Westboro Baptist Chuch continues the Devil’s work

Shawshank

Cosmo wrote:

...
My sentiments... exactly.
Christianity would not get such a bad rap if Christians weren't such hypocrites. Take a lesson from Jesus and treat the poor and the lost with compassion, instead of distain and indifference... try reading the Sermon From The Mount, again... learn from it instead of stashing it in memory. Try forgiveness instead of vengence. Try acceptance, rather than disgust.
Nice post.

Thanks. My wife does Jail Ministry every week, and you'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the number of church goers who look down on her for doing this. They ask her why she would do it, and how they are nothing but druggies, thieves and murderers. I guess it never fails to stun her at the arrogance people show. She doesn't do it for pride, but because she feels called to do it. She doesn't go in there preaching hell-fire and brimstone, she becomes an ear for these people. She explains to them that even when the world has cast them out, God is still there wanting a relationship with them....regardless of their crime. She never knows how these people turn out later on, and it started to really get to her. She just wanted to know if some of these people had changed, or did they end up back in jail, or were they even alive. I'll never forget just before Christmas, a young lady called my wife's name, and we turned around. I'd never seen her before, but she ran up to my wife with tears in her eyes, and hugged her. My wife recognized her, and also started crying. It was someone that had turned their life around, not because of my wife, but because my wife took the time to show her that her life could be better than it was. It was an amazing moment, that you simply had to see to truly appreciate. I'm super proud of my wife for doing this work.

keeponrockin

Shawshank wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
My sentiments... exactly.
Christianity would not get such a bad rap if Christians weren't such hypocrites. Take a lesson from Jesus and treat the poor and the lost with compassion, instead of distain and indifference... try reading the Sermon From The Mount, again... learn from it instead of stashing it in memory. Try forgiveness instead of vengence. Try acceptance, rather than disgust.
Nice post.

Thanks. My wife does Jail Ministry every week, and you'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the number of church goers who look down on her for doing this. They ask her why she would do it, and how they are nothing but druggies, thieves and murderers. I guess it never fails to stun her at the arrogance people show. She doesn't do it for pride, but because she feels called to do it. She doesn't go in there preaching hell-fire and brimstone, she becomes an ear for these people. She explains to them that even when the world has cast them out, God is still there wanting a relationship with them....regardless of their crime. She never knows how these people turn out later on, and it started to really get to her. She just wanted to know if some of these people had changed, or did they end up back in jail, or were they even alive. I'll never forget just before Christmas, a young lady called my wife's name, and we turned around. I'd never seen her before, but she ran up to my wife with tears in her eyes, and hugged her. My wife recognized her, and also started crying. It was someone that had turned their life around, not because of my wife, but because my wife took the time to show her that her life could be better than it was. It was an amazing moment, that you simply had to see to truly appreciate. I'm super proud of my wife for doing this work.

We need more people like your wife in the world! That post gave me goosebumps.

Byrnzie

___________ wrote:

Haha, I disagree with you here Byrnzie. I think the 'average American' (god I hate that phrase) is actually, more often than not, well-intentioned, albeit often a bit misguided thanks to... well, everything, from media, to consumerist culture, and blah blah blah. How many actually take time out of their day like Mr Mexican Bus Driver, unfortunately no where near enough, but I think you'd be surprised by some of the Americans you meet - I know I've been, living here and all.

But my post wasn't intended to bash Americans. I was thinking of so-called 'Christians' when I posted it, not Americans. The majority of people who call themselves Christians do nothing but sit on their money.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Bottom line is there are plenty of people all over that do good things for others and Byrnzie's post was way off the mark and unnecessary.

No it wasn't.

How many people - American or otherwise? - who earn a meagre wage head off into the streets at night to feed 75 homeless people out of their own pocket? I bet you won't see any millionaire t.v evangelist or his chest-thumping, S.U.V driving breathren doing as much.

Byrnzie

Jeanwah wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34748338@N00/4864105979/

:thumbup:

Byrnzie

BinauralJam wrote:

How many people are like him in the world?

Yeah, that's what I should have said, but I was thiking more of rich, developed countries, and America has more so-called Christians than anywhere else. Also, this thread is about a particular church based in America....so, you see....anyway.

mikepegg44

Byrnzie wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

How many people are like him in the world?

Yeah, that's what I should have said, but I was thiking more of rich, developed countries, and America has more so-called Christians than anywhere else. Also, this thread is about a particular church based in America....so, you see....anyway.

you will only see what you want to, the reason you don't hear about people doing this is because those people don't celebrate it. I see these type of people everyday...if you work with the homeless you will see them...they are everywhere, and yes, people who drive SUV's do good things...I am very saddened by your outlook on wealthy people because of the few jackasses that you have seen or dealt with...prejudice is never a good thing. People who are wealthy do a lot of good things, why do you only focus on the bad?

Kat

Let's just get back onto the topic of the thread and not get personal, ok?

Thanks.

Jason P

Kat wrote:

Let's just get back onto the topic of the thread and not get personal, ok?

Thanks.

You mean get back to the topic that the Westboro Baptist Cult is doing the Devil's work? That would mean we would all have to agree with each other again. :wtf:

OK, fine. LET IT RESUME!

Kat

Jason P wrote:

Kat wrote:

Let's just get back onto the topic of the thread and not get personal, ok?

Thanks.

You mean get back to the topic that the Westboro Baptist Cult is doing the Devil's work? That would mean we would all have to agree with each other again. :wtf:

OK, fine. LET IT RESUME!

Ah, Utopia.
x

polaris_x

this was already certified MT Consensus!

fuck

Cosmo wrote:

...
My sentiments... exactly.
Christianity would not get such a bad rap if Christians weren't such hypocrites. Take a lesson from Jesus and treat the poor and the lost with compassion, instead of distain and indifference... try reading the Sermon From The Mount, again... learn from it instead of stashing it in memory. Try forgiveness instead of vengence. Try acceptance, rather than disgust.
Nice post.

It's a point well made but we should not forget those on the exact opposite end--who take such hypocrites and generalize their doings with that of the message of a religion, thereby denouncing entire religions and religious people on the basis of 'since these religious people do something wrong, and have religion in common, it must be religion that drives them to do this'. and then those who are not religious who do something wrong, since they don't share a common religion, they are not doing it in the name of the same vicious and filthy iniquities as these religious peoples, but rather just because they're personally bad. thus, instead of grouping right qualities vs wrong qualities, such people group right vs wrong (the few bad apples) vs religion (the ultimate wrong). such people often have a gross misinterpretation of history just as those who misuse religion have a gross misinterpretation of their own faith. all should be denounced and such polarizing and inaccurate representations should be ignored.

Cosmo

___________ wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
My sentiments... exactly.
Christianity would not get such a bad rap if Christians weren't such hypocrites. Take a lesson from Jesus and treat the poor and the lost with compassion, instead of distain and indifference... try reading the Sermon From The Mount, again... learn from it instead of stashing it in memory. Try forgiveness instead of vengence. Try acceptance, rather than disgust.
Nice post.

It's a point well made but we should not forget those on the exact opposite end--who take such hypocrites and generalize their doings with that of the message of a religion, thereby denouncing entire religions and religious people on the basis of 'since these religious people do something wrong, and have religion in common, it must be religion that drives them to do this'. and then those who are not religious who do something wrong, since they don't share a common religion, they are not doing it in the name of the same vicious and filthy iniquities as these religious peoples, but rather just because they're personally bad. thus, instead of grouping right qualities vs wrong qualities, such people group right vs wrong (the few bad apples) vs religion (the ultimate wrong). such people often have a gross misinterpretation of history just as those who misuse religion have a gross misinterpretation of their own faith. all should be denounced and such polarizing and inaccurate representations should be ignored.

...
So, the point you are making is that people who will take the words and actions in the name of a religion should not be the overall representative of that religion, right? Does this mean we should stop blaming the entire religion of Islam for the fundamentalists who operate on the militant right wing of that religion?
...
Also... I never made any inferences that Rev. Phelps and his minions speak for all of Christianity. I am just asking the question... who is the one tasked to make the judgement call that he is a 'bad Christian'... or not a 'Real Christian'? Who has that authority and who granted them that privilege? If Rev. Phelps really loves Jesus in his heart... who am I (or anyone else) to judge? That's all I'm asking.
Yes... I thoroughly despise his methods and actions and believe he and his group manipulate the national media to get his point across. I believe the best way to counter his methods are to treat them with the comical clown show that they are... like the way the Comic Con geeks did last year.
...
Also, are Christians who support the Death Penalty good Christians? What about the ones who support war? Are the Christians that harbor so much hatred towards the poor, good Christians? What about the ones who hate the illegal aliens so much? I always thought Jesus' message was about peace and forgiveness... turning the other cheek and all. I thought Jesus cared for the poor and downtrodden... and loves all of Mankind... loving the little children, Red and Yellow, Black and White and all that jazz, not just the one's that are employed and of the same Nationality.
I'm not passing judgement on anyone because I have not been tasked to do so. I believe I need to judge myself and make an honest assessment of myself and how I live the lessons Jesus teaches me. I don't know who is a good Christian and who is a bad one. All I know is who I am and how I operate in this world... amongst humans... regardless of religion, race or nationality. I use the teachings of Jesus as a guidepost... even though I distance myself far away fron the Christian Church and in no way associate myself as a 'Christian'. I feel I do not need the filter of Church doctrine, interpretation

fuck

Cosmo wrote:

So, the point you are making is that people who will take the words and actions in the name of a religion should not be the overall representative of that religion, right? Does this mean we should stop blaming the entire religion of Islam for the fundamentalists who operate on the militant right wing of that religion?

what militant wing of Islam? islam has no militant wing, in fact it has no "wings". if you're talking about Al Qaeda's militant wing then that makes a bit more sense--Al Qaeda is an actual organization thus it has a militant wing. And no, you should not take the words or actions of individuals from the religion as representative and thereafter try to talk about the religion like you're a pro. If you want to discuss the religion, then you are obligated to rationally and genuinely STUDY IT as any other topic. Only then will you be able to see where such fundamentalists fit in the larger concept and history of the entire religion.

Also... I never made any inferences that Rev. Phelps and his minions speak for all of Christianity.

I never said you did.

I am just asking the question... who is the one tasked to make the judgement call that he is a 'bad Christian'... or not a 'Real Christian'? Who has that authority and who granted them that privilege? If Rev. Phelps really loves Jesus in his heart... who am I (or anyone else) to judge? That's all I'm asking
....
Also, are Christians who support the Death Penalty good Christians? What about the ones who support war? Are the Christians that harbor so much hatred towards the poor, good Christians? What about the ones who hate the illegal aliens so much? I always thought Jesus' message was about peace and forgiveness... turning the other cheek and all. I thought Jesus cared for the poor and downtrodden... and loves all of Mankind... loving the little children, Red and Yellow, Black and White and all that jazz, not just the one's that are employed and of the same Nationality.
I'm not passing judgement on anyone because I have not been tasked to do so. I believe I need to judge myself and make an honest assessment of myself and how I live the lessons Jesus teaches me. I don't know who is a good Christian and who is a bad one. All I know is who I am and how I operate in this world... amongst humans... regardless of religion, race or nationality. I use the teachings of Jesus as a guidepost... even though I distance myself far away fron the Christian Church and in no way associate myself as a 'Christian'. I feel I do not need the filter of Church doctrine, interpretation

I agree with that point just as I did earlier. But like I've said before, a learned scholar on the religion does have the ability and knowledge to give his opinion on whether or not they are representative of the religion. And I mean your points just get into the larger concept of what makes a good human? what makes a bad human? it makes no sense to speak of good christians and bad christians without speaking of genuine human virtues that should be obligatory to all people. to turn a discussion of virtue from humanistic to religious makes it seem as if you are trying to say all humans are inherently good until they turn to religion, then they have to choose between being a good religious person (i.e. taking all words in whatever holy text lightly) or a bad one (taking everything literally). I'm not saying you ARE saying that, but this is just a further example of how such arguments of black and white when it comes to religion are weak and just show poor knowledge of religion in general. I mean, religion is not just a holy text. many scientists and philosophers wrote text in the greater context of religion, it is very much involved in such discussions of virtue, so i'm not denying that. my only point is i find it strange when people, not necessarily you, separate religion and society as if one is the cause of the ills of the other, almost as if they are separating inequity from virtue.

Cosmo

___________ wrote:

what militant wing of Islam? islam has no militant wing, in fact it has no "wings". if you're talking about Al Qaeda's militant wing then that makes a bit more sense--Al Qaeda is an actual organization thus it has a militant wing. And no, you should not take the words or actions of individuals from the religion as representative and thereafter try to talk about the religion like you're a pro. If you want to discuss the religion, then you are obligated to rationally and genuinely STUDY IT as any other topic. Only then will you be able to see where such fundamentalists fit in the larger concept and history of the entire religion.

I agree with that point just as I did earlier. But like I've said before, a learned scholar on the religion does have the ability and knowledge to give his opinion on whether or not they are representative of the religion. And I mean your points just get into the larger concept of what makes a good human? what makes a bad human? it makes no sense to speak of good christians and bad christians without speaking of genuine human virtues that should be obligatory to all people. to turn a discussion of virtue from humanistic to religious makes it seem as if you are trying to say all humans are inherently good until they turn to religion, then they have to choose between being a good religious person (i.e. taking all words in whatever holy text lightly) or a bad one (taking everything literally). I'm not saying you ARE saying that, but this is just a further example of how such arguments of black and white when it comes to religion are weak and just show poor knowledge of religion in general. I mean, religion is not just a holy text. many scientists and philosophers wrote text in the greater context of religion, it is very much involved in such discussions of virtue, so i'm not denying that. my only point is i find it strange when people, not necessarily you, separate religion and society as if one is the cause of the ills of the other, almost as if they are separating inequity from virtue.

...
Your own words:
"...you should not take the words or actions of individuals from the religion as representative and thereafter try to talk about the religion like you're a pro. If you want to discuss the religion, then you are obligated to rationally and genuinely STUDY IT as any other topic. Only then will you be able to see where such fundamentalists fit in the larger concept and history of the entire religion.
... But like I've said before, a learned scholar on the religion does have the ability and knowledge to give his opinion on whether or not they are representative of the religion."
...
So, according to you... the only ones who get to decide who a 'Good Christian/Bad Christian' is... are people who who are learned scholars of Christianity? Who is that... The Pope? Priests? Rev. Pat Robertson? You? Are you a learned scholar of religion? If you are, then what is the definition of a 'Good or Real Christian'? If you are not a learned scholar of religion... how do you know what I am asking is not a valid question? Why is it not a valid question?
The only question I am asking is about Christians and their religion. It has nothing to do with the society or human nature in general. Christians are supposed to know what a 'Good/Real Christian' is, right? Well, the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians... don't they get a say? If not, why not and who gets to make that call? That is why I question the person who claims to be Christian and supports war, hates the poor and is indifferent towards other humans says that the Phelps crew are not 'Real Christians'. Is it their call to make? If so, who gave them that role?
NOTE: I am not saying Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity. But, they ARE a Christian Church, with their own interpretation... just like all of the other churches of Christianity.
...
On this point:
"... to turn a discussion of virtue from humanistic to religious makes it seem as if you are trying to say all humans are inherently good until they turn to religion, then they have to choose between being a good religious person (i.e. taking all words in whatever holy text lightly) or a bad one (taking everything literally). I'm not saying you ARE saying that, but this is just a further example of how such arguments of black and white when it comes to religion are weak and just show poor knowledge of religion in general."
You are correct... I am NOT saying that. I am NOT inferring that religion makes a person good or bad... or that a lack of religion makes them good or bad. I am asking a specific question TO Christians... ABOUT Christians. They are supposed to know about Christianity. By casting judgement upon others (including those within theri own religion), aren't they going against their own tenent of not judging others? What does that make them... Good Christians... by going against their own teachings?

samsonite

Cosmo wrote:

...
Your own words:
"...you should not take the words or actions of individuals from the religion as representative and thereafter try to talk about the religion like you're a pro. If you want to discuss the religion, then you are obligated to rationally and genuinely STUDY IT as any other topic. Only then will you be able to see where such fundamentalists fit in the larger concept and history of the entire religion.
... But like I've said before, a learned scholar on the religion does have the ability and knowledge to give his opinion on whether or not they are representative of the religion."
...
So, according to you... the only ones who get to decide who a 'Good Christian/Bad Christian' is... are people who who are learned scholars of Christianity? Who is that... The Pope? Priests? Rev. Pat Robertson? You? Are you a learned scholar of religion? If you are, then what is the definition of a 'Good or Real Christian'? If you are not a learned scholar of religion... how do you know what I am asking is not a valid question? Why is it not a valid question?
The only question I am asking is about Christians and their religion. It has nothing to do with the society or human nature in general. Christians are supposed to know what a 'Good/Real Christian' is, right? Well, the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians... don't they get a say? If not, why not and who gets to make that call? That is why I question the person who claims to be Christian and supports war, hates the poor and is indifferent towards other humans says that the Phelps crew are not 'Real Christians'. Is it their call to make? If so, who gave them that role?
NOTE: I am not saying Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity. But, they ARE a Christian Church, with their own interpretation... just like all of the other churches of Christianity.
...
On this point:
"... to turn a discussion of virtue from humanistic to religious makes it seem as if you are trying to say all humans are inherently good until they turn to religion, then they have to choose between being a good religious person (i.e. taking all words in whatever holy text lightly) or a bad one (taking everything literally). I'm not saying you ARE saying that, but this is just a further example of how such arguments of black and white when it comes to religion are weak and just show poor knowledge of religion in general."
You are correct... I am NOT saying that. I am NOT inferring that religion makes a person good or bad... or that a lack of religion makes them good or bad. I am asking a specific question TO Christians... ABOUT Christians. They are supposed to know about Christianity. By casting judgement upon others (including those within theri own religion), aren't they going against their own tenent of not judging others? What does that make them... Good Christians... by going against their own teachings?

i think the heart of what you're getting at is great, and i completely agree that no one can judge the heart of another. on the other hand, i think we can judge whether or not an action, or teaching, is Christ-like and to that end i think anyone with a elementary knowledge of Jesus can see that Rev Phelps and his congregation's protesting and hate filled placards are NOT Christ-like. you're right, we shouldn't say anyone is a "good" or "bad" christian, that is a heart judgment which no one is qualified to make, but i think we can say that someone's actions are not Christ-like.

one question i have is what do you mean by "question" when you say "That is why I question the person who claims to be Christian and supports war, hates the poor and is indifferent towards other humans says that the Phelps crew are not 'Real Christians'"? i don't think this is your intent but that statement seems like the same judgment that those you are questioning make. if a Christian supports war they are a questionable Christian? i'm not meaning to provoke, i'm just not sure i understand what you're saying here.

fuck

Cosmo wrote:

...
Your own words:
"...you should not take the words or actions of individuals from the religion as representative and thereafter try to talk about the religion like you're a pro. If you want to discuss the religion, then you are obligated to rationally and genuinely STUDY IT as any other topic. Only then will you be able to see where such fundamentalists fit in the larger concept and history of the entire religion.
... But like I've said before, a learned scholar on the religion does have the ability and knowledge to give his opinion on whether or not they are representative of the religion."
...
So, according to you... the only ones who get to decide who a 'Good Christian/Bad Christian' is... are people who who are learned scholars of Christianity? Who is that... The Pope? Priests? Rev. Pat Robertson? You? Are you a learned scholar of religion? If you are, then what is the definition of a 'Good or Real Christian'? If you are not a learned scholar of religion... how do you know what I am asking is not a valid question? Why is it not a valid question?

You keep moving this conversation backwards. I've already said several times that there is a difference between saying someone is a Good/Bad Christian, and saying that someone is not representative of the teachings of said religion. I am speaking strictly of the latter.
Now, when it comes to what makes someone a learned scholar of religion, it's really just someone, anyone who has studied it long enough - obviously what makes anyone a "scholar" is relative, there's no level to reach. All I am suggesting is that people should study something before talking about it. I don't think that's too much to ask.
As to whether or not you are asking a valid question, yes of course you are, but this is an issue that is discussed all the time. The general consensus is no, no one can judge another on whether or not is a good or bad christian or any other religion for that matter because the idea is that only God can accurately weigh people's intentions with their actions. that being said, I generally believe that intentions are not all that matter. So even if the WBC folks have good intentions in furthering Christ's teaching or whatever, their actions still matter, and their actions, as one would see by just a cursory review of the religion, do not fall in suit with, and in fact contradict, the teachings of the religion.

The only question I am asking is about Christians and their religion. It has nothing to do with the society or human nature in general. Christians are supposed to know what a 'Good/Real Christian' is, right? Well, the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians... don't they get a say? If not, why not and who gets to make that call? That is why I question the person who claims to be Christian and supports war, hates the poor and is indifferent towards other humans says that the Phelps crew are not 'Real Christians'. Is it their call to make? If so, who gave them that role?
NOTE: I am not saying Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity. But, they ARE a Christian Church, with their own interpretation... just like all of the other churches of Christianity.

This brings me to my last point. This does have much to do with human virtue (or "nature" as you called it for some odd reason). Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. I was using the analogy of judging what makes a 'good' human or a 'bad' human with this. At the end of the day, do we have what it takes to call someone a good human or a bad human? It's true that our perceptions of people's actions and assumptions of their intentions are all we have to base it off of, so in essence we can't TRULY judge whether one is a good human or a bad one. Not just that, but do we know what we're basing it off of? Like Christianity or any other religion for that matter, life and its virtues are part of an all-encompassing principle on how to act, perceive, think, etc. It's not just so simple to split into 2 categories of "if you believe in this, you're a good christian, if you believe in that, you're bad." it's much more complicated than that. if a human being supports the death penalty, does that make him bad? Well, for that, I'm sure you'd say it's more complicated. Because human virtue has more complications than a religion's rules, you may argue. So one can be a bad christian but a good human you may say. Well many Christians and religious people in general would disagree with such a contradiction. As in, you keep trying to separate what makes a good religious person from what makes a good human, whereas I am trying to explain that they are mutually inclusive, and just as one is impossible to judge so is the other. it is all just about how we try to bring those on the outside of our beliefs that we judge as wrong, whether they are unreligious pro-war fanatics, or religious death penalty advocates, closer to understand our point of view. some people do it by studying their religion and trying to bring them closer to their religious ideals while others simply advocate humanistic virtues that speak out against such things like war, etc. the reason both ways work is because both are as I've said mutual.

Cosmo

spamsonite wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Your own words:
"...you should not take the words or actions of individuals from the religion as representative and thereafter try to talk about the religion like you're a pro. If you want to discuss the religion, then you are obligated to rationally and genuinely STUDY IT as any other topic. Only then will you be able to see where such fundamentalists fit in the larger concept and history of the entire religion.
... But like I've said before, a learned scholar on the religion does have the ability and knowledge to give his opinion on whether or not they are representative of the religion."
...
So, according to you... the only ones who get to decide who a 'Good Christian/Bad Christian' is... are people who who are learned scholars of Christianity? Who is that... The Pope? Priests? Rev. Pat Robertson? You? Are you a learned scholar of religion? If you are, then what is the definition of a 'Good or Real Christian'? If you are not a learned scholar of religion... how do you know what I am asking is not a valid question? Why is it not a valid question?
The only question I am asking is about Christians and their religion. It has nothing to do with the society or human nature in general. Christians are supposed to know what a 'Good/Real Christian' is, right? Well, the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians... don't they get a say? If not, why not and who gets to make that call? That is why I question the person who claims to be Christian and supports war, hates the poor and is indifferent towards other humans says that the Phelps crew are not 'Real Christians'. Is it their call to make? If so, who gave them that role?
NOTE: I am not saying Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity. But, they ARE a Christian Church, with their own interpretation... just like all of the other churches of Christianity.
...
On this point:
"... to turn a discussion of virtue from humanistic to religious makes it seem as if you are trying to say all humans are inherently good until they turn to religion, then they have to choose between being a good religious person (i.e. taking all words in whatever holy text lightly) or a bad one (taking everything literally). I'm not saying you ARE saying that, but this is just a further example of how such arguments of black and white when it comes to religion are weak and just show poor knowledge of religion in general."
You are correct... I am NOT saying that. I am NOT inferring that religion makes a person good or bad... or that a lack of religion makes them good or bad. I am asking a specific question TO Christians... ABOUT Christians. They are supposed to know about Christianity. By casting judgement upon others (including those within theri own religion), aren't they going against their own tenent of not judging others? What does that make them... Good Christians... by going against their own teachings?

i think the heart of what you're getting at is great, and i completely agree that no one can judge the heart of another. on the other hand, i think we can judge whether or not an action, or teaching, is Christ-like and to that end i think anyone with a elementary knowledge of Jesus can see that Rev Phelps and his congregation's protesting and hate filled placards are NOT Christ-like. you're right, we shouldn't say anyone is a "good" or "bad" christian, that is a heart judgment which no one is qualified to make, but i think we can say that someone's actions are not Christ-like.

one question i have is what do you mean by "question" when you say "That is why I question the person who claims to be Christian and supports war, hates the poor and is indifferent towards other humans says that the Phelps crew are not 'Real Christians'"? i don't think this is your intent but that statement seems like the same judgment that those you are questioning make. if a Christian supports war they are a questionable Christian? i'm not meaning to provoke, i'm just not sure i understand what you're saying here.

...
What I am NOT doing, is trying to define what makes a Good Christian as opposed to what makes a Bad Christian. I just want to know... what is the definition (if any) and what is the criteria that creates that definition. For example, if someone hates the poor... and claims to be Christian... is that a criteria or can you still be a Christian and hate (or feel indifferent towards) the poor? If it makes them a good Christian... what is the criteria? If it makes them a bad Christian... why... and according to whom?
I believe the Westboro Baptist Church people display horrible HUMAN traits and a lack of human compassion... nothing to do with their Christian religious belief... it's just a shitty thing as a human being to do to grieving family members. But, I don't get the whole, 'Real/Good Christian' remarks. I presume it is a means for Christians to distance themselves with Rev. Phelps... but, is it their call to make?

MotoDC

Cosmo wrote:

What I am NOT doing, is trying to define what makes a Good Christian as opposed to what makes a Bad Christian. I just want to know... what is the definition (if any) and what is the criteria that creates that definition. For example, if someone hates the poor... and claims to be Christian... is that a criteria or can you still be a Christian and hate (or feel indifferent towards) the poor? If it makes them a good Christian... what is the criteria? If it makes them a bad Christian... why... and according to whom?
I believe the Westboro Baptist Church people display horrible HUMAN traits and a lack of human compassion... nothing to do with their Christian religious belief... it's just a shitty thing as a human being to do to grieving family members. But, I don't get the whole, 'Real/Good Christian' remarks. I presume it is a means for Christians to distance themselves with Rev. Phelps... but, is it their call to make?

Seems to me you're not really playing fair. Seems to me you're trying to get people to answer a question, the terms of which you haven't fully defined, most notably "good" and "bad". You keep saying you want someone to try and answer what makes a good Christian or bad Christian, with an emphasis on the Christianity. Yet before you can answer that, you (or someone) must define good and bad.

The Artist Formerly Known as Outlaw has tried to define it for you, but you keep dancing around (and moving backward from) the structure he is attempting to provide (e.g., not good vs bad but follows scripture vs. doesn't follow scripture). So if you won't let us define good and bad in a clear manner, how can you expect anyone to answer your question meaningfully?

Perhaps that's not what you want then. Perhaps you aren't really on a quest for knowledge, but are just playing a more sophisticated version of "Can God microwave a burrito until it's too hot for Him to eat?" I suppose only Cosmo knows the truth there. What's in your heart, Cosmo Kramer?

samsonite

Cosmo wrote:

spamsonite wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Your own words:
"...you should not take the words or actions of individuals from the religion as representative and thereafter try to talk about the religion like you're a pro. If you want to discuss the religion, then you are obligated to rationally and genuinely STUDY IT as any other topic. Only then will you be able to see where such fundamentalists fit in the larger concept and history of the entire religion.
... But like I've said before, a learned scholar on the religion does have the ability and knowledge to give his opinion on whether or not they are representative of the religion."
...
So, according to you... the only ones who get to decide who a 'Good Christian/Bad Christian' is... are people who who are learned scholars of Christianity? Who is that... The Pope? Priests? Rev. Pat Robertson? You? Are you a learned scholar of religion? If you are, then what is the definition of a 'Good or Real Christian'? If you are not a learned scholar of religion... how do you know what I am asking is not a valid question? Why is it not a valid question?
The only question I am asking is about Christians and their religion. It has nothing to do with the society or human nature in general. Christians are supposed to know what a 'Good/Real Christian' is, right? Well, the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians... don't they get a say? If not, why not and who gets to make that call? That is why I question the person who claims to be Christian and supports war, hates the poor and is indifferent towards other humans says that the Phelps crew are not 'Real Christians'. Is it their call to make? If so, who gave them that role?
NOTE: I am not saying Westboro Baptist represents all of Christianity. But, they ARE a Christian Church, with their own interpretation... just like all of the other churches of Christianity.
...
On this point:
"... to turn a discussion of virtue from humanistic to religious makes it seem as if you are trying to say all humans are inherently good until they turn to religion, then they have to choose between being a good religious person (i.e. taking all words in whatever holy text lightly) or a bad one (taking everything literally). I'm not saying you ARE saying that, but this is just a further example of how such arguments of black and white when it comes to religion are weak and just show poor knowledge of religion in general."
You are correct... I am NOT saying that. I am NOT inferring that religion makes a person good or bad... or that a lack of religion makes them good or bad. I am asking a specific question TO Christians... ABOUT Christians. They are supposed to know about Christianity. By casting judgement upon others (including those within theri own religion), aren't they going against their own tenent of not judging others? What does that make them... Good Christians... by going against their own teachings?

i think the heart of what you're getting at is great, and i completely agree that no one can judge the heart of another. on the other hand, i think we can judge whether or not an action, or teaching, is Christ-like and to that end i think anyone with a elementary knowledge of Jesus can see that Rev Phelps and his congregation's protesting and hate filled placards are NOT Christ-like. you're right, we shouldn't say anyone is a "good" or "bad" christian, that is a heart judgment which no one is qualified to make, but i think we can say that someone's actions are not Christ-like.

one question i have is what do you mean by "question" when you say "That is why I question the person who claims to be Christian and supports war, hates the poor and is indifferent towards other humans says that the Phelps crew are not 'Real Christians'"? i don't think this is your intent but that statement seems like the same judgment that those you are questioning make. if a Christian supports war they are a questionable Christian? i'm not meaning to provoke, i'm just not sure i understand what you're saying here.

...
What I am NOT doing, is trying to define what makes a Good Christian as opposed to what makes a Bad Christian. I just want to know... what is the definition (if any) and what is the criteria that creates that definition. For example, if someone hates the poor... and claims to be Christian... is that a criteria or can you still be a Christian and hate (or feel indifferent towards) the poor? If it makes them a good Christian... what is the criteria? If it makes them a bad Christian... why... and according to whom?
I believe the Westboro Baptist Church people display horrible HUMAN traits and a lack of human compassion... nothing to do with their Christian religious belief... it's just a shitty thing as a human being to do to grieving family members. But, I don't get the whole, 'Real/Good Christian' remarks. I presume it is a means for Christians to distance themselves with Rev. Phelps... but, is it their call to make?

i get the good christian/bad christian thing. we can't judge the heart of another, and i agree. although, we can see that the WBC actions are not Christ-like.

what i'm asking is what you meant when you said "That is why I question the person who claims to be Christian and supports war, hates the poor and is indifferent towards other humans says that the Phelps crew are not 'Real Christians.'" what are you questioning? they way i read it is you question the "Christianity" of a someone who claims to be a Christian but also hates the poor. the two things don't mix. the problem with that is it's the same thing you're saying we can't do; you question a Christian who hates the poor, others question a Christian who protest funerals with hate filled placards. both are heart judgments that you argue we can't make (and i agree with you). now i maybe completely misunderstanding you, but that's why i'm asking.