Atheists say that "if you really know anything about the Bible, you would be an extremist" when evidence suggests that the opposite occurs. The old testament is the most hugely complex book, with contradictions all over the place (even after the first chapter of Genesis). To take one passage and follow it as an absolute would be a hugely eronious thing to do without at first relating it to the context and to the rest of the old testament first, before you even begin to relate it to the new testament (assuming you are a Christian). The Bible is not a constitution, it is not consistant, thus you cannot make rules out of it's passages.

'Twould be really nice indeed if everyone would quit trotting out members of the lunatic fringe and insisting they represent anyone or anything but their own whacked out beliefs.

The old testament has a lot of things in it that became somewhat of a moot point after Christ. Any biblical references to God being a vengeful God pretty much ended at that point. Christ's message to man was one of love. For all. Which by extension would eliminate all forms of hatred. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

If any Christian says anything that contadicts the basic concept of "love thy fellow man as you would thyself", they are NOT a true Christian.

You'd think that would be obvious.

you would think so.

you would think so.

I personally don't buy it because your definition of Christians being people who do what you deem is good and that stop being Christians at the moment you start to think it's uncomfortable to be associated with them is intellectually dishonest and oh, so jejunely convenient.

I personally don't buy it because your definition of Christians being people who do what you deem is good and that stop being Christians at the moment you start to think it's uncomfortable to be associated with them is intellectually dishonest and oh, so jejunely convenient.

The golden rule is what Jesus deems as good in the new testament, not merely what smunkee deems as good. If you don't follow Jesus, you're not really a christian.

If any Christian says anything that contadicts the basic concept of "love thy fellow man as you would thyself", they are NOT a true Christian.

You'd think that would be obvious.
Some Christians share your opinion. Plenty of others do not.

I have no interest in setting myself up as some kind of authority on what is or is not True Christianity(tm).

Far as I'm concerned, "a Christian" refers to any individual who belongs to a religion based on the teachings and/or mythology of Jesus Christ.

Some Christians believe that Jesus' teachings are consistent with hating fags, women, brown people, freedom, etc. The fact that these people are assholes doesn't change the fact that they are also Christians.

Some Christians share your opinion. Plenty of others do not.

I have no interest in setting myself up as some kind of authority on what is or is not True Christianity(tm).

Far as I'm concerned, "a Christian" refers to any individual who belongs to a religion based on the teachings and/or mythology of Jesus Christ.

Some Christians believe that Jesus' teachings are consistent with hating fags, women, brown people, freedom, etc. The fact that these people are assholes doesn't change the fact that they are also Christians.
These are my thoughts too. At one point does one stop being a Christian for advocating things that can in fact be found in the Bible?

These are my thoughts too.
I view it as similar to the fact that there are some assholes who also happen to be Americans.

As an American, I really, really, really hate having to share any demographic with assholes. It bugs me to see asshole Americans giving ALL Americans a bad name, and making us look like dinks by association.

But they're still Americans. I can't change that. I'm not going to say, "Oh, you're an asshole, and therefore Not American by definition!"

There's nothing about being American that precludes somebody from also being an asshole. The same goes for being a Christian.

It's completely possible to be a total asshole while still being a Christian. It's also possible to be a fantastic human being while being a Christian. Christianity doesn't magically make or break an asshole. (That last sentence is to be read completely straight faced and with no giggling.)

I view it as similar to the fact that there are some assholes who also happen to be Americans.

As an American, I really, really, really hate having to share any demographic with assholes. It bugs me to see asshole Americans giving ALL Americans a bad name, and making us look like dinks by association.

But they're still Americans. I can't change that. I'm not going to say, "Oh, you're an asshole, and therefore Not American by definition!"

There's nothing about being American that precludes somebody from also being an asshole. The same goes for being a Christian.

It's completely possible to be a total asshole while still being a Christian. It's also possible to be a fantastic human being while being a Christian. Christianity doesn't magically make or break an asshole. (That last sentence is to be read completely straight faced and with no giggling.)

that's a poor analogy, because you can prove citizenship to America you can't "prove" Christianity you can only claim it. It would be a better analogy to say it's like someone who claims to be pro-choice but then actively lobbies to make abortion illegal. They may claim to be pro-choice but anyone who knows what "pro-choice" means knows that they are not.

Jesus Himself (or it's credited to Him, if you wanna be pedantic) says in Matthew 5 that you are to not only love your neighbor but to love your enemy as well. There is nothing loving about the Phelps activities.

I personally don't buy it because your definition of Christians being people who do what you deem is good and that stop being Christians at the moment you start to think it's uncomfortable to be associated with them is intellectually dishonest and oh, so jejunely convenient.


I would maintain that your example is predjudicial in nature, Fassingen. You automatically assume all Christians are hypocrites. Many are, admittedly. But, by no means, are ALL of them. Nobody's perfect. Not even you. Christians do make mistakes. Shirley Phelps is a rather high profile of one. How jejunely convenient of you to latch onto that bandwagon for a ride around the block. No matter what tree you go to, gay, straight, liberal or conservative, if you shake it, some nuts are going to fall out. Are you honestly saying that because I am a Christian, that if I disagree with another Christian that makes me less of a Christian? Do YOU agree on every point with every gay man YOU meet? And if so, does that mean you are any less gay because of it? It sort of sounds like you are the bigoted one, bigoted towards Christians.

No great surprise there.

Far as I'm concerned, "a Christian" refers to any individual who belongs to a religion based on the teachings and/or mythology of Jesus Christ.


Thats enough to rule Phelps out then.


Some Christians believe that Jesus' teachings are consistent with hating fags, women, brown people, freedom, etc. The fact that these people are assholes doesn't change the fact that they are also Christians.

They may be christians, but they arn't followers of christ.

The golden rule is what Jesus deems as good in the new testament, not merely what smunkee deems as good. If you don't follow Jesus, you're not really a christian.

Plenty of people it would seem manage to "follow Jesus" in other directions (bigotry, for instance, which they can find much support for in the Bible) than Smunkee does, yet hers and seemingly yours is the one to be used to deem them Christians or not.

That is such a cop out. People like these Phelpses acknowledge that their god isn't all that nice. He smites and hates and is jealous. They still love him. Seems to me they're the "better" Christians for it than all these lovey-dovey "my god is goodness itself and loves us all and thinks we should just love, love, love, but don't pay attention to the parts where he doesn't - we don't!" Christians are, because how bloody hard is it to worship a freaking saint whose only attributes you allow yourself to see are the ones you can stomach? Not nearly as hard as it is to worship a jerk.

What I'm trying to say is, if all that you can stomach from your Christian deity and your fellow Christians are their "goodness", then perhaps you need to re-examine if you're being honest with yourself about your religion and perhaps even draw the conclusion that it's not your cup of tea.

Or just continue going on: "lalalalala, they're not Christians because I say so!". Whatever.

I view it as similar to the fact that there are some assholes who also happen to be Americans.

As an American, I really, really, really hate having to share any demographic with assholes. It bugs me to see asshole Americans giving ALL Americans a bad name, and making us look like dinks by association.

You're American? Funny, I always thought you were German.

But they're still Americans. I can't change that. I'm not going to say, "Oh, you're an asshole, and therefore Not American by definition!"

There's nothing about being American that precludes somebody from also being an asshole. The same goes for being a Christian.

I agree. I also find this "True Christian are people who love everyone" concept a bit strange, if not just as moralistic as the "Only people who hate gays (or brown people, or women, or brown lesbian women) are True Christians. Christianity is something that is clearly defined as "People who believe in Christ." If you believe in Christ, and you hate gay people, you are a homophobic Christian, but you're still a Christian. If you're a "Love thy neighbor" type of Christian, you're a fairly nice Christian, and yes, you're still a Christian.

It's completely possible to be a total asshole while still being a Christian. It's also possible to be a fantastic human being while being a Christian. Christianity doesn't magically make or break an asshole. (That last sentence is to be read completely straight faced and with no giggling.)

No, you're right. Anal sex is generally what does that. :D

They may be christians, but they arn't followers of christ.

Who is ? All Christians after all merely follow the vision other people had of Christ. He himself did not write a single letter of the new testament.

Plenty of people it would seem manage to "follow Jesus" in other directions (bigotry, for instance, which they can find much support for in the Bible) than Smunkee does, yet hers and seemingly yours is the one to be used to deem them Christians or not.


I know everyone on here thinks i'm a christian, but i'm actually an implicit atheist/agnostic. I can however see what is and isn't consistant with the new testament.

That is such a cop out. People like these Phelpses acknowledge that their god isn't all that nice. He smites and hates and is jealous. They still love him. Seems to me they're the "better" Christians for it than all these lovey-dovey "my god is goodness itself and loves us all and thinks we should just love, love, love, but don't pay attention to the parts where he doesn't - we don't!"

This view you paint of the evil vengful and hateful God is probably much less consistant with the new testament on wich christianity is based (the old testement is little more then a history lesson since much of the laws passed in it our irellavent, contradicted or abolished) then the view of a loving god.


Christians are, because how bloody hard is it to worship a freaking saint whose only attributes you allow yourself to see are the ones you can stomach? Not nearly as hard as it is to worship a jerk.


But why does it matter if their interpretation of a loving God is different to your interpretation of a hateful god?


What I'm trying to say is, if all that you can stomach from your Christian deity and your fellow Christians are their "goodness", then perhaps you need to re-examine if you're being honest with yourself about your religion and perhaps even draw the conclusion that it's not your cup of tea.


Maybe, maybe not. The point being, what makes you say that your interpretation is any better?

I would maintain that your example is predjudicial in nature, Fassingen. You automatically assume all Christians are hypocrites. Many are, admittedly. But, by no means, are ALL of them. Nobody's perfect. Not even you. Christians do make mistakes. Shirley Phelps is a rather high profile of one. How jejunely convenient of you to latch onto that bandwagon for a ride around the block. No matter what tree you go to, gay, straight, liberal or conservative, if you shake it, some nuts are going to fall out. Are you honestly saying that because I am a Christian, that if I disagree with another Christian that makes me less of a Christian? Do YOU agree on every point with every gay man YOU meet? And if so, does that mean you are any less gay because of it? It sort of sounds like you are the bigoted one, bigoted towards Christians.

No great surprise there.

What are you on about? Smunkee and you are the ones who are disowning these "fallen nuts" of yours. As soon as a Christian does something you don't like to be associated with (which is sort of strange in this case for you, since you're not exactly known for being a "follower of Christ" when it comes to loving people and are closer to the Phelpses than you are to Smunkee in several respects), they stop being "true Christians". If Hitler sucked cock and took it up the poop shute, then he'd be a fag. A genocidal fag, but still a pole-smoking fag. I can own that. You, on the other hand, can't own genocidal Christians because it's oh, so convenient that "true" Christians would never be bad people...

Thats enough to rule Phelps out then.

*Shrug* Says you. Phelps and his ilk probably claim the same thing about plenty of other Christians.


They may be christians, but they arn't followers of christ.
Which, again, is exactly what Phelps et al say about other Christians.

Who is ? All Christians after all merely follow the vision other people had of Christ. He himself did not write a single letter of the new testament.

Good point. But there isn't really any knowledge of Christ outside of the new testament. At least not enough to base a belief system on. So being christian pretty much forces you to only follow the word of Christ as presented in the np, since there is no alternative.

Who is ? All Christians after all merely follow the vision other people had of Christ. He himself did not write a single letter of the new testament.Well, first of all, a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus/Yeshua is the Christ, i.e. the Jewish messiah. And to have the need for such a messiah, one must accept the teachings of pre-Jesus Judaism as true and worthy of adherence. To adhere to Judaism one must be ready to accept the teachings of 'scripture' as true and worthy of adherence and to completely submit to the biblical/OT perspective of god.

Good point. But there isn't really any knowledge of Christ outside of the new testament. At least not enough to base a belief system on. So being christian pretty much forces you to only follow the word of Christ as presented in the np, since there is no alternative.The alternative would be to adhere to the orthodox denominations of Christianity (including Catholicism). The community that became the orthodox churches is the one founded by Yeshua himself and carried on by his disciples and other followers, way before there was anything like a NT. That's why in those churches tradition is equally if not more important than scripture/NT.

*Shrug* Says you. Phelps and his ilk probably claim the same thing about plenty of other Christians.


Which, again, is exactly what Phelps et al say about other Christians.

Well in my opinion anyway. And in the general consensus of academic theologists I believe. I think those against phelps ideals have more of a leg to stand on.

that's a poor analogy, because you can prove citizenship to America you can't "prove" Christianity you can only claim it.

Actually, we currently have lots of people trying to define what is and is not a Real American(tm). Having been born here, or being a legal citizen, are absolutely NOT accepted as "proof" by many people.


It would be a better analogy to say it's like someone who claims to be pro-choice but then actively lobbies to make abortion illegal. They may claim to be pro-choice but anyone who knows what "pro-choice" means knows that they are not.

Jesus Himself (or it's credited to Him, if you wanna be pedantic) says in Matthew 5 that you are to not only love your neighbor but to love your enemy as well. There is nothing loving about the Phelps activities.
You may believe there's nothing loving about their actions. They believe there is.

You believe that one must show a certain kind of love in order to be following Jesus' teachings. They don't agree. You have different interpretations, but both of you claim to be using a morality grounded in the divinity/teachings of Christ.

Well in my opinion anyway. And in the general consensus of academic theologists I believe. I think those against phelps ideals have more of a leg to stand on.
Phelps and company are Christians. So are a lot of people who hate Phelps and everything he stands for.

I see no conflict there.

that's a poor analogy, because you can prove citizenship to America you can't "prove" Christianity you can only claim it. It would be a better analogy to say it's like someone who claims to be pro-choice but then actively lobbies to make abortion illegal. They may claim to be pro-choice but anyone who knows what "pro-choice" means knows that they are not.

Jesus Himself (or it's credited to Him, if you wanna be pedantic) says in Matthew 5 that you are to not only love your neighbor but to love your enemy as well. There is nothing loving about the Phelps activities.

They claim that more love is being shown by informing others of their sins then by being nice to them ...

I dont agree but ...

The alternative would be to adhere to the orthodox denominations of Christianity (including Catholicism). The community that became the orthodox churches is the one founded by Yeshua himself and carried on by his disciples and other followers, way before there was anything like a NT. That's why in those churches tradition is equally if not more important than scripture/NT.

But thats still based on the gospels, despite them not being collected into the new testement. I know much of their rituals are not backed with scripture, but you are still forced to believe the word of Jesus through the gospels at some point if you are to follow the orthodox Church.

Phelps and company are Christians. So are a lot of people who hate Phelps and everything he stands for.

I see no conflict there.

I just don't like this idea that you are presenting. It seems like you can be a christian merely if you say you are. You have to draw the line at some point.

I know everyone on here thinks i'm a christian, but i'm actually an implicit atheist/agnostic. I can however see what is and isn't consistant with the new testament.

I didn't accuse you of being Christian, but just in sharing Smunkee's convenience.

This view you paint of the evil vengful and hateful God is probably much less consistant with the new testament on wich christianity is based (the old testement is little more then a history lesson since much of the laws passed in it our irellavent, contradicted or abolished) then the view of a loving god.

Let me guess, you fell for the "message of love" propaganda?

But why does it matter if their interpretation of a loving God is different to your interpretation of a hateful god?

Because their interpretation is simply dishonest and reeks of insecure recruitist propaganda. I don't deny that there are certain "loving" aspects to their deity, but they deny anything they can't stomach. They depict Jesus as goodness incarnate, all the while he is the character that is to come back and massacre everyone but these "true" Christians and usher them into eternal torment for not - get this! - loving him! But, they and those that have fallen for this "message of love" poppycock tend not to think about Jesus as the culler and would only like to think of him as the lamb of fluffiness.

Maybe, maybe not. The point being, what makes you say that your interpretation is any better?

My interpretation doesn't ignore the not so pleasant parts where their jealous deity is a killing machine.

I just don't like this idea that you are presenting. It seems like you can be a christian merely if you say you are. You have to draw the line at some point.
They don't just say they are Christian though - they back their word by way of literal construction of the Bible.

I just don't like this idea that you are presenting. It seems like you can be a christian merely if you say you are. You have to draw the line at some point.
I have. A Christian is a person who belongs to a religion that is based on the teachings/mythology of Jesus Christ.

Whether or not I, personally, LIKE their religion is irrelevant. Whether or not I, personally, think they are an asshole is irrelevant. Whether or not they interpret the Bible the way I would interpret it is irrelevant.

I just don't like this idea that you are presenting. It seems like you can be a christian merely if you say you are. You have to draw the line at some point.

apparently you don't.

henceforth I am a baby eating atheist, even though all evidence is to the contrary. *not all atheists eat babies, just me, except I don't, but I will say I do.

But thats still based on the gospels, despite them not being collected into the new testement. I know much of their rituals are not backed with scripture, but you are still forced to believe the word of Jesus through the gospels at some point if you are to follow the orthodox Church.Actually the blessing that has been passed on from one generation to the next, way back to Yeshua himself, is considered more important than just sticking to the literal word of the NT writings.

apparently you don't.

henceforth I am a baby eating atheist, even though all evidence is to the contrary. *not all atheists eat babies, just me, except I don't, but I will say I do.

Just as long as you're eating someone else's babies. I've had these on the barbecue for a while. They're MINE!

Because their interpretation is simply dishonest and reeks of insecure recruitist propaganda. I don't deny that there are certain "loving" aspects to their deity, but they deny anything they can't stomach.

Not all of them, you don't have to deny the killings and other things committed by the jews that were commanded by God if you want to believe in a loving God. So long as you believe that the killings were justified and the people they killed deserved it. Or, you could seek different interpretations and trasnlations and recognize the strong possibility of symbolsim in much of the old testament etc.. etc..


They depict Jesus as goodness incarnate, all the while he is the character that is to come back and massacre everyone but these "true" Christians and usher them into eternal torment for not - get this! - loving him!

There isn't much actual scriptual backing for this. And most christians believe you get a second chance when he comes back.


My interpretation doesn't ignore the not so pleasant parts where their jealous deity is a killing a machine.

Again, doesn't mean you can't hold the view of a loving God despite killings that occured.

I just don't like this idea that you are presenting. It seems like you can be a christian merely if you say you are. You have to draw the line at some point.

One could let the Christians decide for themselves ? Let the religious leaders of other denominations speak up and denounce Phelps and his teachings or accept him as one of the greater flock.

Then again, many protestants claim roman catholics are not Christians.. so having the major denominations agree on what a christian is may be impossible. Not to mention that Phelps is in fact not very different from what Christianity has been for the overwhelming majority of its existence...

Again, doesn't mean you can't hold the view of a loving God despite killings that occured.Well, if you have a weird idea of love, then....

One could let the Christians decide for themselves ? Let the religious leaders of other denominations speak up and denounce Phelps and his teachings or accept him as one of the greater flock.

Then again, many protestants claim roman catholics are not Christians.. so having the major denominations agree on what a christian is may be impossible.What are the major denominations?

One could let the Christians decide for themselves ? Let the religious leaders of other denominations speak up and denounce Phelps and his teachings or accept him as one of the greater flock.

Then again, many protestants claim roman catholics are not Christians.. so having the major denominations agree on what a christian is may be impossible.

That was mindboggling the first time I'd heard that. I grew up in an area where most of the white folk were Catholic, so to me, growing up, Catholic == Christian.

One of my friends in High School was a devout (and slightly crazy) Baptist who claimed that Catholics weren't Christian. I still have trouble understanding that sort of silliness.

What are the major denominations?

Exactly ;)
For practical purposes I would however say "the groups that call themselves Christians with the largest number of followers".

Exactly ;)
For practical purposes I would however say "the groups that call themselves Christians with the largest number of followers".Then catholicism rules? With over a billion followers?

That was mindboggling the first time I'd heard that. I grew up in an area where most of the white folk were Catholic, so to me, growing up, Catholic == Christian.

One of my friends in High School was a devout (and slightly crazy) Baptist who claimed that Catholics weren't Christian. I still have trouble understanding that sort of silliness.

Yeah I got some interesting answers to "are luthrens Christian" to my teachers at catholic elementary school in a primary catholic area

Then catholicism rules? With over a billion followers?

If the majority of people calling themselves Christians is indeed catholic - why not ? One could go for a 2/3rd or even 3/4 majority of all self-proclaimed Christians, but the principle would stay the same.

Not all of them, you don't have to deny the killings and other things committed by the jews that were commanded by God if you want to believe in a loving God. So long as you believe that the killings were justified and the people they killed deserved it. Or, you could seek different interpretations and trasnlations and recognize the strong possibility of symbolsim in much of the old testament etc.. etc..

Yup. Goodness apparently has to be warped into "deserved death" for this deity to remain good. Because, as the circular logic goes, "he only does good and if he does something bad it becomes good"! Sort of like the whole "Christians do good and if they do bad they're not Christians".

There isn't much actual scriptual backing for this. And most christians believe you get a second chance when he comes back.

"And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength."

"Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."

"And I will kill her children with death"

"And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers"

And so on and so forth when their deity breaks some seals and his angels basically kill a whole bunch of people and those who remain wash their clothes in blood. Peachy.

And what a great second chance everyone will get, if they do now get it! "Repent and gravel before me and praise me, or be smote and suffer for all eternity!" What a swell and loving guy.

Again, doesn't mean you can't hold the view of a loving God despite killings that occured.

And are occurring and shall occur... but, you're right. It doesn't mean that you can't arduously convince yourself into holding the view of a loving god in spite of that, apparently.

If the majority of people calling themselves Christians is indeed catholic - why not ? One could go for a 2/3rd or even 3/4 majority of all self-proclaimed Christians, but the principle would stay the same.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members)

What are you on about? Smunkee and you are the ones who are disowning these "fallen nuts" of yours. As soon as a Christian does something you don't like to be associated with (which is sort of strange in this case for you, since you're not exactly known for being a "follower of Christ" when it comes to loving people and are closer to the Phelpses than you are to Smunkee in several respects), they stop being "true Christians". If Hitler sucked cock and took it up the poop shute, then he'd be a fag. A genocidal fag, but still a pole-smoking fag. I can own that. You, on the other hand, can't own genocidal Christians because it's oh, so convenient that "true" Christians would never be bad people...

So what part of Christians make mistakes too are you unclear about? I thought that was pretty straightforward.

And what exactly am I "known" for? Hmmm?

I mantain that the Phelps's attitudes are inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. Because they are. Wildly so. So much so that it should be blatantly obvious even to someone who is such a notorious Christian-hater as yourself. And if they are, calling them a Christian or even a good Christian is a gross and crass misrepresentation of that term.

Must I quote scripture here? If you are going to quote the Bible at least find something relevant to the topic at hand. The topic is Christianity, and whether or not they can be considered as one for their hatemongering. Find a New Testament quote to back your view. I'll wait.

Nice to know that the prior year has not mellowed you much. Let's chat again soon, shall we?

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members)

Voila. Add protestants and you already have 2/3 of all self-proclaimed Christians. If they do not want the Phelpses to join the club, have them speak up loudly.

And the morality I dictated was? That religion is bad and that straight people be ready to have a finger pointed straight back at them if they start pointing theirs at gay people? Oh, what a fucking a nightmare.

No, and let's not pretend we are fooling each other - you know what you said.

You basically said: "bigotry and discrimination are... Christian values". (Actually you inverted it, you said you weren't going to pretend they weren't... just for sake of clarification).

You can argue that bigotry and dsicrimination are values that some/many/all Christians adhere to... sure. Similarly, you can argue that paedophilia and promiscuity are 'values' that some/many/all homosexuals 'adhere' to. You can argue it - that doesn't make it true. It certainly doesn't make it universally true.

Curious that you have conflated two 'evils' in your mind... the 'Christian' seems impossible to discriminate from the 'straight' in your example... and both of them somehow link to homophobia.