WBC: The Only "True" Christians Left?

[AnimatedDirt]

It isn't my creation...

I think the WBC is a group of hateful, ignorant fuckwits, but I do believe they are taking the Bible literally, and following its words and the example it sets better than any other group of Christians. I don't think they're more logical.

...from what I can tell, the WBC is following the Bible more closely than any other group of Christians.

Really...and which part says "God hates fags"...does the WBC also take the Bible literally by following;

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

...and the God they "follow" is Love?

What else is "from what I can tell" that they do that indicates they follow the Bible closest?.  It seems you've not read much at all of the book you claim the WBC follows literally/closest.

[LegendarySandwich]

It isn't my creation...

I think the WBC is a group of hateful, ignorant fuckwits, but I do believe they are taking the Bible literally, and following its words and the example it sets better than any other group of Christians. I don't think they're more logical.

...from what I can tell, the WBC is following the Bible more closely than any other group of Christians.

Really...and which part says "God hates fags"...does the WBC also take the Bible literally by following;

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

...and the God they "follow" is Love?

No.

What else is "from what I can tell" that they do that indicates they follow the Bible closest?.  It seems you've not read much at all of the book you claim the WBC follows literally/closest.

Mostly the fact that they say that God is, basically, evil. That's apparent when you read the Bible. Even the New Testament.

[AnimatedDirt]

No.   Mostly the fact that they say that God is, basically, evil. That's apparent when you read the Bible. Even the New Testament

The "fact" that THEY say.
"That's apparent"...yet you cannot give the "God hates fags" text.

Ok.  Again, your proof and logic is overwhelming here.

[AnimatedDirt]

Most "bad things" that people do have no direct relation to religion, even if it has to do with religion. But religions are ideologies, and that mean they can influence people to do "bad things".

For example, a lot of what is contributing to the hate of gays in America is religion. Yes, gay bigotry would exist without religion (probably), but there's no denying that religion is a significant factor.
*from this thread*

I don't know how to link to a specific post on another thread...

Your logic is legendary.  If "most" is no direct relation, then logic says religion plays the lesser "significant" part...and furthermore, if gay bigotry would still exist, then religion is not the main culprit of gay bigotry.  IT STILL EXISTS!

Make up your mind, LegendarySandwich...is WBC the closest thing to following the Bible/religion or not?  What's the website you posted called?  Most people, including Atheists and Christians alike, would call the WBC a "bad thing".  I think McQ established that very well early on.

[Recusant]

I don't know how to link to a specific post on another thread...

Go to the post that you want to link to and click on the post title (usually something like "Re: XXX XXXX").  Then cut and paste the address in your address bar, and link to it. As an example, to link directly to the post to which I'm now replying, I would use the following:

 

Code Select Expand

[url]http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6675&start=15#p100183[/url]Or alternately:

Code Select Expand

[url=http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6675&start=15#p100183]this post[/url]For what it's worth, although I agree with LegendarySandwich that YHVH is generally a hateful supernatural thug, Jesus is much more human. I wouldn't agree with him that the WBC is the truest to the spirit of Christianity of any Christian church.  I don't think that any Christian church really represents what Jesus supposedly taught as related in the Bible, but WBC is clearly motivated by bigotry and hatred, and is only using their particular interpretation of Christianity as a beard, so to speak.

[LegendarySandwich]

Your logic is legendary.

Thank you. I am "LegendarySandwich" after all.

If "most" is no direct relation, then logic says religion plays the lesser "significant" part

No.

...and furthermore, if gay bigotry would still exist, then religion is not the main culprit of gay bigotry.  IT STILL EXISTS!

No.

Make up your mind, LegendarySandwich...is WBC the closest thing to following the Bible/religion or not?

When did I say it wasn't?

Maybe I misspoke. The WBC represents best all the bad parts of the Bible (of which there are many). So I guess I'm changing my stance now.

What's the website you posted called?

http://www.godhatesfags.com. Although I think that was a rhetorical question.

Most people, including Atheists and Christians alike, would call the WBC a "bad thing".  I think McQ established that very well early on.

Why is that relevant?

[AnimatedDirt]

I don't know how to link to a specific post on another thread...

Go to the post that you want to link to and click on the post title (usually something like "Re: XXX XXXX").  Then cut and paste the address in your address bar, and link to it. As an example, to link directly to the post to which I'm now replying, I would use the following:

Son of a Glitch!  Thank you so much!

For what it's worth, although I agree with LegendarySandwich that YHVH is generally a hateful supernatural thug, Jesus is much more human. I wouldn't agree with him that the WBC is the truest to the spirit of Christianity of any Christian church.  I don't think that any Christian church really represents what Jesus supposedly taught as related in the Bible, but WBC is clearly motivated by bigotry and hatred, and is only using their particular interpretation of Christianity as a beard, so to speak.

Appreciated.

[AnimatedDirt]

Your logic is legendary.

Thank you. I am "LegendarySandwich" after all.

Yes, yes you are.    (I wonder if you even understand the joke...hah.  I hope so, I think it's a good one.)

Most people, including Atheists and Christians alike, would call the WBC a "bad thing".  I think McQ established that very well early on.

Why is that relevant?

It's relevant directly to your bad things quote above.  It shows directly how you're not very consistent in thinking at best, and or simply not logical otherwise.
Thank you again, Recusant. This was so much easier.

[McQ]

I have to say that I agree with the more clarified version of your statement, Legendary Sandwich. WBC really only represents their version of Christianity, which you have to separate out from the bible as a whole. Although almost all christian churches utilize the entire bible in some way, many only emphasize the New Testament. Christianity is really a New Testament religion, with ties to the Old Testament.

Having said that, I will undoubtedly get many people who disagree. That's ok, because the fact is that many christian churches also disagree on how much of the Old Testament they "adhere to". It's not really important how many, or why, but the point is that it's really the New Testament that separates and defines christianity from other Abrahamic religions.

The thing with WBC is that they cherry pick the things that one man likes (Fred Phelps) and disregard and/or misrepresent the rest. They don't like Jesus "turning the other cheek", or forgiving enemies, and loving everyone.

All in all, I would not say they stick to the bible any better than other churches, having been a member of three major denominations myself: Roman Catholic, United Methodist, and Southern Baptist. But the funny thing is that all of those, and about 99% of all denominations all think that they each stick closest to the bible and that the others are not as close to biblical truth as they are. Funny, isn't it?

You should see the catholics and baptists go at it. I know baptists who think catholics are as bad as atheists, and a few the other way around too! Lol!

So I guess my perspective, based on my own christian upbringing, is that WBC is waaaaay off the mark.

This is a good topic. It's generating some actual thought and discourse on the nature of what christianity is.

[LegendarySandwich]

This really old AmazingAtheist video may have some relevance to this topic (it's kind of long).
[youtube:x3t99a3u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSvY2Up2EA[/youtube:x3t99a3u]

[LegendarySandwich]

You may, then, need to retract your bad things statement above.

I would change "most" to "a lot", but no, I'm not going to retract it. It doesn't follow logically that if religion doesn't have any direct relation to most "bad things", that it must necessarily have a small role in gay bigotry.

I suppose you are, but you may be missing a few words or at least one to make it more clear.

And what would those be?

You are Bright...no pun intended.  :shake:

It's relevant directly to your bad things quote above.  It shows directly how you're not very consistent in thinking at best, and or simply not logical otherwise.

Not, it doesn't, as noted above.

[AnimatedDirt]

This really old AmazingAtheist video may have some relevance to this topic (it's kind of long).

I won't be able to view this until later.

[AnimatedDirt]

You may, then, need to retract your bad things statement above.

I would change "most" to "a lot", but no, I'm not going to retract it. It doesn't follow logically that if religion doesn't have any direct relation to most "bad things", that it must necessarily have a small role in gay bigotry.

Notice I didn't say "small" but smaller.  Define "a lot".  To the person at the freeway exit asking for handouts, a $10.00 handout is a lot.  To Donald Trump, giving that man $10.00 is not "a lot", possibly excessive as most wouldn't give the guy that much, but it is quite insignificant considering Trump and his worth.

I suppose you are, but you may be missing a few words or at least one to make it more clear.

And what would those be?

The sentence simply didn't make sense to me and seemed to be missing some words.  I sometimes type and my mind is moving faster than my fingers so I miss words in typing while they did pass through my mind for the thought.

You are Bright...no pun intended.  :shake:

Damn.  I thought it was funny.  Oh well.

It's relevant directly to your bad things quote above.  It shows directly how you're not very consistent in thinking at best, and or simply not logical otherwise.

Not, it doesn't, as noted above.

Since you acknowledge, even a simple change, then it is relevant.  Especially since most and a lot are mutually exclusive.

[LegendarySandwich]

Notice I didn't say "small" but smaller.

Even then, it still doesn't logically follow that it would have to have less significance.

Define "a lot".  To the person at the freeway exit asking for handouts, a $10.00 handout is a lot.  To Donald Trump, giving that man $10.00 is not "a lot", possibly excessive as most wouldn't give the guy that much, but it is quite insignificant considering Trump and his worth.

I'm not sure.

The sentence simply didn't make sense to me and seemed to be missing some words.  I sometimes type and my mind is moving faster than my fingers so I miss words in typing while they did pass through my mind for the thought.

The included "best" I put into it is probably messing up your brain, but I assure you that it's grammatically accurate.

Since you acknowledge, even a simple change, then it is relevant.

...What? That makes no sense.

Especially since most and a lot are mutually exclusive.

...How?

[AnimatedDirt]

Especially since most and a lot are mutually exclusive.

...How?

I think MOST people would agree (haha) that most implys more than 50%.  A lot has no implication of a certain percentage other than simply A percentage.  That percentage could be as little as 1% and as much or even up to 99%.  It couldn't be zero (that would be NONE), nor could it be 100% (that would be ALL). So then most is limited at least to above 50%.  Of course I'm speakin of two pieces.  When you break it up to more than 2, most isn't necessarily more than 50%.