Opinion of Westboro Baptist Church

[7,052,770]

The Lutheran Church I grew up in used the term "The Holy Christian Church".  There was an asterisk to mention that it was originally worded "The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".

... that's it? I answer your whole questionnaire and all you focus on is some irrelevant throwaway line that has nothing to do with the main point?

[7,052,770]

What I said would not have been considered controversial by any Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox church before 1800.

Say what? One of the foundational disagreements of the Reformation was whether faith was a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation. The Catholic Church did not and still does not say that it is, so actually the statement "And whoever puts their faith in Him will have their sins forgiven and enter into Heaven," would be very controversial in a Catholic church in any year, as well as the Orthodox churches generally (I'm not knowledgeable enough to declare 100%, but most of them AFAIK).

That's, like, middle school level European History.

That is a good point, though the rest of it would be completely uncontroversial.

I think the line "Our sins demand a punishment, and that punishment is Hell." would have made some people uncomfortable before 1800. To me, it is by far the most objectionable thing you typed in that post. (I don't even particularly care about the faith vs. works debate.)

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

What I said would not have been considered controversial by any Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox church before 1800.

Say what? One of the foundational disagreements of the Reformation was whether faith was a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation. The Catholic Church did not and still does not say that it is, so actually the statement "And whoever puts their faith in Him will have their sins forgiven and enter into Heaven," would be very controversial in a Catholic church in any year, as well as the Orthodox churches generally (I'm not knowledgeable enough to declare 100%, but most of them AFAIK).

That's, like, middle school level European History.

That is a good point, though the rest of it would be completely uncontroversial.

I think the line "Our sins demand a punishment, and that punishment is Hell." would have made some people uncomfortable before 1800. To me, it is by far the most objectionable thing you typed in that post. (I don't even particularly care about the faith vs. works debate.)

Okay, how about 1700?

[7,052,770]

What I said would not have been considered controversial by any Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox church before 1800.

Say what? One of the foundational disagreements of the Reformation was whether faith was a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation. The Catholic Church did not and still does not say that it is, so actually the statement "And whoever puts their faith in Him will have their sins forgiven and enter into Heaven," would be very controversial in a Catholic church in any year, as well as the Orthodox churches generally (I'm not knowledgeable enough to declare 100%, but most of them AFAIK).

That's, like, middle school level European History.

That is a good point, though the rest of it would be completely uncontroversial.

I think the line "Our sins demand a punishment, and that punishment is Hell." would have made some people uncomfortable before 1800. To me, it is by far the most objectionable thing you typed in that post. (I don't even particularly care about the faith vs. works debate.)

Okay, how about 1700?

I don't know? I would assume that as long as people have been told about Hell, some people (including some clergy) have responded with, "I don't believe in something so grossly unfair."

[Thank you for being a friend...]

What's so sexual about being gay anyway?  You can be a gay man and married to another gay man and never have sex once in the marriage.

Where does being gay come from?  The brain, and that's that.  It has nothing to do with sexual practices or intimate acts.  A gay person is just as much a gay person if they are single than if they are in a relationship.  You don't suddenly become someone else.

Biblical hardliners talk a lot about nature but they don't accept that gay life is part of Nature and has been for millennia and will continue to be because it is not something you can erase from the human race.

Same thing with trans - it is what it is.  Not every baby comes out of the womb the same.  That wouldn't be natural.  People are who they are and fighting against that is like fighting against the world.

Nature is what it is.  It's the same whether you're a Christian or Jewish or a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever you are, whether you're devout and religious or have no organized religion at all.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Garbage.

[Hindsight was 2020]

It should be noted that alot of the homophobia comes from the Old Testament and Jesus could be quite critical of the harsh nature of the Old Testament. Heck what is Jesus minister but saying Yahweh is kind and benevolent and not the “fire and fury of you eat shellfish the wrong way”

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

It should be noted that a lot of the homophobia comes from the Old Testament and Jesus could be quite critical of the harsh nature of the Old Testament. Heck what is Jesus minister but saying Yahweh is kind and benevolent and not the “fire and fury of you eat shellfish the wrong way”

The Law exists to tell man what sin is.  Christians are not bound by the Hebrew ordinances, but they are bound by the Commandments.  "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery".  This is sex outside of marriage.  The NEW Testament says "Flee Fornication!".  Homosexuality is part of fornication and adultery, Scripturally.

The shellfish argument is old hat here.  Lame then, lame now.

[GlobeSoc]

It should be noted that a lot of the homophobia comes from the Old Testament and Jesus could be quite critical of the harsh nature of the Old Testament. Heck what is Jesus minister but saying Yahweh is kind and benevolent and not the “fire and fury of you eat shellfish the wrong way”

The Law exists to tell man what sin is.  Christians are not bound by the Hebrew ordinances, but they are bound by the Commandments.  "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery".  This is sex outside of marriage.  The NEW Testament says "Flee Fornication!".  Homosexuality is part of fornication and adultery, Scripturally.

The shellfish argument is old hat here.  Lame then, lame now.

The old testament was the originial centrist on the abortion issue. Instead of being pro-choice or pro-life, it's pro forcing your wife to abort if you think she cheated

[T'Chenka]

It's a little painful to admit, but Fuzzy seems to be one making sense here.

The christian faith is founded on the Holy Bible. You either believe the book, or you don't. You shouldn't be taking parts of the book seriously and other parts unseriously, unless of course there is a specific logical reason. For example, The Book Of _____ was lost and now we only have the orally passed down version, not the original. Another example would be if the author of a particular book was historically known to be untrustworthy.

If you believe in the christian god but not the bible, you are as much a christian as you are a jew or a muslim. All three religions worship the god-creator known as Yahweh / Allah / Jehovah / El Shaddai, also known more broadly as the Abrahamic god. Perhaps a god-believing bible-denouncer would be more accurate described as a "Non-Denominational Abrahamic Theist".

[cvparty]

It's a little painful to admit, but Fuzzy seems to be one making sense here.

The christian faith is founded on the Holy Bible. You either believe the book, or you don't. You shouldn't be taking parts of the book seriously and other parts unseriously, unless of course there is a specific logical reason. For example, The Book Of _____ was lost and now we only have the orally passed down version, not the original. Another example would be if the author of a particular book was historically known to be untrustworthy.

If you believe in the christian god but not the bible, you are as much a christian as you are a jew or a muslim. All three religions worship the god-creator known as Yahweh / Allah / Jehovah / El Shaddai, also known more broadly as the Abrahamic god. Perhaps a god-believing bible-denouncer would be more accurate described as a "Non-Denominational Abrahamic Theist".

but can’t you still believe in jesus and his teachings and be a christian?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

What I said would not have been considered controversial by any Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox church before 1800.

Say what? One of the foundational disagreements of the Reformation was whether faith was a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation. The Catholic Church did not and still does not say that it is, so actually the statement "And whoever puts their faith in Him will have their sins forgiven and enter into Heaven," would be very controversial in a Catholic church in any year, as well as the Orthodox churches generally (I'm not knowledgeable enough to declare 100%, but most of them AFAIK).

That's, like, middle school level European History.

That is a good point, though the rest of it would be completely uncontroversial.

I think the line "Our sins demand a punishment, and that punishment is Hell." would have made some people uncomfortable before 1800. To me, it is by far the most objectionable thing you typed in that post. (I don't even particularly care about the faith vs. works debate.)

Okay, how about 1700?

I don't know? I would assume that as long as people have been told about Hell, some people (including some clergy) have responded with, "I don't believe in something so grossly unfair."

Maybe, but I've never seen any evidence of it.

[T'Chenka]

It's a little painful to admit, but Fuzzy seems to be one making sense here.

The christian faith is founded on the Holy Bible. You either believe the book, or you don't. You shouldn't be taking parts of the book seriously and other parts unseriously, unless of course there is a specific logical reason. For example, The Book Of _____ was lost and now we only have the orally passed down version, not the original. Another example would be if the author of a particular book was historically known to be untrustworthy.

If you believe in the christian god but not the bible, you are as much a christian as you are a jew or a muslim. All three religions worship the god-creator known as Yahweh / Allah / Jehovah / El Shaddai, also known more broadly as the Abrahamic god. Perhaps a god-believing bible-denouncer would be more accurate described as a "Non-Denominational Abrahamic Theist".

but can’t you still believe in jesus and his teachings and be a christian?

You would be a "Christ-ian", yes absolutely. Calling yourself a "christian" would technically be accurate, but extremely confusing. Imagine if muslims were not called "muslims" in our reality, but rather "mohommadists". Consider the confusion of following Mohommad's teachings but rejecting the Quran and calling yourself a mohommadist in a social setting with (Quran-accepting) mohommadists.

Ultimately, it is an accurate description and one is entitled to use that description. It's just extremely misleading in a cultural social context.

[Kingpoleon]

As usual Fuzzy strawmans and lies about his heretics.

The Episcopals and other LGBTQ-affirming churches don't deny that there are dumb verses in the Bible that say outrageous homophobic things. We are just decent human beings and ignore them because we don't believe the Bible is inerrant or meant to be taken literally, nor used as a guide for modern life.

You've been told this so many times. Why is this so hard for you?

This is why so many people don't take Christianity seriously.  The late Nabeel Qureshi, a Muslim convert to Christianity, said that he grew up thinking that Christians didn't actually believe the Bible.  His view changed when he shared a hotel room with a Christian who actually took the Bible seriously.

No, the reason people don't take Christianity is because lunatics on your side think we should govern our society based on musings and mythology from thousands of years ago, no matter how absurd or illogical or harmful they are to modern society.

The whole point of Christianity is to follow Jesus's instruction to love our neighbor as we love ourself, not to get wrapped up on dumb, meaningless rules from ancient times.

If the Bible contains mythology, then why should I take it seriously?  People like Nabeel Qureshi didn't take Christianity seriously because he thought that Christians didn't actually believe in the Bible.

The point of Christianity is that mankind rebelled against God, and this rebellion means that we are all under the curse of sin.  Our sins demand a punishment, and that punishment is Hell.  But God sent His Son, who committed no sin, to take the punishment for our transgressions.  And whoever puts their faith in Him will have their sins forgiven and enter into Heaven.

A serious question for 2,868,681 (a/k/a Harry):  Do you believe that Jesus Christ is, indeed, everything that the Apostles Creed says (to keep it simple)?

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended into Hell.
On the third day he rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
From thence, He will come to judge the quick and the dead.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost,
The holy Christian Church,
The communion of saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the body,
And the life everlasting. Amen.

All of this is Biblical.  Which parts of this do you not believe?

“He descended into Hell.”

Uh, no Bible I have ever read claims this to be the case. Actually, in Luke, to the thief on the cross, Jesus promises that the thief will be with him in Paradise that very day. Very clearly not going to hell, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

What I said would not have been considered controversial by any Protestant, Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox church before 1800.

Say what? One of the foundational disagreements of the Reformation was whether faith was a necessary and sufficient condition for salvation. The Catholic Church did not and still does not say that it is, so actually the statement "And whoever puts their faith in Him will have their sins forgiven and enter into Heaven," would be very controversial in a Catholic church in any year, as well as the Orthodox churches generally (I'm not knowledgeable enough to declare 100%, but most of them AFAIK).

That's, like, middle school level European History.

That is a good point, though the rest of it would be completely uncontroversial.

I think the line "Our sins demand a punishment, and that punishment is Hell." would have made some people uncomfortable before 1800. To me, it is by far the most objectionable thing you typed in that post. (I don't even particularly care about the faith vs. works debate.)

Okay, how about 1700?

I don't know? I would assume that as long as people have been told about Hell, some people (including some clergy) have responded with, "I don't believe in something so grossly unfair."

Maybe, but I've never seen any evidence of it.

The theory of apokatastasis wasn't declared heretical until the sixth century.  Theologians like Origen, Clement, and St. Gregory of Nyssa - the final editor of the Nicene Creed - each believed in universal reconciliation and certainly would have taken issue with it.