More insanity from a church

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by Slanter

Okay, let's play a game. I'll post a bible verse that teaches us to love, and then you post one that teaches us to hate.

Matthew 22:35-39
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I'm honestly interested in what you come up with. I don't know the bible that well, but I can't really think of any instance when it taught hatred. Certainly there are many stories about war and conflict, but does it ever really encourage hate?

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Your turn.

[Finny61]

How about the teaching of hatred in the New Testament from the mouth of Christ? A Christian holds tight to the teachings and words of Jesus Christ. Not Leviticus and Deuteronomy, if every church preached those books every Sunday I would be out of that pew faster then a Phelps to a funeral.

[Finny61]

Article on the Westboro clan.

http://www.marionrecord.com/direct/p...68757263686573

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I believe a couple of the church members are practicing lawyers. Their church building is probably paid for so they only have to finance their travels. I seriously doubt they need to look outside of their little group to pay their overhead.

Along with soul liberty and separation of church and State one long standing baptist distinctive is the autonomy of the local church. Each church is free standing and accountable to God alone. The last couple centuries have seen a rise of denominations within many baptist churches but, there is still a large segment that don't have any formal or legal tie with any other baptist church.

LOL. I don't think they're taking on too many outside clients. Much of their energy appears to be directed towards either fending off or launching their own civil lawsuits. They do run their own sign printing shop, but I'd doubt that's much of a commercial concern.

They do share a lot of their agenda with other hardcore Christianists, the departure point might be in tactics. That said, I suspect they get significant donations from those living vicariously via the Phelps' adventures.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Slanter

Okay, let's play a game. I'll post a bible verse that teaches us to love, and then you post one that teaches us to hate.

Matthew 22:35-39
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I'm honestly interested in what you come up with. I don't know the bible that well, but I can't really think of any instance when it taught hatred. Certainly there are many stories about war and conflict, but does it ever really encourage hate?

Love my arse!

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

Can't be proven but I would almost bet the dude had a collection plate out. Probably invented it.

[Finny61]

Just a sample of someone's commentary on the passage.

Of special interest to most people who read this passage - and I believe, of particular importance to every disciple of Christ - there is the statement the lord made in verse 26 . . . "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life --he cannot be my disciple."

There Are Two Questions Which Need Attention Before We Go Further:
Does this require "hatred" in the ordinary sense of the word? In our vocabulary and use, when we see this word "hatred," we have thoughts of hostility, animosity; anger or contempt. Indeed that is the ordinary English use of the word. But in various places in the Bible the word "hate" or "hatred" is not intended to communicate these ugly sentiments; here's an example: You may recall that Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah (Gen. 29:30). Well the next verse (Gen. 29:31) says that "The Lord saw that Leah was hated," (KJV). Sometimes, in Biblical use, the word hate or hatred - is not intended, and does not demand hostility or contempt; it simply conveys a ranking of affection. Jacob loved Rachel MORE than Leah. So here in Lk. 14:26 Jesus isn't teaching contempt, animosity, hostility or any offensive attitude or deed. The idea is, we are to love Christ MORE than we love our own family, and even our own self! Loving the Lord more than parents ... more than children ... more than brothers and sisters ... EVEN MORE THAN OUR OWN LIVES -- that is absolutely essential, if you want to become a disciple of Christ.

Does this require that we abandon family? Our answer to the first question is helpful in dealing with this. Jesus is not attempting to break up families; tear up marriages or start a war between brothers and sisters; this is not teaching that after you dry off from your baptism, you go home, pack and leave!! It does mean you do whatever is necessary to be loyal to Christ; it means HE COMES FIRST; it means your allegiance and obedience to Him is not just a part of your life - IT IS YOUR LIFE. And if your loyalty to Christ causes pain and tension with family members, you endure that as a Christian, but remain faithful to the Lord. There is no relationship that is more important; there are no person who deserves greater loyalty. This is what's involved; this is the loyalty; this is the depth of commitment necessary to be a follower of Christ. (By Warren E. Berkley From Expository Files 6.2; February 1999

In summary, the passage is basically that you would put God first in your life. Not meant to be literal in the way we use "hate" today. This gels well with the other forum member's quote of Matthew.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

LOL. I don't think they're taking on too many outside clients. Much of their energy appears to be directed towards either fending off or launching their own civil lawsuits. They do run their own sign printing shop, but I'd doubt that's much of a commercial concern.

They do share a lot of their agenda with other hardcore Christianists, the departure point might be in tactics. That said, I suspect they get significant donations from those living vicariously via the Phelps' adventures.

You don't know how much money they earn themselves. You don't know that anybody outside of that little church sends them money.

You certainly don't understand the agenda of hardcore Christianists. Your post lacks facts or even reasonable assumptions.

Here are some facts: Christianity is by far the dominate religion within America, representing over 75% of the population. The largest christian sect in American is baptist. If part of the Christian agenda was to dance on the graves of fallen soliders and protest America's tolerance of homosexual acts you would find more than 40 or 50 people protesting these funerals.

[wooohooo]

Originally Posted by T@T

Love my arse!



Can't be proven but I would almost bet the dude had a collection plate out. Probably invented it.

You're talking about Luke 14:26. I had to read the whole chapter but you can't just take verses out of the bible without the context.

I googled this and a few good websites from a christian perspective gives good insight.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html
http://bible.org/seriespage/how-hate...e-luke-1425-35

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Finny61

...In summary, the passage is basically that you would put God first in your life. Not meant to be literal in the way we use "hate" today. This gels well with the other forum member's quote of Matthew.

I have to do some stuff around the house today, and am then going out on a date with my wife, but I have some things to say in this discussion. I will likely not get a chance to get back to this until late tonight or tomorrow morning, but I will get back to this before the weekend is out.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Finny61

How about the teaching of hatred in the New Testament from the mouth of Christ? A Christian holds tight to the teachings and words of Jesus Christ. Not Leviticus and Deuteronomy, if every church preached those books every Sunday I would be out of that pew faster then a Phelps to a funeral.

The original challenge did not limit the bible verses you don't like. It is a bit late to be moving the goalposts.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The original challenge did not limit the bible verses you don't like. It is a bit late to be moving the goalposts.

How is the Old Testament a goal post if that is the direction you are looking? It is merely literary progression to what Christian belief progresses to become. The Old Testament is old law and the sacrifices made under that changed completely with the arrival of Christ, it brought a different outlook and formula for worshiping and living one's own life. It doesn't mean the Old Testament is completely irrelevant to the Christian faith but it is treated as only build up to what is truly important to the believer which is Christ. That is why often you will not hear a lot of sermons out of the old text because it is no longer the focus of worship. Where it does get interesting is whether one views much of the Old Testament as perception based literature or truly literal history.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Had a wounded soldier arrested here the other day for stalking the Phelps'. It will happen someday.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Finny61

How is the Old Testament a goal post if that is the direction you are looking? It is merely literary progression to what Christian belief progresses to become. The Old Testament is old law and the sacrifices made under that changed completely with the arrival of Christ, it brought a different outlook and formula for worshiping and living one's own life. It doesn't mean the Old Testament is completely irrelevant to the Christian faith but it is treated as only build up to what is truly important to the believer which is Christ. That is why often you will not hear a lot of sermons out of the old text because it is no longer the focus of worship. Where it does get interesting is whether one views much of the Old Testament as perception based literature or truly literal history.

Your response here raises two points which I will engage with more extensively when I get to my fuller response later this evening or sometime tomorrow. First, what you are exhibiting is a method of Christian interpretation and appropriation of Scripture that is as old as the Bible itself, and that prioritizes an apologetic approach. There is an inherent need within Christian doctrine to maintain the often illusory sense that the Bible is consistent and harmonious in all that it teaches. Thus, via this approach, anything from the Old Testament, as well as those less palatable New Testament teachings are subsumed and allegorized under what is widely presumed to be a group of "essential" doctrines. I agree that this approach does not necessarily invalidate the Old Testament, but what it does do is mask and in many instances utterly obfuscate the actual meaning and intent of numerous portions of Scripture. Your own cited commentator is basically employing this same approach, whereby the assumption is made that Jesus could not possibly have meant "hate" when he said "hate", ergo, his clear teaching is reconstructed and reinterpreted in conformation with what we presume is the most important message of Christianity. It is no less important—but almost always completely ignored—in this discussion to recognize that Christian doctrine and its priorities do and will continue to change to meet present needs and values, and will shift dramatically across cultural spectrums.

Second, your belief that one does not hear alot of teaching out of the Old Testament is unfounded. Quite to the contrary, doctrine derived from the OT remains vibrant in many dozens of various Christian Church settings. In my own church, our pastor has just completed what amounted to a 13-month series on the first 22 Chapters of Genesis, and I expect that he is not finished. What you do find is two basically differing approaches to the text of the Old Testament, but this is largely illustrative of my previous point. Most commonly, preachers and teachers—even critical biblical scholars—will strain to uncover "new meanings", fresh insight, some sort of allegorical or symbolic meaning from the Old stories, traditions and rules. Most often their reason for doing so has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what the text itself actually says, but is rather a product of their own fully modern sensibilities and rightful repulsion to such traditions that we find primitive and repugnant. The other approach is to in fact treat the Bible much more literally, but simultaneously to attempt to conform it into a post-Enlightenment model of empirically derived history, science, or "truth". The results of such an approach are often inconsistent, as they on the one hand, they prioritize the "plain" meaning and universal accessibility of truth to be derived from Scripture, but on the other hand are almost always inflexible in recognizing the potential breadth of interpretation that historically has accompanied Scripture. What frequently occurs is an approach that treats Scripture much more like a GPS or a treasure map, as opposed to a more loosely and generally derived set of guidelines. In essence, the idea of "truth" in Scripture becomes utterly straightforward, and dogmatism and thoughtless subservience is encouraged in place of critical analysis and evaluation.

I would dare say that in this discussion it is more accurate to acknowledge that the Bible in MANY places does endorse violence, hatred, and bigotry, but that mainstream, modern Christian DOCTRINE and models for biblical interpretation have arrived at various means through which these clear teachings are either ignored or completely obscured to conform with present-day values.

[Finny61]

My intention is not to say Old Testament scripture has not had any influence or place in the church. However, if you are a minister and you are giving a sermon, do you focus your message on what is in the Old Testament or the results found in New Testament?

Likely a bit of both because you want to strengthen your support in Christ through the fulfillment of prophecies in the Old Testament and then give them the teachings of Christ to apply and take home with them.

Oh yes and don't cheap out on the lady, no fast food meals.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Finny61

My intention is not to say Old Testament scripture has not had any influence or place in the church. However, if you are a minister and you are giving a sermon, do you focus your message on what is in the Old Testament or the results found in New Testament?

Likely a bit of both because you want to strengthen your support in Christ through the fulfillment of prophecies in the Old Testament and then give them the teachings of Christ to apply to their lives.

I'm not sure that you fully understand my point here though, which was less about HOW we interpret Scripture, and much more about why we do so the way we do. My argument is that matters of Church doctrine will always take priority over the text itself, and the the text will always be beholden to whatever a particular Church or denomination values at the time. This results in a misappropriation of several traditions and texts of Scripture in favour of what people will generally find more sensible and palatable.

On the second point, when I teach the Bible my method is twofold: First, to show the formation and construction of the original traditions juxtaposed with the history and religion of Israel or the Church. Second, to show how the interpretation of various texts and traditions essentially shaped those traditions eventually resulted in the formation of what we now consider Scripture. Finally, and if the context warrants it, I will occasionally draw important teachings from Scripture, all the while stressing the nature of biblical interpretation as a fairly independent and dynamic exercise. The "prophecies" from the Old Testament that were "fulfilled" in Christ are illustrative of this, in the sense that I believe it important to recognize the historical and cultural settings for the original utterance of these oracles, and then to show how the theology of the Church and their own understanding of who Jesus was and what he did was the governing principle in drawing these texts from the Old Testament in support of their own beliefs. In so doing, the intent and the meaning of the Old Testament passages was commonly misconstrued and utterly transformed into something completely different and contrary to its initial function, but was entirely relevant to the all important THEOLOGY of the Church.

[Finny61]

I follow you now, good post.

[CaptainCrunch]

From my understanding there are 15 Phelps kids in the Westboro church, most of them are lawyers, and they all litigate civil rights law, personal injury and workers compensation.

I also understand that everytime one of their little protests is disrupted they get paid a settlement.

All of the family members donate heavily to the church and of course because of the tax laws, they get heavy write offs.

There's nothing out there that indicates outside donations, just self funding.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Just a sample of someone's commentary on the passage.



In summary, the passage is basically that you would put God first in your life. Not meant to be literal in the way we use "hate" today. This gels well with the other forum member's quote of Matthew.

Here's the thing I hate about right wing christianity (well all religeon), it all comes down to how the translator decided to interpret the hebrew, then the Greek, latin, and in this case finally King James to get to the New English translation. Once those 15 or 20 guys have decided how they want to interpret it then you and I get to make our own interpretation. As a word of god it is meaningless, but still dumb religeous pricks want to stone people for what is very much just mans words.

You want to assume the bible is Gods words and live your life by it, bully for you, but do not assume it is the true word of god, as it can't be, unless God spake in modern English.

[Slanter]

Originally Posted by T@T

Love my arse!

Can't be proven but I would almost bet the dude had a collection plate out. Probably invented it.

All right T@T, you make a good point. The Bible is a big book, and if you have a point that you want to make (e.g. all of America's problems are because a strong stance against homosexuals is lacking) you can probably find something in there to support your point. Of course, if you take an approach like Textcritic, your more likely to come to something a little more sensible.

To be honest, what offended me more about your original post was this line:

Originally Posted by T@T

The end of all religion can't come fast enough.

The irony here is of course that in protest of a bigot, you made a very bigoted comment. What if you had said something like "The end of homosexuality can't come fast enough?"

By stereotyping all people who take their morals from God as something the world would be better off without, you ignore the fact that for every Westboro Baptist Church there are many other churches that base their faith on love. The world is better off for those churches, whether you know it or not.

I won't go so far as to say that your comments make you in many ways similar to the followers of Westboro. That is a hateful organization that preys on people at their most vulnerable. You are obviously an intelligent person who thinks critically. But the smartest people are those who can recognize when they're wrong. I suggest you try to broaden your understanding of the religions of this world before you call for their extermination.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Here's the thing I hate about right wing christianity (well all religeon), it all comes down to how the translator decided to interpret the hebrew, then the Greek, latin, and in this case finally King James to get to the New English translation. Once those 15 or 20 guys have decided how they want to interpret it then you and I get to make our own interpretation. As a word of god it is meaningless, but still dumb religeous pricks want to stone people for what is very much just mans words.

You want to assume the bible is Gods words and live your life by it, bully for you, but do not assume it is the true word of god, as it can't be, unless God spake in modern English.

Your arguement lacks evidence. What we have seen here is one atheist misinterpret a passage of scripture. That is all.

Within "right wing christianity" there has been a consensus on Luke 14 for the last 20 centuries. There has never been a sect which has taught that this passage was a call to hatred. The only ones who ever raise concerns about this passage are enemies of christianity looking to show it or Jesus Christ in a negative light.

Also looking up a greek word in a lexicon or a commentary doesn't require special training. It doesn't require blind trust either; There are many independant resources at a person's disposal. One can and should look for second opinions.