http://kotaku.com/5588292/hate-church-targets-comic+con
|
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
http://kotaku.com/5588292/hate-church-targets-comic+con
|
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
Replies
@Lee:
When Paul writes in Galatians that it is Christ in Him -- I don't take that as figurative, Sven. God dwelling in man -- Christ IN the church, the hope of glory. He is very real and present. It was so clearly evident in my time with Him this morning...overwhelmingly so today.
Yes. I get that. That is great. There is nothing better than getting your daily manna and becoming more and more grafted to Christ, to learn His ways and delight in His presence.
What you are advocating is that God is calling man to be more loving than He is. It's frankly absurd.
He is, in fact, doing exactly that in this instance. He is telling man to express love, while He expresses vengeance. I don't think I'm wresting with Scripture here by saying that.
You must contort John 3:16 (He loves the world), 1John 2:2 (He is the propitiation for the sins of the world), and Romans 5:18 (just as judgment came to all men, the free gift has come to all men) in order to preserve your interpretation of the vengeance and hate verses.
If Romans 5:18 spoke of general redemption (not saying it is, or isn't), my interpretation of vengeance and hate verses are preserved regardless - I foresee a problem as it relates with limited atonement, but not a problem with anything I've been suggesting thus far, that is with vengeance and hate verses. Now as far as John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 are concerned, all you needed to do was ask me how I interpreted these verses - no need telling me I contort Scripture in order to suit my purposes. And while you have presented these verses before, you did so in an array of verses which you probably found and pasted from somewhere(for all I know or care - it really doesn't matter), and in situations where people do that (like anti-Christians when it comes to lists of Bible contradictions they've neither read or given much thought to (which isn't to say you haven't and haven't)), I find it entirely fair on my part to just select a handful of the difficulties I like and comment on them. And that's what I did in your case. Note that while I haven't commented on John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 for the past two or so exchanges since you've brought them up (in an elephantine list) , you haven't commented on the three or so hate verses I mentioned since we first started our parley. So I maintain, therefore, in the interests of equality that YOU must contort the verses speaking on God's hatred towards humans in order to preserve your interpretations of God's vengeance and His love.
But, this does not ever say He doesn't love the one who ends up being judged. You're inferring things you simply cannot infer!
I never said one could infer that in this passage. You're inferring that I'm inferring things that cannot be inferred, which itself cannot be inferred!
Can you allow God the sovereignty to allow man choice? I know it reads as a paradox, but no more than God is one, and God is three. It's like man is saying, "NO! God cannot give man free will. He's not allowed." Putting this restriction on God's sovereignty is actually stripping Him of it.
I am not entirely sure how the sovereignty/free will debate relates to my interpretation of what Paul said or whether God hates. I've found that if I don't respond, in a debate, to a point that may be more of a digression, I usually never get in trouble for it, so I'll avoid it here. Anyhow, I'm not sure what I would say here anyway.
What I see the overarching point when God stresses election and sovereignty is this; that it's not your business or mine how He's done it. It's His business alone.
I have no Biblical reason to believe that. I have no reason to discard or delineate from Romans 9 because you want to call a mystery (that which is beyond our human comprehension) what Paul is methodically and systematically explaining - specifically that some are shown mercy, and some are hardened; some are loved, and some are hated; some are made for His glory, and some are fitted for destruction and His wrath. There is no rhyme or reason to calling this none of our business. You're just calling something clearly outlined and given to a church for their edification, not our business. You might just as well take the Sermon on the Mount and say, "well, it's all very true, but all this talk about actually loving your neighbor really should be taken from a certain Heavenly perspective - that is, it should not really be taken at all." I have no reason to accept this. It just seems arbitrary.
And if that tactic is entirely warranted - that is, saying that a set of verses can only be appreciated truly outside our three-dimensional, temporary understanding of the world - then why not say the same of John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2? I say Romans 9 is clear and concise - you say I might be nailing it down with my restricted mortal understanding; why can I not say the same about your interpretation of John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2? Why is it valid when you claim a passage should be taken as it is, but it is not okay when I assert the same? Why are you the arbiter of what verses are beyond our scope?
Those kooky 5-points Hyper-Calvinists...
Long live Jacobus Arminius!
:-D tee hee hee
On a related note, as I've been following this discussion, at the same time Phil Johnson had a post today on Pyromanics blog about John 10 and spiritual threats to the flock, and he made mention of the danger of false teachers including ones "overtly, obviously wicked as Fred Phelps". To read that at the same time I've been following this is interesting in its providential timing.
Hi Sven,
One more point regarding this:
I do not know how one can skip Sinai and begin at Calvary.
Wonderful statement -- the whole paragraph, really -- I think it's right on. There was an understanding of my sin prior to that night. A fear of the Lord had been kindled /awakened in me already, so you're right, and I can be more careful about how I testify to what God did in me.
But, people can be brought to that understanding of their sin -- and many are -- apart from The FP way. I'm not sure how many -- if any -- are brought to that understanding with his methods. Of course, God can use a donkey (he's used me).
Yes, what happened that night was more of an unbelievably deepening of the sense and depth of my sin as His love and grace opened up my heart, breaking it.
Thanks for helping me to clarify that, Sven.
God bless you
Lee
Hi Sven
You wrote:
None of these verses requires that Christ's love is a substance that writhes through our bodies and zaps out when people need a hand. It may, for all I know or care, be that Christ's love molds us so that we can be comparable to Him.
When Paul writes in Galatians that it is Christ in Him -- I don't take that as figurative, Sven. God dwelling in man -- Christ IN the church, the hope of glory. He is very real and present. It was so clearly evident in my time with Him this morning...overwhelmingly so today.
In any case, God's causing us to love our neighbor, does not logically necessitate that He loves our neighbor.
I couldn't disagree more. That God will enact vengeance upon someone doesn't negate His desire to show mercy on the very same individual. What you are advocating is that God is calling man to be more loving than He is. It's frankly absurd. And it's because you've bought into placing certain scriptures into a central position of authority OVER others, whereby you must then bend and contort certain remaining scriptures to bring them under the authority of your central ones. You must contort John 3:16 (He loves the world), 1John 2:2 (He is the propitiation for the sins of the world), and Romans 5:18 (just as judgment came to all men, the free gift has come to all men) in order to preserve your interpretation of the vengeance and hate verses.
Second, note that God does not say He will repay evil with kindness as well; no sir, He says He will be the judge and the avenger!
But, Sven, where have I ever said the above isn't true? Of course, God will repay -- and He is judge. But, this does not ever say He doesn't love the one who ends up being judged. You're inferring things you simply cannot infer! We don't have the kind of knowledge necessary to do so.
This is exactly why I made the earlier connection between your view of love/hate and free will/election. Can you allow God the sovereignty to allow man choice? I know it reads as a paradox, but no more than God is one, and God is three. It's like man is saying, "NO! God cannot give man free will. He's not allowed." Putting this restriction on God's sovereignty is actually stripping Him of it.
What I see the overarching point when God stresses election and sovereignty is this; that it's not your business or mine how He's done it. It's His business alone. Some want to take Romans 9 and nail down a view of election that fits within our three dimensions and time view, but that person again MUST bend, twist, and contort VERY CLEAR passages of scripture that speak of God's love for man -- for the world.
When the Phelps meet a woman who could wash Christ with her tears, I am confident they are kind.
I am not in the least confident of that. And regardless, he leaves no room to begin there when he parades in with his signs, and uses "God hates fags" as the name of his church's website. He doesn't concern himself with the individual soldier or their families when he says God hates them. My personal experience with others who have preached similarly (whom I know very well) delight in others' rejection of their gospel, so the harder they preach God's hatred, the more they can delight in the rejection of the others and preach even more condemnation.
Ezekiel 33:11 "Say to them: 'As I live,' says the Lord GOD, 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?'
God hates evil -- all of it. He's not a respecter of persons, but hates it wherever He finds it. And, again...that God will enact vengeance upon someone doesn't negate His desire to show mercy on the very same individual. He will judge the evil, but has made a way for us to not be judged with the evil.
Psalm 99:8 You answered them, O LORD our God; You were to them God-Who-Forgives, Though You took vengeance on their deeds.
He's the propitiation for the sins of the world.
God so loved the world that He gave His Son.
He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
He's longsuffering, desiring that none perish, but all come to repentance.
Those are all just as much scripture as Romans 9.
In Messiah,
Lee
Lee,
How is it love?
Love reproves!
And again I would ask, how do you "love them" whom you are telling are going to hell when nothing can be done about it?
We do not know who is going to Hell. Even Paul was converted. If the battered Jew jumped off a cliff after the Good Samaritan tended to his wounds, that doesn't make what the Good Samaritan did any less loving and good. Likewise, if someone who has gay man sex goes to Hell anyway despite our exhortations, that doesn't make our exhortations any less loving.
It's the source of the love I'm asking about. Where did it come from and whose love is it?
Your question is more metaphysical than I'd care to get into. Scripture says the love of Christ is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Scripture says the fruit of the Spirit is Love. And later in the Epistles, love is said to come from God (in each instance, the love referred to is love specifically appreciated as believers for other believers). None of these verses requires that Christ's love is a substance that writhes through our bodies and zaps out when people need a hand. It may, for all I know or care, be that Christ's love molds us so that we can be comparable to Him. We love because God is working on our affections and our attitude, like a potter works on clay. It would be better to be more general here (simply because I'm not enough of a metaphysician to discern God's methods), and say that God causes us to love - whether it be because we are changing, or because He is working through us or sending love beams to incite our bodies.
In any case, God's causing us to love our neighbor, does not logically necessitate that He loves our neighbor. That we should love others indiscriminately is not necessarily indicative of how God loves. Note, in fact, that in Romans 12, we are called to love our enemies entirely because we AREN'T God:
Dearly Beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: For it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore, if thine enemy is hungry, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
There are excellent things to be taken from this. First, God clearly has us love in order to avoid vengeance, and in order to avoid all those sins customarily aligned with wrath and strife. By repaying evil with love, we are not "overcome of evil." If we do so, according to Psalms 25:21-22 (which this passage is somewhat taken from), we will be rewarded by God! Therefore, we have already found a reason why God would have us love our enemies, and that reason is not because He loves them too. On the contrary, it is so we don't end up like them. Second, note that God does not say He will repay evil with kindness as well; no sir, He says He will be the judge and the avenger! Note that man is told not to avenge, but to love; the two actions are made mutually exclusive from one another. If that is the case, if love does not envelope vengeance, then how can God love someone when He shows His vengeance? Third, many people have commented on the meaning of "heaping coals of fire on his head". Some feel it means the oppressor would feel bad for what he has done and repent. Perhaps that is true. However, sometimes it is better to interpret Scripture with Scripture. In Psalms 140:10, the speaker asks God again to lunge burning coals on the heads of his oppressors; and once again, the speaker is asking God to be the Avenger. I am fine with either interpretation, or perhaps both. If we are to consider the verses co-extensive, then the love of Christians appears to be a means and method by which the wicked become further condemned, and the lost become found. To conclude my commentary, we love whereas God seeks judgment (God has assigned our place, and He has assigned His), and we love BECAUSE we ourselves therefore overcome evil.
There is no discernment in, “God hates you, God hates you, God hates you.” There’s no room for the woman at the well OR Nicodemus in that approach.
When the Phelps meet a woman who could wash Christ with her tears, I am confident they are kind. When that gentleman from the UK asked one of the Phelp's girls point blank whether she thought he was going to Hell, she answered him as sincerely and solemnly as any of us would have been able to muster in the same situation. Genuine responses and questions are given genuine responses and answers back. Arrogant and flippant questions and rants are given hard answers and often ostracism in response. And I cannot think of a single instance, formula or not, where Christ was any different. I cannot think, likewise, of an instance where the apostles were any different. If an individual who had thoughts of gay man sex came to them, I am more confident they would treat him kindly if he were sincere, than I am that Japan exists (I have my doubts..). Telling people God hates workers of iniquity is an excellent way to curb, if one can/will curb, their wicked behavior - that is to say, it is an excellent way for the Holy Spirit to begin to convict someone that they are in enmity with God and need Christ's saving power.
It was His love and mercy for me in spite of all I'd done to Him that was the brightest light upon my sin and my need for Him.
I do not know how Love could underscore sin or how Mercy could necessitate dependence, excepting I already have an understanding of how bad sin is or what sin is(given that I already understand how much God hates it) and an understanding of what God SHOULD give me (Hellfire). I do not understand one's psychology who can abhor sin because Christ died to save us from it, without first understanding that it is detestable. I do not know how one can skip Sinai and begin at Calvary. You say you first held Christ's love and mercy, and then glared at sin with wild eyes; I ask why you considered His love and mercy in the first place, if the first place was not that you're a wretched sinner. If you mean that Christ is constantly showing you day by day that you sin more and more, then I get that. If you mean you got the band-aid and then realized you had the cut, then I don't understand that, and I'm not sure I'm expected to.
Sven,
You earlier wrote:
I am of the opinion that we can love those God hates, and we love them by telling them the Gospel, which includes telling them they are wrong and on the road to Hell.
I responded:
But, if the wicked are elected already to hell, there IS no good news to tell them. You'd be lying to that person, Sven. Jesus doesn't love them. He didn't die for them. He hates them. Where's the "gospel" in that?
To which you said:
The Good News does not need to be good news for everyone in order to be good news. The Gospel is still good news even if it is not good news to Satan, for instance. If the Word does not cultivate with the person, then it doesn't. I can't help that.
But, again, your earlier statement....
I am of the opinion that we can love those God hates, and we love them by telling them the Gospel, which includes telling them they are wrong and on the road to Hell.
How is it love? And again I would ask, how do you "love them" whom you are telling are going to hell when nothing can be done about it? It's the source of the love I'm asking about. Where did it come from and whose love is it?
Regarding your many examples of the various ways Jesus and Paul shared the truth of the gospel, you are making my point more than your own. There is no discernment in, “God hates you, God hates you, God hates you.” There’s no room for the woman at the well OR Nicodemus in that approach.
Yes, Jesus is our best example. I'm confident you agree with that, Sven. Using Him as our example doesn't leave out the prophets, whom Jesus referenced many a time.
I appreciate your transparency regarding your old self. I'm sure we could have quite another debate over which of us would best give Paul a run for his money as the "chief." And I "amen!!!" your characterization of the awesomeness of our Lord Who "makes stars explode" -- loved that.
However (you knew that was coming!), it wasn't someone in my face telling me how horrible I was and how much God hated me that revealed the depths of how horrible I was (which I was and still can be). It was the night I heard -- I mean really heard -- God's forgiveness and love for me that buckled my knees and undid all my joints, reducing me to a puddle before Him. It was His love and mercy for me in spite of all I'd done to Him that was the brightest light upon my sin and my need for Him.
What would Fred have shared with me that night?
You wrote
You act as if there is a particular formula that Christ uses every time He tells people about the Kingdom and about repenting
That's an inference on your part I don't believe I've earned. The only single-minded formula I see in this discussion is Fred's.
God bless you, Sven. Glad you've hung in there for the conversation. These are the most important things because they go to God's character and how we share His truth with others.
In Jesus' name,
Lee
P.S. I know you said you visited WBC one time. May I ask what church you attend now or have? Thanks, Sven.
I was waiting for this to be brought up, but since I didn't see it--Romans 9 is written about a specific topic--the non-belief of the majority of the Jewish nation in Jesus. The commentaries I've read on Romans speak about how puzzling this was to early Christians, since God made specific promises to _Israel_ concerning the Messiah. I'm wondering if plucking Romans 9 out of that context (and without the end of the argument in Romans 10) is actually twisting the argument around to something it was never meant to say.
Maybe this is very simplistic of me, but I really believe "by their fruits shall ye know them" and I don't see any fruits of the Holy Spirit associated with the Westboro group. Where's the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control? I'm sorry, but I don't feel that what they do reflects any of that. You can tell me that I only think that because I must be destined for damnation and therefore don't understand how truly loving, etc., the Westboro group really is. But I guess I just don't buy that. When my kids were young, we divided our time between our own church (only 6 kids in the English speaking congregation so no Sunday School or youth ministry) and the local Salvation Army citadel (wonderful youth ministry programs!) I got to know quite a few people who worked in the various urban missions. One of the things that impressed me about the SA soldiers and officers was that they combined truth with love. And it looked very different than what the Westboro group does.
Buzz Dixon said:
The conspiracy-theory side of me sees Phelps and crew and wonders if they are even for real, or if they are just some sort of manufactured fiction created by a group of bitter atheists who just mangle chunks of scripture to get a really awful, twisted message out in front of the camera eye. There's just something so artificial-sounding to so much of their message and presentation (even their picket signs seem to have an artificial, overly-neat graphic design to them), that I can't help but wonder if they even really exist, or if they only serve as some sort of secular vehicle to drum up the media's attention (as the media only really covers Christians when its something over the top and ridiculous like this.) Part of me is just waiting for the day when they are revealed as a puppet sham so I can say to myself, "you know, I thought that was the case..."
Also, I think it's a mistake for you to dismiss the importance of when God repeats a matter -- or repeats a matter several times.
It wasn't a dismissal, so much as a word to the wise, a thing to keep in mind - specifically, that repetition does not necessitate always and in all ways signification.
I did say God hates. I don't believe I said He hates people. Perhaps He does, but then the Word says He loved the world, too. So, again, there is a context to consider, something we clearly don't find in Westboro. "hate, hate, hate, hate..." is nowhere near the balance of scripture.
I am okay with emphasizing a particular doctrinal point if the world has all but done away with it. Thank God for the VIctorians who talked about miracles ad nauseum until the deists were entirely sick of them. I believe many Christians throughout history have come along to readjust and reorientate the inertia of the churches. When all the churches have talked of God's love and forgiveness, at the expense of His hatred and wrath, then I consider it entirely warranted that the Phelp's would spend so much time on it.
And I think our best example to follow is Jesus. I don't see Him doing that. And, in spite of the Romans 9 passage, I don't see Paul doing that, either. He's making a specific point, but not going around saying, "God hates you."
We have examples from the Prophets talking about God's hatred, and wrath, and anger towards His people, how He will not hear their prayers, or consider their petitions, and how - due to their wickedness - He will annihilate them. If the prophets were wrong in doing so, why does Christ support them? You say that your best example when evangelizing is what Jesus did. But what exactly are you pulling from? In many instances I can think of Christ illuminating what will happen to the reprobate (as tares thrown into the flames). And I can remember instances where He avoided preaching the things of the Kingdom to the reprobate - He explains explicitly that one of the purposes of using parables is so the reprobate would not understand and not be healed. And, I can think of instances where He tells the reprobate matter-o-factly that the Kingdom is not theirs (as with the rich man). Christ talks of cities burning brighter than Sodom and Gomorrah. He calls the authorities of the day vipers and sons of Satan. He tells us exactly not to give pearls to swine or holy things to dogs (something we do anyway, it seems). That is the mentality and personality that we are to emulate, and I think Westboro is emulating it fine when it comes to how they relate to the ungodly. They are going out telling people to REPENT for the KINGDOM OF GOD. Why repent? Because God hates the wicked. And what of them? They are thrown into Hellfire. Telling people God hates gay man sex and abortion mills, when many people think gay man sex and abortion mills are alright, befits the Gospel. You act as if there is a particular formula that Christ uses every time He tells people about the Kingdom and about repenting, but there isn't. With Nicodemus, He talks of being born again. With the woman at the well, He talks of living water. With the adulteress, He tells her nothing more than to repent. With Pontius, He doesn't talk much at all. Why should it be assumed that throughout history, we should all have relayed the Gospel just like Christ, if His ways were more varied and variable? One Biblical evangelist gives an exposition of the entire history of Israel and ends with Christ; another uses the very gods of Mars Hill to underscore Christ. One might use miracles to relay the Gospel - "if you will not believe me because of what I say, at least believe on the miracles I have done"; one, like St Francis, might appeal to Muslim kings based entirely on the subject of love. Some Medieval philosopher might have gone about expanding the Gospel through reason, as empty as reason can sometimes be. I mean only to say here that the Gospel can be related to others in various ways, and I think the way Westboro is going about it trumpets the fact that God is not a limp-wristed deity who emits love and forgiveness like rainbows; instead, He is a holy, consuming fire, who makes the saints tremble. He is a God, THE God; and deserves and demands respect. He makes stars explode and incites wars. And we show love, and the power of Christ to people, when we tell people how horrible they are acting and how horrible they are, in God's sight, ESPECIALLY if they don't know. I would no doubt be parading my millions of sexual exploits to other men in bars right now while getting horribly drunk had it not been for someone informing me that God hated those things, and would violently throw me into Hell, if I didn't find some means of redemption and some savior austere enough to command my affections.
But, if the wicked are elected already to hell, there IS no good news to tell them. You'd be lying to that person, Sven. Jesus doesn't love them. He didn't die for them. He hates them. Where's the "gospel" in that?
We are to preach the Gospel to the whole world, specifically that the Kingdom of God is here and Christ died to save the elect. The Good News does not need to be good news for everyone in order to be good news. The Gospel is still good news even if it is not good news to Satan, for instance. If the Word does not cultivate with the person, then it doesn't. I can't help that.
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
of 14 Next