Would you believe that atheists are to blame for the Westboro Baptist Church?
They can’t be real Christians. They must be part of an atheist cabal.
Their goal? To undermine churches. To give religion a black eye. To plant in the minds of the young a twisted and evil view of Christianity.
Somebody needs to be introduced to Poe’s Law. Besides, everyone knows that crazy religion can’t be blamed on the godless … it’s actually a conspiracy by squirrels.
I’ve met the Phelps family on a few occasions (a ‘benefit’ of living in Kansas). They are very much fervent Christians. It’s just another case of the No True Scotsman fallacy often employed by Christians who are ashamed that their religion produces some loonies.
Ahh, the good old “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
The Westboro Baptist Church is actually part of the gay cabal.
I think that line about atheists was tongue in cheek. I wasn’t offended, and found it humorous anyway.
Wherever two or more of you are gathered in His Name
The odds will rise, the exercise is one of casting blame.
You mean a Nut Group?
Cuttlefish(#5)
Well done, my friend. That is worthy of Ambrose Bierce.
Is this also referring to the Dishonesty Institute, Premise Media, and Expelled?
Whether their intent is to trash Xianity and create a backlash or not, that is what they are doing.
I’m noticing a lot lately that calling someone a fundie is getting to be an insult. They much prefer being called ignorant, lying, bigots who want to destroy the USA for Jesus. In their minds that sounds much better.
That squirrel video is hysterically funny. Thanks for making my day.
Or Hanlon’s Razor
Well, sure, it’s also really we who came up with Expelled, to deny the truth that ID isn’t religious in nature, and to make them look like incompetent losers who can only attack by using ad hominems.
And I’d like to personally claim responsibility for this tidbit (OK, not directly, but via my evil influence). It’s an announcemnt for Expelled:
OK, but why would I mess with our atheist film’s title? Because not everyone is as bright as we’d like them to be, and might not figure out that “no intelligence allowed” refers to Stein & co. “No intelligence here” spells it out for those who can’t take a hint.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
A link to a Ray Stevens video???
I thought this was a Science blog!!!
If WBC were somehow a product of the atheist cabal, they wouldn’t stop at ‘God Hates Fags’ on their signs, but instead would list everything the God of Love hates: women, Canaanites, uncircumcised boys, Egyptians, Amalekites, those that follow a different god (yet He curiously makes very little effort to have His one true god self known to all His children), witches, wizards, the handicapped, strangers, slaves, foreigners, Amorites, Midianites, artists, Hazorites, Moabites, Philistines,….
Boy, I can sure see now why Xians view us atheists as so lonely without God’s love to
smiteshine o’er us.Since the “No True Scotsman” and “Hanlon’s Razor” points have already been covered…
*waits for Holbach to show up and tell us it’s really The Male that’s collectively responsible for the WBC*
Really. Who could believe that people who base their life on the beautiful writing of the bible could believe the people from the WBC are christians:
Romans 1:27 – 32.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I know that the Westboro bunch make most “mainstream” Christians feel uncomfortable, but to try and push them off as an atheist conspiracy is just plain stupid. WBC is a product of the intolerant, hatemongering fundamentalism that has overtaken many Christians in their reaction to modernity and secularism. WBC is a direct result of years and years and years of using Christianity (and religion in general) to beat up on whatever group(s) is/are the pariah of the day.
If Christians are uncomfortable with the message that WBC is preaching, then they themselves need to do something about it. Where are the contingents of ministers from other churches, sitting down with the Phelpses and asking them to cut it out? Where are the laypeople who stand by and say “not in my name” yet don’t so much as lift a finger to do anything about it?
The Phelpses and the WBC are probably the best-known extremists in America today, but the message of Bible-based intolerance and hate is by no means unique to them. The same sort of vile, shrill hatemongering is the stock and trade of many, many Sunday morning sermons at churches all over this country.
Christians, it’s time to clean house. Stop blaming others for problems created by members of your own community. If you’re tired of seeing Phelps and his clan make a mockery of the teachings of Jesus, then do something about it and put an end to that sideshow.
Are the Phelps’s still suing everybody that speaks agin’ ’em? Bunch of peckerwoods…
But the video! Ha! First Self-Righteous Church in Pascagoula! Unfortunately spent too many childhood days in a church like that. Why didn’t I think to take a squirrel????!!!!
I don’t know how Pascagoula held up from Katrina, but I doubt it was well. Back when I lived in MS, it was a dump. I’m trying to think of one redeeming feature…
….Thinking….
….Thinking….
Nope. Nothing.
I’m sure it was tongue in cheek. But would the writer have dared to substitute “a Catholic cabal”, “a Jewish cabal”, or “a Muslim cabal” (with corresponding changes to the subsequent sentences) for “an atheist cabal”?
Cabal: n 1: a clique that seeks power usually through intrigue 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act [syn: conspiracy]
Yep, here we are plotting in secret – conspiring – to carry out illegal acts.
Oh, wait. This is all public. And legal.
Maybe the ID crowd, or possibly Ben Stein, or even the Catholic Church, deserve the title more.
Jesus, and people wonder why I left California… Between attracting 3 of ever 4 kooks and cranks in America, there’s plenty of bigotry, racism, eco-facists, neocons, and just about every idiot group known to mankind, including the effing KKK and enough wacko religious cults to start your own jihad. Including the inbred nit-wit that wrote that particular editorial, there are probably 20 million worthless dregs in the damn over-populated, over-developed, corporatist/placticized state.
I don’t even like to back to visit anymore. And Australia, albeit not perfect, is looking better EVERY DAY.
Christians, it’s time to clean house. Stop blaming others for problems created by members of your own community. If you’re tired of seeing Phelps and his clan make a mockery of the teachings of Jesus, then do something about it and put an end to that sideshow.
The problem is Phelps is not making a mockery of Jesus teaching. Homosexuality is a capital crime in the Bible. Phelps is just saying something the rest of them are to cowardly to say.
OT:
There was talk on a thread awhile back that Cuttlefish should be specially honoured for his unique talents and contributions to this blog (an idea with which I wholeheartedly concur).
Perhaps Larry has hit upon a name for this new-fangled award: the Ambrose Bierce Award (informally known as the ‘Biercey’.)
Thus, I hereby nominate Cuttlefish for Pharyngula’s first-ever Biercey. And who could be more deserving? After all, the Cuttlefish’s poetry is pure ambrosia.
A link to a Ray Stevens video???
Sven, you saved me before I clicked on that link. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I absolutely did NOT need that song running through my brain – no, wait, it’s there anyway! Noooooooooo!!!!!!!
The original post made me laugh..the comments made me cry.. :(
Everyone knows that every blunder made in the name of faith is actually the fault of atheists. Just like the Inquisition. Come on people, read your history books.
Wow, those comments are racking up fallacies at an astonishing rate.
My favorite ones are where people think they are being intelligent and berating someone else for overgeneralizing when no such thing took place. Apparently Christians do not share any attributes. And most certainly not any negative ones. It’s like arguing with a child, who is just parroting lines he’s seen others use with good result, but clearly has no idea what he’s actually saying or whether it’s relevant in the discussion.
Oh, come on, Romans? If its lust, rapine and murder all rolled into one that you want, come on, you can’t beat the OT, especially Leviticus 20. Now those Levites knew how to wedge rebellious children, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and incest of more kinds than one could imagine in 12 verses between exhortations to worship statues honoring Yahweh.
That’s the kind of Scripture that can really get the congregation hopping for the organ.
Kay (#15),
Don’t you know that the reach of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy extends to rewriting the original, impeccably-moral, scientifically-accurate Bible so that it appears to be a bronze-age, morally-anachronistic book of myths?
RE: Bob L @ #21
The portion of the Bible dealing with the “criminal” aspect of homosexual relations is in the Book of Leviticus. Capital punishment is prescribed for this “offense” as well as many others.
We do not have any commentary from Jesus himself on the issue of homosexuality. The denouncement of homosexuality in the Book of Romans comes not from the words and teachings of Jesus but rather from the pen of Paul (or whoever in the early church decided to write it for him). So, Jesus’ position on the rights of same-sex couples and of homosexuals in general as we are known in this day and age are not known.
My comment, which you referenced in your comment, was directed at those Christians who would say that Phelps is part of an atheist conspiracy. The WBC call themselves Christians and say that their arguments are Bible-based. If other Christians are unhappy to be associated with Phelps and his clan then they should do something about it other than trying to pawn them off onto another group.
In my mind, the WBC are actually Yahwists. They seem to love the old-fashioned, fire and brimstone, vengeful, merciless, jealous and petty Yahweh/Jehova that we know from the Torah and the “Old Testament” and give very little regard to the teachings of Jesus. They advocate strict adherence to Mosaic law, parts of which are rejected by most modern-day Jews and some of which was rejected by Jesus himself.
Remember the line about “not casting the first stone”? Jesus interceded for a woman accused of adultery and prevented her execution by stoning. Rather than rebuke her, he forgave her and sent her own her way with the instruction to “sin no more”. This is one of the many reasons that Jesus was despised by the religious leadership of his time.
The worst comments are the ones yelling at anyone who disagrees with them where they claim atheists are bringing it up, when the original article is just a horrible piece of slanderous poop against atheists.
Am I allowed to say slanderous instead of libelous because I think it sounds better? :(
*waits for Holbach to show up and tell us it’s really The Male that’s collectively responsible for the WBC*
As long as it’s not PYGMIES + DWARFS who are responsible…
If you look on the web a little you can find groups that don’t think they are extreme enough. For every extreme Christian sect, there is another one that considers them heretical.
As despicable as they are, they don’t hide their true beliefs. Other groups believe the same thing but dress up their dogma to make it not look so bad.
Kay @15 What is this, the freaking bible network? We are trying to dispense with logic and your spouting biblical crap and insanity. Why don’t you log onto the Westboro house of insanity’s website where you can join them in their gushing of derangement!
I’m thinking about the mechanism of belief after watching the Ray Stevens video about the squirrel in the First Self-Righteous Church.
I couldn’t help but think how funny this was – to all of us – back when I lived among the Christians.
But the really funny thing is that if you view it from the perspective of a non-believer, the song opens up the box of belief and shows the inner workings. This revival of devotion was caused by a tree rat loose in the church, touching and scaring people.
And yet for the believers, it can all still seem true. Christian listeners can see the box torn open and still believe in the magic: It was a squirrel that caused everybody to get religion? –Then the squirrel was sent by God.
Yeah, yeah, I know it’s just a song. But it’s still food for thought.
Holbach (#32),
I think Kay was making a fairly straight-up point that such immoral morality is not a misinterpretation of Christian doctrine, but is rather a natural expression of Christian doctrine.
I don’t think he was advocating the bible, but rather pointing out that it is logically inconsistent for Christians to believe the Bible is perfect and inerrant, yet also criticize Phelps and other’s who derive their world view from it.
Nope. Slander is oral. Libel is written, printed, painted, sculpted, etc.
I know which is which, if I didn’t I wouldn’t have any reason to ask if I could differ to taste instead of correctness.
I would have sworn that the reference to an “atheist cabal” was ironic, and rather funny, but looking at the comments has shaken my – er – faith. A newspaper is a commercial enterprise that has to take into account its readers. If the paper’s audience is so damnably dumb, maybe the editorial writer, who should know the audience, meant it as many took it.
If a major motion picture can contend that evolution is responsible for the Holocaust, it’s not a bigger departure from reality to claim atheism may be responsible for fundamentalist Christianity.
“In the absence of religion good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. In the presence of religion a lot of good people will do bad things” :) words of a wise man – sorry I forgot who
Damnit! They found me out! I flew to Kansas in 1955 and had the Eastside Baptist Church kick Phelps out, knowing that was all the push he need to form his own church.
Then I fronted him with money in order to help him get off the ground. I got this money from the CIA Psychological Operations Division. It was earmarked specifically for starting religious institutions.
I knew setting Phelps up to be a pastor would be a serious blow to religion and would help the great Atheist cause: To convert all of the kids of religious parents to being godless heathens who would all become part of my hellish army after the end of the world.
I knew even before I clicked through the link what the squirrels comment was about.
Did Ray Stevens’ 60s hit “Ahab the Arab” ever earn him a fatwa?
Redprince, that would be Steven Wienberg if I remember right (mobel laureate in physics).
So could we somehow get confirmation on whether this was meant as a joke or not? It would be way more funny if it wasn’t hehe.
Some dude in the comments to that article keeps insisting that Phelps is a democrat. Does anyone know if there is any basis for that, or is it in the same realm as “Obama is a muslim”?
It’s true. Phelps was a democrat. So was Zell.
There is no political party untainted by kooks, I’m afraid.
Sometimes it seems easier to believe that there is a plot to undermine Christianity than to believe that the people who spout pseudoscientific nonsense really believe it and are really that poorly informed or dishonest. But I too have only made this claim in jest. Alas, the truth is that Christians regularly do more harm to their own reputation than any opponent ever could.
“Ironic rhetorical device,” apparently. Not that it would be surprising if they were serious, given many Christians attempts to turn Adolph “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter” Hitler into an atheist.
By that standard, wouldn’t it be the case that we do not have any commentary from Jesus himself on any issue?
According to Wikiquotes: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
Assuming that the Gospel authors wrote down what he said correctly, we do in fact have Jesus “word” on several subjects (naturally, I can’t come up with a single one off the top of my head and I’m at work, where I don’t have a Bible handy). For example: “Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself” I’m pretty sure is (Biblically) Jesus speaking directly.* Of course, the Jesus Seminar went through and picked out using some standard (that I likewise don’t remember and don’t have my text to hand to reference) those words that were “likely” “most likely,” “not likely” and “not at all likely” spoken by Christ.
We just don’t have any such commentary on homosexuality. And Paul said a lot of things that Jesus didn’t.
*IANAChristian and I’m agnostic as to the existence of a historical Iashua ben Ioseph.
It is written in Holy Scripture that “We want the sense of solidarity and identity that comes from having our interests narrowed and exploited by like-minded zealots!” (Calvin & Hobbes 94: 2-10)
Just sayin’
Considering your neck of the woods, you should look up Garrison Keillor’s CD with “Gospel Birds” on it.
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Birds-Other-Stories-Wobegon/dp/1565110102
“Irma and Ernie Lundeen’s traveling flock of acrobatic, bible-reciting birds”
Hey, everybody!! Big street party outside Fred’s compound in Topeka the day after he croaks!
Flamboyant cross-dressing recommended!
The Gospel of Jesus
Here endeth the gospel of Jesus.
They’re not fake, a fake religious group would be a lot more entertaining.
A guy named “razor” in the comments said “darnedtoheck..If you want to be left in peace then why are you responding to this stuff,Sounds hypocritical to me,Which is typical seeings how an atheist opened this line of talk.Via treebones 7:09 post.”
Guy must be a troll. By his logic, if you went up to some stranger and punched them in the face and they punched back, you could then laugh and say “Ha! You retaliated! That means I was justified in hitting you! If you don’t want to be hit, don’t defend yourself! I’m so clever!”
Yes. It’s the typical act-like-a-jackass-and-play-the-victim-for-being-treated-like-one behavior.
Poe’s Law got me: I was positive Westboro was a parody, and Landover was real.
Doug,
No, it is not another case of “No True Scotsman” Fallacy. As a Christian, I am certainly entitled (nay, required) to judge whether or not Phelps, as a claimant to the name, is a Christian. True Scotsman does not mean that anyone who claims to be X must be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Matt. 7 tells us by their deeds they will be known. Calling oneself a Christian, regardless of fervency or sincerity, is not the litmus test. The bible clearly teaches the concept of excommunication, which presupposes that Christians are to judge. From Phelps’s deeds, I judge him to be either a charlatan or an apostate. He is free to make the same judgment of me. But in any case, it is perfectly reasonable for mainstream of Christianity or just an individual Christian to judge that Phelps is outside an acceptable circle of orthodoxy. But of course “Some Christian says Phelps is not a true Christian” will, on this and similar blogs, Pavlovian style, trigger “No True Scotsman” choruses and often a chance to demonstrate that you are clever enough to generate a ™ symbol. Why? Because it is convenient for the weak-minded not to have to make any argument beyond “Phelps is just as much a Christian as anyone else who calls himeslf a Christian.”
On this blog it is not impossible to find comments (from non scientists–the arrogance makes the mind reel) about whether, say, Collins or Townes or Ken Miller or Freeman Dyson are “true” scientists. Thus any charge of “True Scotsman Fallacy” deserves a blanket response of pot-kettle-black.
They can’t possibly hope to persuade anyone.
My understanding is that Phelps and his church are not trying to persuade anyone, change anything, or seek converts. Despite the word “Baptist” in their name, from what I’ve read they seem to be following one of the branches of Calvinism, complete with the tenets of pre-election and Total Depravity. Their protests are displays of God’s wrath and condemnation, not calls to repentance. God has already saved whom He will, and damned whom He will. Which is, apparently, pretty much everyone.
It is, of course, perfectly acceptable for a Christian such as heddle to judge the Phelps as heretics, and back his case up with the Bible or other forms of revelation. Outsiders, on the other hand, have different rules for judging who is, or is not, Christian (or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan) — rules mostly based not just on sincerity, but on whether the beliefs of a sect or individual can be included in the most basic definition.
#59, I might just be confused and not seeing where you’re going with this, but it seems to me that even those non-scientists, the brainless dolts, those idiot peasants, might be able to judge who is or isn’t a scientist based on knowing what the defenition of a scientist is.
Of course, when it comes to scientists, you can also apply the “by their works ye might know them.” Tossing out non-testable hypotheses without evidence? I’m going to go out on a limb and say maybe that person isn’t a scientist, if you will forgive me my arrogance, sir. I’m not making any comments about any of the people you mentioned, I’m just saying in general, maybe as a drooling, non-scientific idiot I might still know what I’m talking about at least sometimes.
There is a lot about the FLDS in Under the Banner of Heaven. They strike me as the closest adherents to biblical scripture.
And I guess that the Mormons are atheists too, trying elaborately parody religion so that it looks even more ridiculous than it already does…
Sometimes, religion pretty much parodies itself.
I cant remember the exact details but i though i heard about a group that was actually posing as a church to make religion look bad. I dunno it might have been a joke or something but it did sound real at the time. Sort of like landover baptist church, which is hilarious.
No, you’re a Calvinist, which is a bunch of New-Agey bullshit, and you’re going to burn for all eternity for your heresy.
I can say this with complete certainty as a Catholic, and thus a member of Jesus’s only true church on Earth.
Fucking blaspheming neo-Pagan heretic.
Get used to it, OctoberMermaid. Twaddle is a moron (when he’s not actively engaging in obfuscating obscurantism, that is).
Brownian, OM
Exactly. I see you grasp the concept.
When The Catholic Church, at Trent, placed multiple anathemas on the doctrines of the Reformers they were not committing a “True Scotsman Fallacy.” They were judging, as required, that the Reformers (essentially Calvinists) were preaching a different gospel. Having reached that conclusion, Rome did exactly what it was supposed to do: it excommunicated them.
sistercoyote in # 50 said:
“Assuming that the Gospel authors wrote down what he said correctly, we do in fact have Jesus “word” on several subjects”.
You know what they say about “assuming”, right? :D
The writers of the Gospels never heard (the supposed) Jesus say anything. They likely never met anyone who heard T.S.J. say anything.
None of them wrote down anything about T.S.J. during any period of time that T.S.J. was alive. Not even within a decade, and usually much, much more.
And there is very good evidence that at least some, if not all, of the writers of the Gospel ( whomever they might actually be) were writing falsehoods.
“Of course, the Jesus Seminar went through and picked out using some standard (that I likewise don’t remember and don’t have my text to hand to reference)”
Not sure who those folks may be, but their name doesn’t inspire confidence! :D
If you are interested in this topic, here is an interesting place to start: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60
And there is very good evidence that at least some, if not all, of the writers of the Gospel ( whomever they might actually be) were writing falsehoods.
There is nigh-incontrovertable evidence that what they were engaged in was crafting theological fictions. While this does not jibe with any modern concept of Historical Truth, it is not quite in line with “writing falsehoods,” either.
The audiences for these documents had no concept of historical fact; it’s not surprising that the authors didn’t consider it important. Basically, the entire modern notion of “objectivity” as an ideal for the balanced treatment of a subject simply didn’t exist. Nobody expected that a document like a gospel or any other nominally biographical piece of writing wouldn’t support a given point of view. This is why the gospels we have are great as windows into the concerns of the various groups practicing early forms of Christianity, but are not considered reliable biographies by us moderns.
None of this means that it’s impossible or even unlikely that some authentic sayings made it into the gospels, even if just by accident.
The point is that none of at least the four canonical gospels* mentions homosexuality at all (unless you interpret descriptions of the Apostle John as “the disciple that Jesus loved” in a particular way). Neither does the rest of the New Testament, except for IIRC two of Paul’s epistles — and those never even indirectly imply that Jesus ever opened his mouth.
* I once got hold of a book that is a compilation of the apocryphal ones. There are dozens. The diversity is astonishing.
The point is that none of at least the four canonical gospels* mentions homosexuality at all (unless you interpret descriptions of the Apostle John as “the disciple that Jesus loved” in a particular way). Neither does the rest of the New Testament, except for IIRC two of Paul’s epistles — and those never even indirectly imply that Jesus ever opened his mouth.
* I once got hold of a book that is a compilation of the apocryphal ones. There are dozens. The diversity is astonishing.
“If Christians are uncomfortable with the message that WBC is preaching, then they themselves need to do something about it. ”
The religious types are not really upset with the message of the WBC, but with the protest venue. Picketing soldiers’ funerals is positively un-Uhmerkin, but none of the faithful complain when they picket the funeral of some poor gay dude stomped to death by yahoos.
Hell, there was no major Christian denunciation of Robertson and Falwell post-9/11, was their garbage really that different from Phelps’?
If WBC were somehow a product of the atheist cabal, they wouldn’t stop at ‘God Hates Fags’ on their signs, but instead would list everything the God of Love hates: women, Canaanites, uncircumcised boys, Egyptians, Amalekites, those that follow a different god (yet He curiously makes very little effort to have His one true god self known to all His children), witches, wizards, the handicapped, strangers, slaves, foreigners, Amorites, Midianites, artists, Hazorites, Moabites, Philistines,….
And shellfish. Don’t ever forget the shellfish, for they are an abomination.
As a Christian, I am certainly entitled (nay, required) to judge whether or not Phelps, as a claimant to the name, is a Christian.
A Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Jesus–nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. Heddle, what you seem to be arguing is that an argumentum ad populum is valid rejoinder to a No True Scotsman. Pick your poison well, I suppose.
heddle, are you also entitled to judge whether Phelps is an atheist? Considering that’s the context of Doug’s statement, and the context of virtually every use of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy as a rebuttal?
I’m not unsympathetic to the idea that someone could diverge so substantially from orthodox Christian practices that it would be incorrect to call them a Christian, generally the objection is to throwing on the mantle of “atheist” instead.
In those cases, what they do is redefine to terms to their advantage. Christians do good things, the ones that do bad things are really atheists. “No True Scotsman” is a convenient shorthand description of this kind of fallacy, is it not? Phelps’ beliefs are at least much more influenced by Christianity than atheism.
hahahahahaha, that’s hilarious.
But seriously, that’s really scary. People are frigging idiots.
J Myers,
That is disproved, trivially, by the fact that such a definition renders Satan a Christian. Apart from that, it can be shown that the NT has quite a few examples of people who “believe” but are not saved.
Citizen Z
I don’t think he is. I think (possibly) he thinks he is a Christian. An atheist doesn’t think he is a Christian.
No, most Christians come to realize, rather begrudgingly, that atheists are not as bad as we (as Christians) would naively expect, and Christians are not as good as we would naively hope. For example, people like to point out on here that the divorce rate among evangelicals is comparable to the rate of the general public–as if this is a surprise to us. But I can’t even estimate how many times I have heard in a sermon that “we should be ashamed” for exactly that statistic.
Well yes, they may be almost entirely “influenced” by Christianity. Any apostasy would be influenced, in a misguided sense, by that which it bastardizes.
You’ve completely missed the point of my comment. And I doubt J Myers will be convinced that his definition is “disproved” by fictional characters.
blah-spit-spew-belch!
That site () is pure poison. I spent half an hour trying to determine if it really was satire or not … finally I dove into the comment section.
There sure are a lot of morally bankrupt souls lurking there :-(
heddle is confused as always and this discussion has been had with him before. It is a ‘No true Scotsman’ as it simply is impossible to tell who and who isn’t a ‘TRUE BELIEVER’. Phelps feels he is sticking to his version of scripture. This is his interpretation and just because heddle doesn’t like it he wants to pretend it isn’t Christian. BS.
This has got to be the most abjectly stupid hair brained ignorant responses on a religous topic ever. Satan- a fictional character- is not human. If said being was real he still wouldn’t be human. I suppose angels aren’t Christians either. A Christian is a human who has faith is Jesus as the son of God. Period. No one is perfect and Phelps ‘sins’ areno greater or less than yours.
Belief makes one a Christian. The man on the cross beside Jesus had only that and faith alone is enough.
Isn’t that all anyone actually has their own belief in their belief? Your actions and attitudes don’t lend much credence to your belief, your accepting of genocide and deceipt in discussion are no less ‘sinful’ or Christianlike.
I don’t think people should be ashamed of this at all. Many marriages suck and many new marriages are far better for all involved. If marriages are your barometer for good vs. bad you need a new barometer. Divorce can be good or bad just as marriage can be the same.
There is no such thing as apostacy unless truth is determined by a majority vote. This was mentioned in #73 above.
Your really bringing the stupid tonight aren’t you? Anargument from authority about whether or not a non-scientist can offer an opinion on science if they are not one themselves?
I don’t know where Heddle gets his theology. It seems pretty strange. It says in the NT, many places that judgement is up to god not man. One such quote is below.
Of course, there are also places, mostly in the Old Testament where any number of wild eyed prophets claim to be standing in for god and they throw judgements out like lightening bolts. These days there are still a few who claim that, the Pope, the Mormon President, and the head of the fundie FLDS polygamists who is in jail right now.
The trend in mainline Protestant is to forget dogma and sectarian warfare. 2,000 years of religious wars has acomplished nothing but convince many people that Xians can be amazingly violent.
If Phelps wants to call himself a Xian, sure, but not a good one IMHO.
Heddie says:
“From Phelps’s deeds, I judge him to be either a charlatan or an apostate. etc.”
Because he follows the Bible? The Bible says gays should be slaughtered and that we should praise God for all things. These are two dictates that he follows. He doesn’t even accept donations for his activism because he, unlike so many other preachers, shouldn’t be corrupted for greed of money.
It’s not like he’s new to being hated. Phelps was a prominent attorney fighting for the civil rights of African-Americans. He was called many things back then.
On the other hand you call yourself a Christian and put yourself in the authority of the divine to judge who is truly faithful and who isn’t. According to the Bible that’s blasphemy and the punishment is death. So if you are a true Christian then you should kill yourself. My simple test for a true Christian is to do what the Bible says, drink poisons and see how you come out.
Are you up to the challenge or are you a hypocrite?
Jason @ 35
Sh*&t.
I’m the worse editor of my own text!
You express most eloquently what I was trying to say. Thx
Jason @ 28
Are you freakin’ kidding me!!!!????
…you mean I crucified myself with rusty nails this Easter for NOTHING!!
RE: “Their goal? To undermine churches. To give religion a black eye. To plant in the minds of the young a twisted and evil view of Christianity.”
That about sums it up, bub…only because it happens to be so.
There are lots of behaviors that give the possessor a black eye. (Look out for that door knob while you peep through the keyhole). It’s entirely natural and justified.
The “twisted and evil view of Christianity” is similarly a well-deserved apprehension. It is backed by much historical reference.
Raven,
(Quotes the “don’t judge lest ye be judged” words of Jesus)
Immediately after which, see the account in Matthew 7, Jesus tells us not to give what is holy to dogs, and no pearls for the swine. Unless you think he literally means dogs and pigs, you must concede that the instruction presupposes that we judge some to be dogs, some to be swine. Later in the same chapter Jesus tells us how to judge them–by their deeds.
You are right, judgment is up to God. That is why I said, concerning Phelps, that I might be wrong. Human judgment is commanded but it certainly is not infallible. My judgment results, in the case of Phelps, to regard him as if he is not a Christian. My judgment is of no consequence to Phelps’s judgment before God.
Doug,
Yes it is convenient to demand that Levitical law is still applicable for Christians, because then, with no intellectual effort, you can say Christians are hypocrites. We don’t stone adulterers, sacrifice animals, execute gays, etc. Of course, there should be a hint that this argument is bad, given that Jesus encountered blasphemers (even actual blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, not like the people making the video, who are not committing that sin) and didn’t call, as the law would demand, for their execution. But let’s not concern ourselves with details. At any rate, if the Levitical law still applies, then Phelps would be correct to judge me as an apostate.
JimC,
Your arguments are odd.
But we are arguing whether Christians can judge claimants as apostate. Since we already believe in “fictional” characters (Triune God, angels, demons) it makes sense to answer within our belief system and point out, as is done in the book of James, that “even demons believe.” Any at rate, since you can’t grasp that subtlety, James uses that point (even demons believe) to warn people that their professed belief is not enough. In other places, Jesus warned that some would be surprised when he tells them “I never knew you.” Their surprise is rooted on the fact that they believed. Simon the Sorcerer, in Acts, “believed and was baptized,” but was later excommunicated in spite of that belief.
Close, but you are mistaking faith with belief. Saving faith entails, it is generally taught, three components: 1) Notita 2) Assensus and 3) Fiducia. The second one is belief. Faith makes one a Christian, not (just) belief. A very precise definition is: A Christian is one who is justified before God by the righteousness of Christ, made manifest by faith. And, to be exact, it is true that I cannot say definitively that Phelps is not a Christian, I can only say that (a) I am instructed to judge him, since he claims to be a Christian, and (b) I judge him to be an apostate. I judge him, like Satan and the demons, and many humans, not to posses fiducia. I might be wrong.
No, for the tenth time, belief isn’t all there is. If that were the case, in addition to the (human) examples I gave above, there would be no biblical instruction for excommunication. If I believed in Jesus but was an unrepentant adulterer (this is precisely analogous to Phelps) the church, in spite of my sincere belief in Jesus, would be required to judge me as a non-Christian and throw me out. Excommunication is not, typically, for throwing out unbelievers, but those who, in fact profess to believe. In an example provided earlier, The Catholic church did not excommunicate the Reformers because they thought they didn’t believe in Jesus.
The genocide I accept (though don’t claim to understand) is limited to that instructed by God when the ancient Jews acquired the Promised Land leaving a God-commanded river of blood in their wake. There is no instruction from God to kill anyone today, so at least have the integrity (no, I don’t think you do) not to imply that I would accept genocide claimed by men or even the church to be in the name of God.
The fact that the statistic equally applies to evangelicals is pointed out on here is recognition that, regardless of whether or not you would be ashamed, Christians, from within their own perspective, ought to be ashamed. And we should.
Then you will have to explain why Paul instructs excommunication. Did he write, in a separate letter, “but I’m sure the man (a professed believer) having sex with his step mother will find salvation with the Episcopalians?”
How inelegant, unless it is simply your intent to deceive. Where did I write that a non-scientist cannot have an opinion on science? If so, I’ll retract it immediately. What I said was that it takes supreme arrogance for a non-scientist (or in that matter for a scientist) to argue that men with demonstrable scientific achievement (such as Miller, Townes, Dyson, Collins) are not “true” scientists.
If levitical law no longer applies, does that mean the bible is fallible?
Wazza,
No. The case of sacrificing animals ought to make this clear. Obviously there were detailed instructions for sacrificing animals in the Law. And just as obviously the NT (in Hebrews, most explicitly) tells us that was for then, that system is done, Jesus has now made the once-for-all sacrifice.
That does not mean the OT erred in having laws describing sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was correct and proper for pre-advent believers, and rendered obsolete and an abomination for Christians.
You can of course argue biblical infallibility, but not, it seems to me, on the basis of whether the Levitical law applies. Those were the laws of a nation that no longer exists.
What about the laws covering such things as ritual purity? Jesus never specifically states that ritual purity no longer applies; his healing miracles were primarily to restore ritual purity to the afflicted. Are those laws no longer in effect?
instructed?
there we have the gist of religious oppression.
you believe you are instructed to impose your belief on me.
as far as i’m concerned you can go point your instructions at the mirror.
It would only seem convenient to one who believes that the laws were justified at one time, and that this is a perfectly reasonable position to take. To those of us who consider Levitical law a bad thing then and now, it really doesn’t make a difference whether we’re dealing with someone like Phelps, who believes they apply now, or someone like you, who, if I understand you correctly, believe they applied only in certain contexts in the past.
May,
Huh? I have no interest in imposing my belief on you. (Something that is, in fact, impossible.) I am not demanding that you or Phelps believe anything that I believe, nor do I support making what I consider sin to be illegal. I am saying that: if you claim to be a Christian then, as instructed, I will judge your deeds. On rare occasions, as in the case of Phelps, I will decide, based on behaior, that I will not treat that person as a Christian, just because he says he is. But at no time am I imposing my beliefs. Phelps should treat me likewise.
Get a grip.
may #89 wrote:
No he doesn’t. He’s engaging in discussion and argument. The people who call that “imposing” one’s beliefs are usually the same people who call atheists militant and aggressive for engaging in discussion and argument. Persuasion is not a form of force.
As for Christians in general, they’re all over the board on this. Many believe they are only supposed to “spread the Word” to others verbally. Many believe their mission is to spread the word by living good lives, so that others will see the Christ in them and want to follow Him. Today, only a minority think they’re mandated by God to impose their views by force of law — or force of violence. And heddle isn’t one of them.
Incidentally, when the statistics came out on the high rate of divorce among evangelicals, there was some interesting speculation on why this was so. I remember reading some interviews with marriage counselors who spoke about their own experiences in the area. They suggested that, as practiced, the popular form of Christianity called Born Again had some accountability. It was not only encouraging people to marry young, it was also encouraging a dangerous kind of magical thinking.
First, God was supposed to be very present in your life — which in their view meant that He was sending signs and hints to guide you towards what you should do. To sex-obsessed adolescents, it was very easy to romanticize early crushes into a belief that the relationship was Meant to Be. This was coupled with a strong belief in the miraculous, transformative power of faith and forgiveness, which would conquer and smooth all problems. Does he have a violent temper? Does she drink too much? Do you have different goals in life? That will go away, smooth out, and resolve itself if you simply ask Jesus’ help enough, and in the right way. Believe. Trust. Have faith.
The therapists who were interviewed pointed out that this was unrealistic. Little red flags which would normally be the kinds of things that would make people hesitate to marry were instead being interpreted as either insignificant, or challenges to one’s faith.
While I doubt that this attitude is the major cause of the high divorce rate among conservative Christians, I can see where it could contribute. The problem then would not be a greater tendency to “sin,” but a greater tendency to confuse reality with fantasy.
Worshipping a being that commands genocide (even once) is simply evil.
Paul @ #64 wrote:
“I cant remember the exact details but i though i heard about a group that was actually posing as a church to make religion look bad.”
Yes, I think they were called Christians.
They used to hang around in ancient Rome, and made fun of the complex system of Roman Gods and God-Men by making up their own Roman-style salvation cult and crudely superimposing it on Jewish monotheism (trust me, if you were there, you would understand how funny this was: Those two spiritual traditions are not compatible at all. Indeed, the idea of a God-man would have been unheard of and offensive to the Jews…while claiming he was the ONLY TRUE God-man would have been offensive to the various Roman (and other) salvation traditions.)
So, yeah, it was funny at the time, and it was clear that they had just made the whole thing up, since there was no record of their God-man’s birth, life, or execution, but generations passed, and somehow people started taking it seriously, kind of like scientology, or FSM in about 50 years.
Also, since both premarital sex and masturbation are “sins”, the only way to get any nookie at all AND remain in God’s good graces, is to marry.
1. You are overinterpreting that. We all have opinions. It is unavoidable. We also have secular laws and judges to keep order. I’m sure JC isn’t saying traffic tickets are heresy. What we don’t have is the religious authority from being a supernatural being. Or at least I don’t and no one I know does. Many others claim the opposite. Some are locked up in mental asylums while others carry guns and massacre civilians and knock down skyscrapers.
2. This is why playing Bible Verse Cruise Missils is pointless. The book contradicts itself constantly. Put judge into a bible search engine and one can get fleets of OT examples of wild eyed prophets tossing out judgements like lightening bolts. The NT is more towards, humans are humans, not god.
It is impossible to be a biblical literalist. That is why there are 34,000 different denominations, all claiming to be the one true church and all with differing theology.
raven,
Maybe. But on the issue of judging fellow Christians, the verses “don’t judge” followed by the dog/swine/by-their-deeds call to judge are rather trivially reconciled by studying the passage in toto. There are other biblical antinomies that are much more vexing.
I agree.
I disagree–that number is an overestimate. Here is a post on that:
http://helives.blogspot.com/2003/11/200000-protestant-denominations.html
regardless, they don’t all claim to be the one true church. I have never been in a church that claimed to be the “one true church.” My present church (Reformed Baptist) does not call itself the one true church and by inference claim that, say, the Presbyterians are apostate. Instead it teaches that we and the Presbyterians agree to disagree on covenant theology and paedobaptism–but that both are Christian churches and can enjoy fellowship. You are presenting a caricature.
Heddle says:
“We don’t stone adulterers, sacrifice animals, execute gays, etc. Of course, there should be a hint that this argument is bad, given that Jesus encountered blasphemers (even actual blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, not like the people making the video, who are not committing that sin) and didn’t call, as the law would demand, for their execution. But let’s not concern ourselves with details. At any rate, if the Levitical law still applies, then Phelps would be correct to judge me as an apostate.”
Jesus said the old laws still apply, it’s Paul who said they are irrelevant. And you call yourself a Christian while rejecting Christ’s words in favor of Paul’s? So by following Paul you call yourself a Christian while Phelps follows Jesus and you call him a heretic. I’ll just call you a hypocrite.
CJO in # 69 said:
“There is nigh-incontrovertible evidence that what they were engaged in was crafting theological fictions. While this does not jibe with any modern concept of Historical Truth, it is not quite in line with “writing falsehoods,” either.
The audiences for these documents had no concept of historical fact; it’s not surprising that the authors didn’t consider it important.”
Glad that you admit that what they wrote was indeed “fiction”, as it certainly was that.
Of course there were Roman and Hebrew historians quite active during the lifespan of the supposed Jesus (T.S.J.), and, curiously, their audiences did have a “concept of historical fact”. Unfortunately, these historians evidently never heard of the T.S.J. fellow. Strange, that.
Yet the Gospels are a listing of one supposed historical fact after another. Since they contradict each other on historical fact, it seems not difficult to view them as indeed promoting falsehoods.
Post # 50 cited the Gospels as a proof source for the historical Jesus, so I think it is important to point out that they serve poorly as a resource toward that end.
The Gospels are religious tracts as you say, but they are likely fiction from start to finish, a deliberate rehabilitation project.
They have little historiological value, as they were written anonymously, were not written by anyone who met T.S.J. in their own lifetime, nor were the authors disciples of T.S.J. (as they are falsely purported to be in most Bibles). The first Gospel was not written until forty years after the supposed death of T.S.J. The names of the Gospel writers were not ecclesiastically determined until 150 years after the death of T.S.J. And there are no original documents when it comes to the Gospels, only copies of copies.
“None of this means that it’s impossible or even unlikely that some authentic sayings made it into the gospels, even if just by accident.”
Well, what it should mean is exactly opposite. It means that there is little or no evidence to believe that there is anything in the Gospels that is authentic about anything the T.S.J did or said.
It should be very difficult to ascribe validity to anonymous fictional writings written many decades after the fact about a religious figure whose very existence, incredibly, left not a shred of the evidence one would and must expect. Difficult, you know, if one believes that large claims demand large evidence.
You know, this blog speaks frequently to the value of evidence when trying to separate fact from fiction. And there just ain’t enough good evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone was a religious figure, let alone the Son of God. And the Gospels are more chapters in this work of fiction.
While we may want to believe that at least some of the story of Jesus must be historically true, such a conclusion is still a matter of faith.
Doug,
Yes Phelps just epitomizes what Jesus told us was the number one instruction regarding how we deal with one another: love you neighbor as yourself. He’s the poster child for obeying the second greatest commandment. Not sure how I missed that, thanks for pointing it out.
Heddle,
According to Phelps he is spreading Christian love by warning people to repent or face the eternal damnation of the Christian hellfire. Everything that goes on while you are living is irrelevant in the Christian world view because it is a small amount of time compared to the eternity of the prisons in the Christian afterlife.
Jesus said also to give away your possessions to the poor, I’m trusting you are using one of the free library computers. Or are you a hypocrite?
Doug,
Your exegesis is impressive. Of course, Jesus nowhere makes a blanket statement “Give all your possessions to the poor.” If so, he would have agreed with Judas that the expensive oil with which he was anointed by Mary at Bethany was wasted–it should have been sold to generate money for the poor. Instead he commends Mary for her actions.
You refer, I think, to the story of the Rich Young Ruler.
There the lesson, should you care to study it more than superficially, is clear. The rich man thought he was saved because he obeyed the law. That is, he thought he was saved by works. Christ gave him a command that he couldn’t obey, showing him (and us) the futility of salvation by works.
Personally I think that rich young ruler was saved, by grace not works, because in one account it states that Jesus loved him. (If Jesus loves everyone, then it is hardly not worth noting that he loved this particular person.)
But at any rate, Jesus never gave a blanket command to give away all your possessions–clearly Peter, for example, went back to his boat after Christ was crucified. I think we can agree that, if Christianity is correct, then St. Peter was saved.
Ok, Heddle, we get it:
You are a Christian.
You live a modern, secular lifestyle.
Unlike most modern, secular Christians, you have actually read the Bible,
So, instead of ignoring the parts that are incompatible with evidence/morality/common sense, you have come up with towering spires of historical detail, and tightly-stretched logical edifices that allow you to neither slide into Phelps-crazy-biblical-literalism, nor bible-ignoring-“meh”-Christianity.
Well, good for you…
…and we’re all looking forward to the next time PZ links to some poor idiot who killed himself snake handling, or another belligerent fool who thinks stabbing is a useful debate tool,
…so you can tell us all that that’s not what the Bible *really* means, that the bad parts are all redactions, or parables, or mistranslations, or Jesus misspoke, or Moses misheard, or shellfish were different (and more evil) back then, and if only all Christians everywhere would spend their entire lives delving into the intricate details of biblical scholarship, none of these stupid misunderstandings would ever occur.
Seriously, I am glad you’ve got at least one foot in the reality-based community, but wouldn’t it be easier just to ditch the religion, and help others ditch religion too, so that people won’t need Master’s degrees in theology to understand that praying for rain won’t work/handling snakes is a bad idea/earthquakes aren’t divine punishments/stabbing doesn’t win any arguments/babies do not belong in a microwave (and that voice telling you to do it is not God)?
Ah, here come the Christians to save our souls.
I’m battling this RLF person at the Redding.com link who tosses out a Bible verse any time you challenge him on his crap logic. It’s kind of like a stuffed animal with a squeaky box in it. Say something to him, then push his tummmy and a Bible verse comes out.
“It’s true. Phelps was a democrat. So was Zell.
There is no political party untainted by kooks, I’m afraid.”
That goes for that Galloway fellow from Scotland. Right on Iraq, but a straight-up crazy in most other respects.
Heddle, from the KJV
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Or from the NASB,
“If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
The story deals with the corruption of materialism. Clearly you want to call yourself a Christian but live like an Atheist and enjoy all the benefits of freedom provided by a secular lifestyle. Throw away your computer and repent of your selfish greed. But then again, you chose to follow a different god called Paul and found that your path to salvation is condemning those who don’t meet up to your standards on who is worthy to enter your kingdom of heaven. Don’t worry, folks like you are a dime a dozen. But as you can see, the No True Scotsman fallacy can easily be applied to you as you applied it to Phelps. Since you already said salvation comes through faith and not works then how does your faith become genuine while Phelps is false? Tell me wise one, which Christian superpower did you use to uncover what Phelps is really thinking?
“Tell me wise one, which Christian superpower did you use to uncover what Phelps is really thinking?”
Wonder Trinity Powers Activate!
Form of: Apologetics!
Different audiences, of course, and even for the historians of the day, objectivity and a critical approach to sources were certainly not emphasized to anything like the degree we expect from a modern historian, which is really my point. And not so strange that elite chroniclers of elite affairs had no interest in the doings of a Galilean peasant. Josephus, of course, does mention Jesus a generation after his supposed death, but regrettably we’ll never know exactly what he actually wrote since later Christians tampered with the text.
Yes, as a modern, it is natural to read them this way. But really the entire thrust of my comment was that a contemporary of the anonymous evangelists would not have found this natural at all, and would have recognized all the markers of mythic narrative in the gospels. It’s an entirely different relationship to the text, to the very concept of a text. I’m not saying I think they’re true, I’m saying the term “falsehood” is too blunt an instrument.
I’m aware of the provenance of the gospels, and I did not assert that they had “historiological value.”
Prior to the composition of the synoptic gospels, there was a Jesus tradition, originally transmitted orally. It’s possible the entire tradition is a fabrication, I suppose. It’s more likely that it agglomerated around a core of the authentic sayings (not deeds or biographical details) and that the anonymous evangelists had this tradition in some written form. That they themselves had no way of knowing which bits were authentic and which were later attributions to Jesus of sayings from other sources doesn’t mean that none of them are authentic. This doesn’t seem like an extraordinary claim to me, given that it fits with what we know about mythmaking across traditions.
As for T.S.J. as “a matter of faith,” I have none, in case it’s unclear. It seems certain that, if Jesus existed, he was some manner of religious figure, but of course I don’t think he was the son of god, whatever that is supposed to mean.
I came to this subject, if anything, with faith in Jesus’s non-existence. I am agnostic on the subject now, a great deal of reading later. I think it’s highly possible that there was a Galilean peasant revolutionary named Jesus who went about in the 20’s CE claiming to heal the sick and dispensing Cynic-like parables and later caused enough of a ruckus to be executed as a common rabble-rouser. That’s as far as I’m willing to go.
Doug,
Let’s see, for the nth time:
I cannot say with certainty that Phelps’s faith is false. I can only state that based on his utter disregard to behave in a manner remotely resembling Jesus, and apparent blatant disregard of the commandment to love his neighbor, I will treat him as if he is apostate.
He is free to do the same to me, if he thinks that by not behaving as he does it is I who egregiously violates Jesus’ teachings. If he thinks that, then it is his duty to declare that I am a heretic.
Neither of use would be committing a True Scotsman Fallacy–which you take to mean if X claims to be Y then X must be taken at his word. Why? Because our claims that the other is not a true Christian would be based on specific actions that speak to the question–which render that fallacy as inapplicable. “Imitating Jesus,” as a summary, is sensible and recognized standard. Phelps, in my estimation, falls sufficiently below that standard that I don’t consider him a Christian.
I don’t think you can grasp the difference, but here would be an example a true, True Scotsman Fallacy:
“She is not a true Christian, because no true Christian woman would wear jeans to church.”
Heddle says,
“I can only state that based on his utter disregard to behave in a manner remotely resembling Jesus, and apparent blatant disregard of the commandment to love his neighbor, I will treat him as if he is apostate.”
So if Phelps went out, bought a gun, etched some people’s names in the bullets, and went on a killing spree then that would be out of character for a Christian. So what if he went out, found some cords, molded them into a whip, then went into a church, or temple, and started beating people he disagreed with then that would be out of character for a Christian.
Heck, that’s what Jesus did. So I guess Jesus wouldn’t match up to your standard of a true Christian since he wasn’t loving his neighbor.
OK Doug, No mas! Your form of arguing is not worth any more of my time. You win. Uncle. You wore me out. I can not answer an argument that states, in a fair paraphrase: Jesus does not behave sufficiently like Jesus so by your standard he is not a Christian. You da man. I am not worthy.
Oh it’s a subtley I can’t grasp huh? It’s you who attempts to follow a poor excuse for thinking with a poor example from James as an attempt to buttress your pathetic view.
You are clearly and unmistakably incorrect. Also the difference between faith and belief is simply symantics. The word games of the apologist are simply bizarre. Most people who believe have faith and few people believe minus the faith. They are essentially dependent.
Then I would say the church you belong to is not Christian at it’s core. Jesus would not turn away anyone. This is not analagous to Phelps however as he is doing what he feels the bible states and is trying to show love for ‘sinners’.
heddle you wouldn’t know integrity if it bit you in the rear. But thats beside the point. Your weak personal attack aside you have claimed genocide to be good if God commands it in the bible in prior threads. The fact that you are inconsistent and not able to be honest isn’t my problem. I’m sure you would condemn men for it all while being dual minded in this regard. So much for personal intergrity huh?
Not necessarily. Bishop Spong and many others within the Christian religion do not agree with this. Not all divorce is bad. If you start from your presumption your starting from the worng place. Christians ought not be ashamed when tragedy comes to their life or in many cases the chance for a fresh start. The fact that you deny them this and wish shame upon them shows me you know nothing about the spirit of Jesus.
No, but he is already saved and cannot lose his salvation so why kick him out? Jesus would not abandon one of his flock.
Nope but your ‘arguments’ are simply so lame and muddled and you make them so frequently I spoke harshly. I apologize for my haste.
I agree they are true scientists who are compartmentalized. It’s that simple. They don’t carry their mind over to the other side.
Wonder Trinity Powers Activate!
Form of: Apologetics!
LOL
perfect.
That’s Molly-worthy.
Far be it from me to agree with Heddle, but the poster has a point.
Christianity is a voluntary selection. As such persons that are christians are free to select whom they regard as a christian. The only provision they should be required to uphold is to provide consistent definitions. As we know, that definition varies between the sects. Whether you agree with or understand their definition is irrelevant.
The “true scotsman” fallacy is about moving the goalposts. I have not read where Heddle has moved the goalposts. The definition may be a bit vague and require a tighter focus, but its their problem not ours. To me this is much ado about nothing. I leave the questions of theology and religion to those who participate such activity. I do not claim to know what makes a “best in show” dog, cat, or cow, nor would I argue with a breeder that his animal is not true to its breed. Why would I want to engage in a question as to what makes a person a christian, hindu, buddhist, jainist, etc., when I have only vague ideas regarding such status?
BTW – how many of my fellow Americans have told their foreign counterparts, GWB is not my president, or refer to him as the pResident? Are they also engaging in the “true Scotsman” fallacy to defend their position?
Hmm.
Better, but still not quite right.
There. That approximates truth far better than the original. No thanks needed for setting you straight, Twaddle.
Nothing is funnier to me than watching heddle talk about integrity. Here you have an individual who thinks genocide is ok when God does it but not man.
It’s either bad or it isn’t. There is no distinction. Integruty means saying something is wrong when it’s wrong. Genocide is wrong.
This is why apologists get no respect from me. They start at point a and then sacrifice their own morality and personal integrity to buttress a conclusion they arrived at for no rational reason. This happens with slavery, genocide and a host of other reasons. They simply cannot admit their ideology was wrong or is fallible.
I am a Christian and I think Phelps is one also. I find him misguided but seemingly honest in his belief/faith. I just don’t interpret things the way he does.
Likewise I don’t think divorce is a shame on the Christian house at all. I think poor marriages are worse than divorce and many marriages are not exactly entered into for great reasons. Staying married is not a badge of honor and it’s high time we moved past thinking it is one. Most have but cavemen persist.
Oh yea christians, throw your dirty fanatic apeshit cults into our atheist backyard. No thanks! KEEP ‘EM! You go so well together.