Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if the media would just ignore them, they would not have the publicity they have. it brings up ratings so the media will spin it.
these folks are not what christianity is. they are part of the baptist cult, that condemn everyone but themselves.
Agreed. They are not Christians. Besides not acting like Christians, their theology is seriously messed up. They think the US is the replacement for Israel and that God is judging us as he judged Israel in the OT.
They are a bunch of inbred nuts. The members of the "church" are all related.
do you mean that their pastor is thier father, and the daughter is the sister of the deacon. who is the half brother of the drummer, and the uncle is actually the second sister. dont forget the pit bull, she is the mom of the singer, who is the uncle, ( yes, she is the uncle) of the ushers nephew.
Agreed. They are not Christians. Besides not acting like Christians, their theology is seriously messed up. They think the US is the replacement for Israel and that God is judging us as he judged Israel in the OT.
They are a bunch of inbred nuts. The members of the "church" are all related.
You are correct in that they are all nuts and there probably is a little bit of extra-curricular gene sharing going on. However, you don't get to decide whether they're Christians or not. You can have a personal opinion but you don't get the luxury of deciding someone else's existentialist thoughts just to polish your own brand. What's important is what THEY deem themselves to be, not what YOU deem them to be. If they call themselves First Assembly of Wiccan Islamists then they're First Assembly of Wiccan Islamists. It doesn't matter if you THINK they don't properly represent a First Assembly, Wicca, or Islam, it's what THEY think about themselves and what they define themselves to be like.
You are correct in that they are all nuts and there probably is a little bit of extra-curricular gene sharing going on. However, you don't get to decide whether they're Christians or not. You can have a personal opinion but you don't get the luxury of deciding someone else's existentialist thoughts just to polish your own brand. What's important is what THEY deem themselves to be, not what YOU deem them to be. If they call themselves First Assembly of Wiccan Islamists then they're First Assembly of Wiccan Islamists. It doesn't matter if you THINK they don't properly represent a First Assembly, Wicca, or Islam, it's what THEY think about themselves and what they define themselves to be like.
I guess under normal circumstances I'd be inclined to agree with all of what you said. But the first thing that came to my head were the men who claimed to be straight but who only had sex with men. There's a contradiction in their actions that let people know they aren't really what they say they are.
You are correct in that they are all nuts and there probably is a little bit of extra-curricular gene sharing going on. However, you don't get to decide whether they're Christians or not.
Christians don't do that kind of stuff. Nevermind the fact that they have some major issues in their theology. I'm not making the judgment...it's there to plainly see.
Quote:
You can have a personal opinion but you don't get the luxury of deciding someone else's existentialist thoughts just to polish your own brand. What's important is what THEY deem themselves to be, not what YOU deem them to be. If they call themselves First Assembly of Wiccan Islamists then they're First Assembly of Wiccan Islamists. It doesn't matter if you THINK they don't properly represent a First Assembly, Wicca, or Islam, it's what THEY think about themselves and what they define themselves to be like.
That's awful judgmental of you, isn't it? How do you think you get to make that decision?
Agreed. They are not Christians. Besides not acting like Christians, their theology is seriously messed up. They think the US is the replacement for Israel and that God is judging us as he judged Israel in the OT.
They are a bunch of inbred nuts. The members of the "church" are all related.
They may be completely off in their belief, but I can never imagine Jesus calling them inbreds.
I guess under normal circumstances I'd be inclined to agree with all of what you said. But the first thing that came to my head were the men who claimed to be straight but who only had sex with men. There's a contradiction in their actions that let people know they aren't really what they say they are.
It doesn't matter, Royalite. If someone wants to call themselves straight, gay, Christian, Muslim, a bird, a plane, a camera, or a flash drive - YOU don't get the luxury of deciding for them what they are and what they aren't. In THEIR mind, they are any of those things. You can express an OPINION about what they are, and many people would be inclined to agree with you, but it's still an opinion.
Just because what the Westboro Baptist Church does makes you, as a Christian, feel uncomfortable and you find it distasteful (and who doesn't?) that doesn't mean you get to simply say "Well, they're not Christians." What you're doing when you say that is you're proposing that YOU are the judge and jury of who is and who isn't, who is right and who is wrong, and YOU are the one who gets to deem the associations of what a Christian is or isn't. Pretty unfair when you think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
That's awful judgmental of you, isn't it? How do you think you get to make that decision?
The only decision I'm making is allowing a person to freely associate themselves in whatever fashion they want. I am not insisting on shoveling people into sectioned off groups. I allow them to self-identify as they please. I can disagree with their opinion, by having my own opinions, but that doesn't make me any more right than they are except TO ME.
What I don't do is express my opinion as a FACTUAL basis for what is true or untrue, especially as a matter of convenience. If some self-identified Atheist were to blow up a church then I don't get the luxury of saying "Well, he wasn't a 'real' Atheist." I accept it and move on expecting and hoping the wider public to understand that one person or group of persons actions don't define the entirety of that group.
I don't look at the WBC as representing the entirety of Christianity. I do think of them as Christians because that's what they self-identify as. If they self-identified as aliens from another planet, then I would express that it's MY OPINION they are not aliens from another planet BUT that they think of themselves as such. Although, since religion is often a set of ideas and principles without a sort of tangible physicality, it becomes even more important to allow the individual to think of themselves as what set of ideas and principles they align themselves with.
It doesn't matter, Royalite. If someone wants to call themselves straight, gay, Christian, Muslim, a bird, a plane, a camera, or a flash drive - YOU don't get the luxury of deciding for them what they are and what they aren't. In THEIR mind, they are any of those things. You can express an OPINION about what they are, and many people would be inclined to agree with you, but it's still an opinion.
Just because what the Westboro Baptist Church does makes you, as a Christian, feel uncomfortable and you find it distasteful (and who doesn't?) that doesn't mean you get to simply say "Well, they're not Christians." What you're doing when you say that is you're proposing that YOU are the judge and jury of who is and who isn't, who is right and who is wrong, and YOU are the one who gets to deem the associations of what a Christian is or isn't. Pretty unfair when you think about it.
Um...Troop, We have dictionaries so that we can define the meaning of words so that we know what people are saying and what they mean when they say it. By your logic, dictionaries are useless. It wouldn't even make sense for a man to call himself heterosexual if his sexual attraction is solely to someone of his own sex. He'd be mis-using the word "heterosexual".
Yes, they can claim to be anything they want to be. But that doesn't mean I'm going to look out and agree that their behavior is Christian. Yes, in their mind they might truly believe that they're Christian and doing what's good and right in the "Lord's" eyes, but I'm also within my right to look out and say, "No, I don't think so." In fact, just because someone claims to be something, does not mean that they are and by the very nature of their behavior, they do not demonstrate the love of Jesus, in MY opinion.
To me, they are NOT Christian.
They're hatemongers
Last edited by Royalite; 04-16-2013 at 06:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
