Why do christians hate Westboro?

I'm agnostic and have more respect for the WBC than hypocritical Christians who try to pretend that the God of the Bible is not a hateful, merciless god.

I've never understood why there's so much hatred for them. Their pickets and beliefs bring out more anger and hatred from people than someone who has killed, raped, or molested a child. All they do is hold up signs with 3-5 word phrases. What is everyone so afraid of? Do you actually think their ideas will catch on?

They're SO easy to ignore, yet people empower them immensely by giving back such a strong, emotionally-fuelled reaction. That type of reaction is what prompted the beginning of WBC pickets in the first place. How could anyone really feel personally offended by them? Sure, protesting funerals is a horrible, heartless thing, but they are usually a couple of blocks away and their protest really isn't on a personal level. They find no fault in protesting ANYONE'S funeral who isn't a member of their church, so why be offended? Remember, when you allow someone to offend you, they have power over you. The WBC, which is made up of only about 70 members have a LOT of power over people...and it's because you've given it to them. If you truly think so little of the WBC, then their beliefs and opinions should be completely worthless to you. My advice is to grow a thicker skin and have a good laugh at their bizarre way of spending their time.

reply to post by UniverSoul


Maybe an exposition on the dichotomy of Mosaic law and salvation is the proper starting point in this case? It is ... a subtle topic, but explains much in terms of the schisms that occur in Christian orthodoxy.

And I'm not certain whether you are asking whether Christians in general hate Westboro Baptist Church (as in the congregation), or what the leadership and congregation of Westboro Baptist Church represent. As an illustration, I don't like Progressive politics, but then I don't generally dislike Progressives (the actual people who represent Progressive politics). So which of these two ideas are you getting at? I think you would find that Christians in general don't hate the people of Westboro Baptist Church, but they certainly don't like the message they represent.

As for the schisms ... uniformity is an idealism and not a concrete reality that meets the idealistic standard time and again. Maybe the only exception to that occurs in the field of mathematics and formal logic, and that is to be expected based on the severity of their respective formalisms. What is interesting to me is commentary that focuses on the schisms in terms of, say, Christianity, neglecting to acknowledge where there is continuity amongst the denominations as well. I mean it's as Hao Wang quoted from Godel, "Ninety-nice percent of contemporary philosophers see their principle task as beating religion out of men's heads." Lol. Nothing has changed.

Originally posted by mythos
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

the conundrum for a christian lay in the fact that their religion is wholly contained within 1 source... a book written thousands of years ago and translated countless times.

Actually, only some hold to but one source, a relatively modern view.

Scripture, Tradition (received teaching), Reason, and/or the Magisterium are cited as equal authorities by other (most) church polity.

Originally posted by UniverSoulSo if everything Westboro says is commanded in the bible, who do you really hate: Westboro or your own religion?

Out of context, as usual, for this type of argument:

Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Context is about being judgemental over things NOT covered in the Bible. Some things that Westboro protests on are not written in scripture.

1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

Context is about people who are intolerant who do far worse than the person they're against. Basically boils down to: you better be better than the person you condemn, otherwise you'll join them in the punishment, if there is to be any. They won't be joining in the same punishment if no sin was involved, but the condemner will be measured by his own yardstick, still.

And ultimately:

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

ContextThe earliest examples to Christianity was, for the most part, to stay out of outsider's business. When you get to the point of Westboro, you're dealing with a congregation that has it backwards. They don't spend enough time dealing with their own personal problems, but insist on dealing with outsider's issues. If we're of the same faith, by the book's instructions, I'm to condemn Westboro by refusing to associate with them before I even think about dealing with outsiders. That's just plain part of the job. You deal with your brother first because they took on this faith to know better than to do the things you listed (didn't read them, as they are irrelevant). Yes, plumb the list. If you aren't a Christian, there's no way you're bound to that list, and no way I could enforce it.

If christians dont follow these rules why dont they worry about going to hell, you see to worry about doing other things in the bible.

If there are rules that Christians break in deliberate defiance, then they ought to worry. There's so much in scripture about intent that, I'm not going to bother to list it. The thing that everyone doesn't seem to get, whether Christian or outsider, we're supposed to be remembering that it isn't what we do that gets us there, it's WHOSE WE ARE. Think, you have 2 kids with different sets of parents: 1 kid has no curfew, the other does. The kid with the curfew's parents may not like the curfew-less kid's behaviour, but they have no say, and the curfewed child doesn't have the right to go out after curfew, no matter what the curfew free kid does. (Not exact, I know, but makes the point.)

Its testament to the brainwashing power of religions that christians follow their religion with heart and soul but not head.

Indeed. And it's against command as well:

And He said to him, " `YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

Context: This means that God comes first, then mankind. Any interpretation otherwise used is outright wrong. Which leads to:

Im sure many of you will say well we believe in love or that these quotes are irrelivant.

I don't necessarily believe that they're irrelevant, just that your understanding is flawed about what Christianity should be about, by the text we believe in.

Will get to the actual links next.

homosexuality was given no more weight in the new testament, than anything else considered sinful. i honestly believe the source of the word "sin" harkens back to the idea of our inability as a species to be self-regulating populations. if we didn't curtail our sex drives, we'd breed like rabbits, over populate the place, run out of resources, engender deadly diseases, and face things like mass starvation, plagues, and etc. a sumerian example that this may have originally stemmed from an environmental concern, is in the epic of gilgamesh, where it recounts EN.LIL's anger with gilgamesh for cutting down an entire cedar tree forest, to use its wood to build his city of uruk. en.lil claimed it would never grow back, so he instructed gilgamesh not to cut it down but gilgamesh did anyway.

prior to this, you see other examples where en.lil is not pleased with humans, particularly with their breeding. he complains about their lovemaking being so noisy he can't get any sleep, and thus orders the flood so he can get some rest. the actual intent seems to be related to a highly polluted genome, not just of humans but of pretty much everything on the planet, something that would bother him a great deal and is further elaborated on in hebrew pseudopigraphia such as the book of enoch.

en.lil is the sumerian equivalent of the old testament jehovah, although he's not the only sumerian that ends up translated into the singular jehovah. there's also sumerian enki (akkadian EA), the one who supposedly warned noah of the flood, instructed adapa not to drink or eat the food/water of life, confused the languages at the tower of babel, created humans from his dna, and various other themes from the older sections of the torah attributed to jehovah.

in effect, people have historically given more weight to some "sins" than others, probably because of the original meaning of sin being sex-related, but the new testament does not weigh sins in such a fashion. sin is sin is sin. the only unpardonable sin is blaspheming the holy spirit, which is itself a controversial topic.

a better question would be, "why do christians hate?"

Originally posted by UniverSoul

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

There's a lot in the OT that they were put to death for that Christians are not bound to put to death. Read the entirety of Romans for that.

Homosexuality in the Bible

Actually about homosexuality? 1. No. 2. Ish? 3. Cart before horse interpretation. 4. Ish. 5. No. 6. Yes. Insider, not outsider. If you are a stranger among the hebrews, living with them, you're putting yourself as an insider, too, btw. 7. Yes, Insider. 8. Cross-dressing, not homosexuality--considering that in a lot of the Biblical times, women wearing men's clothing was an advertisement of harlotry. 9. Dogs are a general term for non-jews, so this interpretation goes out the window. Still, Insiders. 10. Nope. 11. Nope, again. 12. Insiders still, by context. 13. Insiders. 14. Insiders. 15. Insiders. 16. Insiders 17. No. 18.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections

God isn't CAUSING, but because of the causes that lead to the ill behavior, God gives up on them. Something quite different from what the confused link puts it as. But, as usual, just giving up on someone, and letting their insistence on rebellion eat them alive doesn't mean that this person stays lost. So, yes, about outsiders, if taken completely out of context--but is still God's business, not what I'm doing. 19.

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.

A. Aha! this is about deliberate rebellion against what they know is right. B. Worthy of death, is a far cry from going to die for it. 20. lol@ effeminate. That's not the Greek word there. Besides, part of that context is

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

So certainly, there were people who came from practices they were to give up to be Christian. Still talking to Insiders. (18-20 is all the same subject). 21.Law is made because there are lawbreakers in any given community. Still addressing insiders and whaat their behvior is due to what they are leaving behind. 22. Not in the Greek, so no. 23. Finally, Sodom is talked about as being about fornication altogether, including homosexuality. Here, where outsiders are punished, finally...but it was still by God, someone who would be in position to know what the heck was going on. Not by Christians who only have human perspective, therefore, outsider issue. God took care of what went too far, not my business. Besides, jsut go back to the original account: they were blinded by the weird messengers, and still were groping for the door of the house that the things that blinded them came out of. 24. Generic term, so no.

In conclusion, not a thing to do with going to protest a stranger of a different belief system over. But certainly a bunch upon what I'm supposed to deal with personally (as in, each person, me only), or group issues.

Murder in the bible

Considering that the Hebrew and Greek have 2 different words that are used to differentiate the difference between murder and justified killing, most of this is a Straw Man argument, thereby making it irrelevant to any given conversation. So not bothering.

Human sacrifice in the bible 1. Complaints about a Human Sacrifice that was called off, thereby it MUST be evil, since God stops it. 2. Pleasing aroma, when most of the sacrifices were to make sure that people ate, and has nothing to do with humans sacrifice. 3. Stopping out of context makes sure we think that God's ordering humans sacrificed: Context requires that nothing is redeemed except if you pay for it equally, plus a 5th of it's value. So a man can be redeemed only by paying his worth and a 5th more--which is what they did for first-born sons. 4. In judges 11, Jephthah, while having the HS in him, makes a vow, which he carries out, there is no evidence of God stating 1 way or another on the subject. It is important to note that just because you have "God's Spirit" with you, it doesn't mean you will never sin--there's nothing but evidence of this being the case in the Bible. So, really whether or not this sacrifice was because God wanted it to be is really hard to prove from the verse. This type of behaviour is probably why he was a judge for only 6 years.

*sigh* I could go on, but really, it's going to be a bunch more of this, so what's the point?

And for the record? I don't hate Westobro. I think they need their backsides paddled, and a change in actions and beliefs. But that is it. It would probably take something like a sink-hole swallowing their entire meeting place for them to get it.

But I'd rather they just opened their eyes to what they are doing to themselves and to Christianity as a whole.

Originally posted by mythos
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

there is no overt bashing here (just some minor skirmishes, as religious threads tend to summon)... so let's not get caught up in hyperbole. the OP has a valid theological question regarding the nature of scripture, and how a devotee of the source of the scripture reconciles the unsettling passages with the righteous passages.

No, you're right on the precipice of clueless. The OP posted God's law under the old covenant, we Christians don't follow the old covenant. We follow the new one.

Maybe the OP should discuss this with those who practice Judaism??

Originally posted by UniverSoul

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

If you want to bring up old covenant laws to bash Christians you're a tad misguided. Christians operate under the new covenant, the covenant of grace.

they are both the word of god.
if you dont follow both your not a true christian and your going to hell

LOL, no one is sent to hell for what the do or don't do, it's about what He has already done. Fail # 1. Christians don't follow the old covenant, it's been this way for 2,000 years now. Fail # 2.

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by UniverSoul

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

If you want to bring up old covenant laws to bash Christians you're a tad misguided. Christians operate under the new covenant, the covenant of grace.

they are both the word of god.
if you dont follow both your not a true christian and your going to hell

Agreed, most Christians don't realize that the New Covenant says nothing about abolishing the Old Covenant laws once the New Covenant came into effect. It's just another form of cherry picking.

When asked for the verification of said abolishment, it's generally followed by ad hominem's and irrelevant bible quotes.

Well, at least you trolls are consistent.

The ENTIRE book of Galatians and a large portion of Hebrews is devoted to exhort Christians to press on to spiritual maturity instead of reverting back to the law.

"For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace." ~ Galatians 5:4

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

It really gets simple; just pick the verses that will fulfill your agenda and ignore the rest. Inner feel good Christians ignore the separation and evil in the Bible... Westboro ignores the Love, Frogiveness, and Acceptance of the Bible.

I agree that many do just that,

There is a third way:

Look at and acknowledge the evil, and strive for the inward perfection. See the evil at work in the world and let that cause one to see that evil at work in oneself, and root it out of the self to best of ones ability-- and then when failing, realize that there is still hope. Other may or may not be striving to root the evil out of their own selves, and failing and seceding according to many factors.

If properly viewed, one may point to evil if another does not see it, but not judge another for trying and failing to resist, or amend. The key is "trying." The expectation for the self is perfection, the expectation for all others is trying.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Well, at least you trolls are consistent.

The ENTIRE book of Galatians and a large portion of Hebrews is devoted to exhort Christians to press on to spiritual maturity instead of reverting back to the law.

"For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace." ~ Galatians 5:4

Point made. Come on NOTurTypical, I thought you were better than that!

Originally posted by Codazzle
a better question would be, "why do christians hate?"

I believe the quote is attributed to the late Bishop Terwilliger...

A lady seated beside him at a formal dinner party said, "I used to go to church, but that church was so full of hypocrites that I just stopped going. I haven't found another, yet."
The Bishop replied, "The problem, my dear, is not there are too many hypocrites in the Church; the problem is that there are not enough. Perhaps you may join us?"

To put another way and answer your question directly: Because Christians are human-- just like you.

reply to post by Frira

Because Christians are human-- just like you.

That is a poor excuse for hatred...

especially considering they claim Jesus is God...

If that is their claim, why do they not follow their Gods teachings?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Frira

 

Because Christians are human-- just like you.

That is a poor excuse for hatred...

especially considering they claim Jesus is God...

If that is their claim, why do they not follow their Gods teachings?

Ah! You mean, you do not believe that you hate? While you may believe that, no one else believes it of you. Don't take it hard; but, Welcome to what it is to be human. It is no excuse, it just is.

I have another quote I heard attributed to Bishop Terwilliger:

Again, a dinner party. The woman says, "I do not understand the need for making confession. I have never made a confession and my conscience is clear. I have never done anything needing confession."
The Bishop says, "My dear, your conscience is not clear, your conscience is dead!"

AND, JUST FOR FUN...

Father H. told me this story. He told all of the cocktail party stories. His was back in the day when dinner parties and cocktail parties always included the local parish priest. While he and the Bishop were mingling, Fr. H had finished his martini and a server passed through the room with fresh ones on a tray. Fr. H deftly set his empty glass on the tray and took a fresh one.

The Bishop observed with a disapproving tone, "Another martini, Father?"
"No thank you, Bishop, I like to keep one hand free with which to greet people."

reply to post by Frira

Ah! You mean, you do not believe that you hate? While you may believe that, no one else believes it of you. Don't take it hard; but, Welcome to what it is to be human. It is no excuse, it just is.

Why would i care if others believe what i say?

I realize its only human to hate, the idea is to try to be above such emotions... because simply put, they are useless... hate hurts nothing but yourself... If someone hates me, does it affect me? Its their feeling not mine, and i would not reciprecate that emotion...

I have another quote I heard attributed to Bishop Terwilliger:

Again, a dinner party. The woman says, "I do not understand the need for making confession. I have never made a confession and my conscience is clear. I have never done anything needing confession."
The Bishop says, "My dear, your conscience is not clear, your conscience is dead!"

And the point of this was....

Father H. told me this story. He told all of the cocktail party stories. His was back in the day when dinner parties and cocktail parties always included the local parish priest. While he and the Bishop were mingling, Fr. H had finished his martini and a server passed through the room with fresh ones on a tray. Fr. H deftly set his empty glass on the tray and took a fresh one.

The Bishop observed with a disapproving tone, "Another martini, Father?"
"No thank you, Bishop, I like to keep one hand free with which to greet people."

......

Originally posted by Charmed707

They're SO easy to ignore, yet people empower them immensely by giving back such a strong, emotionally-fuelled reaction.

That group protests at funerals. While the grieving are coping with laying their loved one to rest, a group is making use of the solemn and tragic occasion to vent their hate. And you do not see why people are outraged?

If they had showed up at my father's funeral, I would have been confrontational with them-- determined to force them to pay a price for what they do.

That is to say, they intend to provoke a strong emotional reaction, and they do so among those most vulnerable to such reactions. My reaction to grief is a barely contained rage. If they chose to provoke that rage, I am quite happy to share it with them.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by Frira

 

Ah! You mean, you do not believe that you hate? While you may believe that, no one else believes it of you. Don't take it hard; but, Welcome to what it is to be human. It is no excuse, it just is.

Why would i care if others believe what i say?

I realize its only human to hate, the idea is to try to be above such emotions... because simply put, they are useless... hate hurts nothing but yourself... If someone hates me, does it affect me? Its their feeling not mine, and i would not reciprecate that emotion...

That "it is only human to hate" was my point.

That "[emotions] are useless" is doubtful at best, utterly wrong is more likely.

Yet, you feel what you feel. You are not required to act on it, but the emotion of hate or love or anxiety or peace-- those come without conscious thought.

The few humans who appear not to have such emotions are psychotic in behavior-- no remorse, no empathy. So hate and all of the negative emotions are all part of the package-- and quite useful for our identifying threats; especially as we learn to make note of the emotion and then chose our actions based upon reason and any ethic (or informed conscience). Sometimes our intuitive feelings are wrong, but sometimes they are accurate.

I hate Adolph Hitler. Good for me. What I know of him, causes my hate and it is well placed; and virtually any action I might have taken in the 1930s (had I lived then) which acted on that hate would have been moral, just and right.

I have another quote I heard attributed to Bishop Terwilliger:

Again, a dinner party. The woman says, "I do not understand the need for making confession. I have never made a confession and my conscience is clear. I have never done anything needing confession."
The Bishop says, "My dear, your conscience is not clear, your conscience is dead!"

And the point of this was....

I have difficulty believing that you do not understand the connection.

reply to post by Frira

That "[emotions] are useless" is doubtful at best, utterly wrong is more likely.

Thats your opinion of course...

Yet, you feel what you feel. You are not required to act on it, but the emotion of hate or love or anxiety or peace-- those come without conscious thought.

hate is an entirely conscious thought... Its based on prejudice...

Children do not hate only because they haven't learned to as of yet...

The few humans who appear not to have such emotions are psychotic in behavior-- no remorse, no empathy.

Quel Grandiouse assumption...

I am none of those things, and i do not hate anything...

So hate and all of the negative emotions are all part of the package

That doesn't mean you need that part of said package... its unnecessary.

and quite useful for our identifying threats; especially as we learn to make note of the emotion and then chose our actions based upon reason and any ethic (or informed conscience). Sometimes our intuitive feelings are wrong, but sometimes they are accurate.

I have no need to hate threats either... i don't appreciate such things, but if there is a threat i should be warey of, i can choose to avoid it.

I hate Adolph Hitler. Good for me.

yup, but i wouldn't say Good for you...

What I know of him, causes my hate and it is well placed; and virtually any action I might have taken in the 1930s (had I lived then) which acted on that hate would have been moral, just and right.

Again, that is your opinion... which i fully disagree with...

I have difficulty believing that you do not understand the connection.

I understand the story, i don't understand the point you're trying to make with it...