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
Hey Lee:
You'll have to explain what these verses have to do with the topic at hand, and how they apparently aid your case. If anything, the verses clearly indicate that there are pots for honor and some to dishonor. If anything, they seem to indicate that there are those who are God's children, and those who aren't. And the verse preceding 2 Timothy 2:20, specifically 2:19, seems to clearly indicate that many are sealed and God knows they are sealed - that is, His children; that is, His elect; that is to say, His beloved.
Then the sins of the whole world should be reconciled. And if the sins of the whole world are reconciled, then nobody needs to believe in Jesus. If someone DOES need to believe in Jesus, and His purpose was to reconcile the whole world, then He has failed, according to you, because He didn't do that. So YOU need to reconcile what appears to be John's assertion that Christ has reconciled everybody - unless you believe Christ has reconciled everybody, in which case you're a Universalist (BOOOO!).
But if world means - as I said before, and as Strong's Concordance affirms, and Calvin underscores, and a whole host of theologians maintain - the elect, then the whole set of verses make complete sense and nobody has to tout Universalism (Christ saved everybody, period). If the world means, as Strong's defends, all of God's people (that is, all of His elect), then John is saying here that Christ not only died for the elect John was writing to, but all the elect everywhere. So my interpretation of John 3:16 fits here; NAY, fits better!
This is an EXCELLENT question. I remember the first time I argued with a Calvinist. I was highly annoyed and bothered, just like you are (if you're not annoyed, you're far more patient than I am). And I remember us debating exactly on God's love. And when I came to John 3:16, it occurred to me that I could not use it as you have proposed it used. I knew then, even in my Arminian stage, that loving the World is not the same thing as loving everything that comprises it. Loving a bicycle as a whole, I knew, did not require me to love the pedal in particular. It is a LOGICAL FALLACY to suppose that the same characteristics that describe something as a whole, necessarily describe its particulars - Fallacy of Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition). It is equally fallacious to suppose that because someone loves the whole, he must very well love the parts. I dislike Oprah Winfrey, but I'm not emotionally invested enough to hate her liver. That is the earliest memory I have about John 3:16 and God's universal love - specifically, that I did not even consider it valid enough to use when I would have wanted to use it most. That, and Christ is talking to Nicodemus, a Jew, "a teacher of Israel," who, if he was anything like all of his cohorts, thought He was a savior of Israel exclusively. Christ says not that God loved Israel, but the World, the Jew and the Gentile. So we see that the 'World' can be understood generally, and relatively as opposed to absolutely - it is by no means necessary to take your translation.
There's a lot in your response. I simply cannot respond to all of it, but I will try to be charitable in addressing your points (I'll ignore all insinuations that I'm closeted or akin to an inbred cult :-P):
This is not entirely accurate. I provided, if I recall correctly, two options; if I didn't, then I recant what I said before, and offer the following: first, that the world kosmos can refer to believers exclusively. Strong's Concordance says that the word can mean "any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort", including "believers only," as in "John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19." The context would not only allow for this, but necessitate this, since it is not the people in the world (note how I said "people in the world" instead of "world," like most people do when referring to every single person) who are saved, but only those who "believeth in Christ," that is to say the elect, that is to say those whom God loves and causes to believe. The second option, which you're probably responding to, is that God loves the World, that is to say all of Creation in general.
I did not say that the world does not include all humans. Loving humanity does not necessitate that you love all humans. Loving the World as a whole, does not necessitate that you love all of its parts. That does not logically follow. I love my mother, but I'm not so invested in her kidney. If a friend tells me that she loves puppies, I would not therefore conclude that there was not a single puppy she hated. One can love a category or type or division without loving all the particulars enveloped under it. One can love the World IN GENERAL or AS A WHOLE without loving it in particular. You admit this, even if subconsciously, in your next response:
See what you did here? You interpreted World as encompassing worldly wealth, worldly power, worldly position, and worldly prestige. Are we therefore to assume that since God loves the World, He therefore loves those things? Of course not! And that is because God's loving the World does not necessitate that He loves EVERYTHING associated with the World. And so I'm back to saying, as I said before, that God's loving the World, does not necessitate that He loves everything or everyone in it.
I would say I've been faithful with addressing everyone's Scriptural references when people reference them. For the most part, I have addressed everyone point by point.
Let me rephrase, Westboro ministers to them who welcome their preaching (using the word come certainly does imply that they are the ones traveling to Westboro, and that isn't what I meant). This is sensible. Christ never attempted to minister to those who ostracized and mocked His message. Instead, as I recall, He called them white washed tombs, vipers, sons of Satan, etc.
It isn't. It is not any more wrong for a Church to concentrate on helping a particular people with a particular ailment, than it is for a Church to concentrate on railing against a particular people with a particular vice. Though like everyone has been saying, they've been adamantly opposing a lot of other things now.
Logic says nothing except that an apple is an apple, an apple cannot be a non-apple, and either it is true that something is an apple or it is not true that it is an apple. If logic necessitated that we should fight something at its source, wouldn't it be better for you to rally against Westboro than debate with me on CCAS? :-P
Why would they assume that is what God wants?
How did Christ explicitly tell them to witness to the lost? How is it in direct contradiction to what the Phelp's are doing? Scripture please!
Heh, perhaps. Or maybe you're against Westboro because you are, in fact, actually gay, and they remind you how fallen you are. And so in order to avoid what Westboro has illuminated, you wrested with Scripture to pervert the personality of God to make Him more palatable. See how I turned that around on you? Who needs objective Scriptural reading and evidence, when the motivations and subjective experience of your opponent will do just fine? Now, I have not been raped by any burly men as a child (at least, to my knowledge), but if did, God's hate for the reprobate who He has created to destroy would still be a solid Scriptural truth. And I have not (again, to my knowledge) had sex with men, but even if I did, God hates those He has thrown in Hell, and loves those He has saved.
And, in any case, if I do have gay man sex, or rather, if I did, and Westboro prompted me to no longer engage in it, but instead to obey God, and follow Christ, would this not be an argument AGAINST you? If it is extremely likely or indicative TO YOU that I did have gay man sex, or gay man sex thoughts, because I defend Westboro, wouldn't that indicate that their methods are fruitful? Why would someone who has a particular thorn rally behind a group that vehemently and vitriolically speaks against people who revel in that thorn, unless they have convinced that person of his disease, and the only medicine capable of extinguishing it?
The Westboro group has gone into the traditional hate group territory as well; they've gotten increasingly anti-Semitic and have included signs with derogatory racial references. They frequently mention the race of the people they oppose, as well. The time I saw them (more than 15 years ago), when it became obvious that the gay slurs weren't getting a rise out of anyone, they switched to making references about affirmative action, then were actually started to get more explicitly racial when the police told them their time was up. And, technically, they weren't screaming things--they had a bullhorn and one person at a time used it. But they were indeed using the worst slurs they could about gays. At an urban fair, where most of the attendees were families with small children.
Buzz Dixon said:
Hi Sven,
I asked earlier:
Does scripture say God is hating those we are called to love, Sven?
You responded:
Yes, God hates the reprobate (Romans 9) and the workers of iniquity (Psalms 5:5).
You're very selective in your concern for context, Sven. Yes, in this sense, God hates -- and let's see the whole of the verse....
Psa 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Paul writes in Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Paul is saying that even the children of God were "by nature the children of wrath" -- in other words, "workers of iniquity"-- "even as the others". So Psalm 5 does not support your position as you would like it to as we were all workers of iniquity at an earlier time, yet even you must agree that God loved the elect before they turned to Him. God's love comes first. God loves even those He also, in some sense, hates.
Regarding Romans 9 and Paul referring to vessels of honour and dishonour, Paul writes more about these two groups in 2 Timothy...
2 Timothy 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
2 Timothy 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, [and] prepared unto every good work.
You have to continually wrestle the plain meaning out of passages to fit the few select ones you've predetermined to have a place of preeminence, Sven.
To Buzz, you wrote:
All patronization aside, John 3:16 does not say God loves everybody, each and everyone of us so much. It says God loves the World.
You're not being very consistent in your rendering of verses, Sven. Here you put "the world" into your incredible shrinking machine with no consideration of other verses like 1 John that say Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of "the world"?
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
"not for ours only, BUT also for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD."
You wrote:
This does not imply that His love - the love that justifies, and sanctifies, and makes us one of His children - envelopes the reprobate. It doesn't.
I'm not sure what you mean by "envelopes" -- I don't believe I've ever said that nor do I want to assume your meaning. But I don't need to infer God's love of the lost -- even those who will ultimately reject Him. There's no need to infer what is plainly stated. His sacrifice was the propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but for the whole (not part of) world.
Lastly, regarding John 3:16, and your assertion that "world" doesn't mean "world" in the way that we read it.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
I wonder how many people -- yourself included -- have ever have read this in their initial reading as you've now come to understand it? Not that this by itself tells us everything, but that it is certainly part of a fabric to consider.
I also wonder why -- if God meant world to only mean a very small select group within the world in the first part of the verse -- why He didn't simply then say, "... that THEY should not perish, but have everlasting life." "They" would have covered it nicely.
But, the plain understanding of language in this passage tells us there are two different groups being talked about -- one inclusive (World) and one that that becomes less inclusive by the phrase "whosoever believeth in Him."
God is not a trickster. His Word is plain ... and simple. We can take Him for what He means.
Kind Regards,
Lee
All patronization aside, John 3:16 does not say God loves everybody, each and everyone of us so much. It says God loves the World. Even when we use the word in today's language, the word 'World' does not necessitate 'every person and individual in the world.' When Al Gore says he loves the World, I do not have a reason to assume he means he loves each and every Republican. The Greek word kosmos may just as well mean cosmos, the world, all of Creation as a composite unity. And loving the World, does not necessitate that you love all the people inside of it. It is not redundant to say that every person in the world is male or female - because 'every person' and 'world' are not STRICTLY SYNONYMOUS. Strong's itself notes that kosmos can mean universe, or World. Even in other Scripture, we are to imagine that the speaker means the World, not an array of all individuals, each individually considered:
"For what does a man profit, if he should gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?"
No one imagines that Christ is asking what the man should profit if he should gain each and every individual in the world, as if Christ is asking us to imagine the ultimate slave trader. That's not what world means here. The word kosmos is, in fact, used in other instances of Scripture to mean EXCLUSIVELY the Gentiles contrasted against the Jews. Strong's says the word can mean the collection or aggregate of particulars of any sort.
Yeah man, I would believe that too if I ignored all instances where God is said to explicitly hate someone, a truth trumpeted from the patriarchs, to the prophets, to Paul, to the Fathers, to Martin Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans. I've heard the felt board, Sunday school maxims about God loving the sinner but hating the sin, and I've relied on them long enough to find that there is nothing Scriptural in them.
His Children will hear His voice. If I were going around having gay man sex, not knowing that God hated those who had gay man sex and that Hellfire was awaiting those who continued in such, I would be entirely appreciative and eternally thankful to the Phelp's. I would glorify God because He gave me ears to hear and eyes to see, and He gave me those who would not avoid telling me to repent for the sake of the Kingdom.
I mean, many people had a vibe that the early Christians were atheists, cannibals, reactionaries, and arsonists; so misrepresentation is par for the course, I suppose. They are a family who go out carrying signs in peaceful protest and who occasionally warble a song or two they made up. Screaming hatred and writhing about in a dervish frenzy just simply isn't a responsible characterization. And of course they believe they are right and that everyone else is wrong. Who has ever heard of someone believing something to be true which he or she believes to be false? Supposing that people are wrong if they disagree with you is what people do - there's nothing arrogant about that. If Christ was right, then Muhammad was wrong. If Jesus died for our sins, then people who say we aren't sinners are wrong. That's not arrogance; that's logic.
They minister to those who come to them genuinely. If someone goes and abuses them, trolls them, etc., then they, like Christ, ostracize the swine. When I went to their church a few months back, they were nothing other than kind and welcoming, just as I expected them to be.
Ahh, the old "An Appeal to They Don't Cry Against Every Worldly Evil Therefore We Can Shrug Off Anything Else They Say Fallacy". If a Church sends missionaries to Africa to help those infected with HIV/AIDs, but do not send missionaries to India to help feed the hungry, is the Church being disobedient? Of course not. Likewise, if Westboro decides that they are going to rally against one particular type of evil - if they see a need that is not being met in a particular instance of reproof - how is it any different? Why can we concentrate in the former case on providing a particular remedy; but we cannot concentrate in the latter case on providing a particular criticism? There is no Biblical injunction against it.
Why would they stop what they believe God has started?
I believe that many people who appear to have the most to show for their lives, in fact have the least. And those who appear to have the least, have the most.
Does scripture say God is hating those we are called to love, Sven?
Yes, God hates the reprobate (Romans 9) and the workers of iniquity (Psalms 5:5). And we are to be kind to the reprobate because our Father, who we are to resemble, bears with "much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" (Romans 9:22) and He is "kind unto the unthankful and to the evil" (Luke 6:35), insomuch that He "maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good" and "sendeth rain on the just and unjust" (Matthew 5:45). This does not imply that His love - the love that justifies, and sanctifies, and makes us one of His children - envelopes the reprobate. It doesn't.
I have a loved one who has been in a cult for 35 years where a hatred and elitism similar to Westboro is preached. In my opinion, their approach is born, in part, out of their very twisted view of election. It leads to finger-pointing and judging that has no life in it. In fact, the approach is a repellent that pushes people further away from the gospel.
Man, Christ says Himself that the way is narrow, that there are a bunch of tares amongst the wheat, and goats amongst the sheep, and false prophets we are to be wary of. He tells us not to give pearls to swine and holy things to dogs. The Proverbs and the Psalms are CONSTANTLY noting the differences between the foolish and the wise, and the evil and the righteous. The Word of God is a sea of dichotomies, and the trick isn't to abandon dichotomies altogether, but to critically examine everything, and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). It is exactly by discerning the Word of God, and true children of God, that we find any edification whatsoever. It is exactly by judging righteously and finger pointing that we avoid damning heresies and unlawful liberties we take with Scripture in order to make it more palatable to the damned. Perhaps your relative is in a damning cult, but it isn't because they judge stringently and critically.
Hi Kevin,
You wrote:
I just wanted to bring the conversation back to the specifics of what the Westboro group is actually preaching, rather than let the more abstract theological discussion unfairly give the impression that they represent any mainstream Calvinist or Arminian tradition or denomination other than their own immediate family circle.
That's a good point, Kevin. In and early post, I referenced specifically those at the extreme end of some view of election (there are others besides hyper-Calvinists). If I've veered from that focus, forgive me. My intent here isn't to argue for or against Arminianism (sp?) or Calvanism (I count myself as neither) -- but against falsely teaching a hatred of people by God the bible doesn't teach (not to be confused with saying God doesn't hate).
I have a loved one who has been in a cult for 35 years where a hatred and elitism similar to Westboro is preached. In my opinion, their approach is born, in part, out of their very twisted view of election. It leads to finger-pointing and judging that has no life in it. In fact, the approach is a repellent that pushes people further away from the gospel.
I don't think we can go wrong by trying to emulate the balance to our gospel preaching that we find in scripture.
God bless you, Kevin
Lee
Hi Sven,
You wrote:
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.
Does scripture say God is hating those we are called to love, Sven?
Matthew 5:43-48
Any vengeance God may exact that leaves a man standing is mercy to the man. In fact, I'm not even sure it can be called vengeance at all as it leaves the opportunity for repentance. "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment" --Hebrews 9:27
God bless--
Buzz Dixon said:
I agree about the title. I think it could make a great comic book.
Ribu John said:
I know this was meant as a joke, but I just want to point out that as a Calvinist who knows of a few self-described Hyper-Calvinists, I have yet to meet any that support the Westboro group's message or tactics.
I think it's interesting to note how a discussion about the Westboro group always seems to split into two almost unrelated conversations. One is the abstract theological discussion about mercy/judgment, free will/election, whatever. And the other conversation is about the practical discussion about the Westboro tactics themselves. And it's the latter, not the former, that I personally find more perplexing.
Regardless of what we may think of the theology behind Johnathan Edwards' famous "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" sermon, at least its basic message is recognizable as the Gospel. That is: Jesus Christ died to save sinners like you and me!
But Fred Phelps is no Johnathan Edwards. What exactly is the gospel message one is supposed to draw from standing at someone's funeral with a sign reading: "Thank God for dead soldiers"? Or "Thank God for AIDS"? What purpose does that serve?
If God Himself declares through Ezekiel that He "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked", what does it say about Westboro that their picket signs proclaim their pleasure not just in the death of the "wicked" but also in the death/maiming of soldiers following their lawful duties ("Thank God for IEDs") or in the death of 3000 innocent civilians ("Thank God for Sept.11")? Whatever message they are trying to communicate through these publicity stunts, it is unrecognizable to me as the Gospel.
I just wanted to bring the conversation back to the specifics of what the Westboro group is actually preaching, rather than let the more abstract theological discussion unfairly give the impression that they represent any mainstream Calvinist or Arminian tradition or denomination other than their own immediate family circle.
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
of 14 Next