Some sick, twisted stuff. Sadly- too many people have bought into the "they're pro-Israel" line without having bothered to look deeper.

Well- here's the ugly truth, and I doubt the fascists sympathizers will even blink.

Reactionaries!

More nuts, please.

This pseudo-historical belief system allows white nationalists to claim that the Bible is a book written by Europeans, about Europeans, and for Europeans, for according to this theory, Europeans are the Biblical Israelites.

Reverse black-liberation theology?

It's like a cobweb.

As a Roman Catholic, I am particularly pleased, gratified and honored to see that this vile group's "take" on the Catholic church is as follows:

. . . Let us warn them especially regarding the deceitfulness, error and darkness of the Antichrist Roman Catholic Church. . .

Misguided and sad.
Religious blasphemy.
Another strong reason to keep church and state separate.
USA take heed here.
TEXAS are you listening!

You cannot be a Christian and a racist.

I'm not surprised. Anything to tar and feather Christianity. These people are evil and certainly not followers of Christ. Their cockamamie interpretation of the Bible, the lost tribes and who the Bible is really written to is nothing more than modern day heresy.

Campbell's promotion of Comparet as a 'Bible teacher' is worrying, for Comparet was a seminal figure in the creation of a modern offshoot of British Israelism termed 'Christian Identity'. 'Christian Identity' is an extreme racist 'theology' that asserts that white Europeans are the true Israelites and claims that Jews are the literal children of Satan, products of a sexual encounter between Eve and Satan in the Garden of Eden, with their 'serpent seedline' tracing back to Cain.

Interesting.

These people are not Christian any more than the idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church.

I'd like to see the POPE make a comment on this.
Anyway to send him an email?

re: #10 ladycatnip

I'm not surprised. Anything to tar and feather Christianity. These people are evil and certainly not followers of Christ. Their cockamamie interpretation of the Bible, the lost tribes and who the Bible is really written to is nothing more than modern day heresy.

This is a difficult thing for me to say, because I hate that it's necessary to say it.

These people self-identify as "followers of Christ", and so those of us who are Christian but do not subscribe to these views end up being considered as "with" these folks, when we're not.

It's one of those things that makes some of the conversations here so very difficult.

Read the whole thing. It's a very interesting article.

re: #15 taxfreekiller

Is that % accurate? I think it's larger than that here in the USA.

People actually believe this shit?

re: #14 reine.de.tout

This is a difficult thing for me to say, because I hate that it's necessary to say it.

These people self-identify as "followers of Christ", and so those of us who are Christian but do not subscribe to these views end up being considered as "with" these folks, when we're not.

It's one of those things that makes some of the conversations here so very difficult.

Thankfully by the grace of God it is Jesus Christ who gets to decide who his followers are. Do I think these people are nuts? yes, but in the end regardless of what racists ignorant insane theology they hold to it is Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ who decides who are his and who are not.

re: #7 reine.de.tout

As a Roman Catholic, I am particularly pleased, gratified and honored to see that this vile group's "take" on the Catholic church is as follows:

The anti-Papist strain of British popular culture has never gone away. The Gordon riots are pretty interesting.

No surprise here, sounds just like some of the pro prop 8 arguments :

The BIWF doesn't just have an issue with the 'undermining' of 'race', but is also homophobic:

Society is now suffering widespread dislocation and as moral standards have become more and more corrupted, the question of sexual identity has also become dominant. Confusion now rules with the most vociferous being those who promote perverted life styles. In fact, the movement against the natural sexual order being upheld in society and in law is such that a form of totalitarianism is now established to persecute those who uphold the righteous or lawful order of personal and family relationships.

So, the BIWF promotes nationalism, 'racialism', and homophobia. No wonder it appeals to members of the BNP (as well as being listed on Stormfront and New Nation News forum posts).

We hate Jews because we are the real Jews.

Jews killed Jesus in Jerusalem. Jews never lived in Jerusalem.

Jews are responsible for Communism. Jews are exploitive Capitalists.

Someday Psychology may have a name for this brain disorder today we just call anti-Semitism.

re: #18 MandyManners

People actually believe this shit?

A really excellent question, but hard to answer. Think of the number of weird, pseudo-scientific explanations people accept all the time.

I personally remember my youth leaders saying some really bizarre stuff, particularly when trying to discuss Revelation.

re: #16 Killgore Trout

Read the whole thing. It's a very interesting article.

re: #18 MandyManners

People actually believe this shit?

re: #3 BignJames

More nuts, please.

I'm with the Mandy/BignJames school.

re: #24 buzzsawmonkey

Yet despite their bias towards "No Popery," the British still fill their houses with potpourri.

rofl!

re: #24 buzzsawmonkey

Yet despite their bias towards "No Popery," the British still fill their houses with potpourri.

Humor level: 9
Grade level: 19

re: #14 reine.de.tout

"WITH" these people?

Christians who ascribe to these beliefs sit out like a sore thumb here.
They are hypocritical to their own touting and beliefs.
I think most Lizards never unwarrantedly place anyone in any position, that he/she had not admitted to themselves out of their own mouths.
Perhaps what we need to do is start asking more questions of our individual
stances on these christian issues. That would clarify misconceptions right off the homeplate.
: )

Sickos.re: #18 MandyManners

People actually believe this shit?

I'm sure a very tiny number of bona fide mentals believe this. The vast majority of people in the UK have never heard of this and would just laugh at it if they did.

re: #22 opinionated

Pschotic.

re: #29 Jimmah

I've run across references to this in various cranky literature. It's all of a piece with the old, old legend that Joseph of Arimathea settled in Britain.

re: #14 reine.de.tout

This is a difficult thing for me to say, because I hate that it's necessary to say it.

These people self-identify as "followers of Christ", and so those of us who are Christian but do not subscribe to these views end up being considered as "with" these folks, when we're not.

It's one of those things that makes some of the conversations here so very difficult.

Only willfully ignorant people would confuse Christians with these hate-mongers.

re: #23 Dianna

That is why WE must keep religious discussions to our children limited to the HOME.
Church camps, youth groups, teachers, sunday school, Are we sure what is being discussed AND in what context are they being discussed?

re: #23 Dianna

A really excellent question, but hard to answer. Think of the number of weird, pseudo-scientific explanations people accept all the time.

I personally remember my youth leaders saying some really bizarre stuff, particularly when trying to discuss Revelation.

I think I'm gonna' believe I'm Empress of the Universe.

re: #20 Dianna

The anti-Papist strain of British popular culture has never gone away. The Gordon riots are pretty interesting.

My father would sit at the dinner table, with his Catholic wife and 4 Catholic children, and go off sometimes in rant about "the papists", left-over opinions, I'm sure, from his childhood.

It's funny, but these incidents had the effect of teaching me that unthinking "bias" against this or that or the other (vs. critical disagreement or discrimination based on facts) was stupid to engage in, and my brothers and I all ended up much more liberal than our Dad wanted us to be.

re: #32 MandyManners

Only willfully ignorant people would confuse Christians with these hate-mongers.

Please show some caution here Mandy, only a fool would presume to think they get to tell Jesus Christ who is or is not a Christian...

The No True Scotsman fallacy is unfortunately still a fallacy when it is applied to Christians. Regrettably, people must be considered to be members of the religion that they practice and profess, even when some acolytes adhere to such an execrably cultic and malignantly delusional sect of it.

re: #28 notutopia

"WITH" these people?

Christians who ascribe to these beliefs sit out like a sore thumb here.
They are hypocritical to their own touting and beliefs.
I think most Lizards never unwarrantedly place anyone in any position, that he/she had not admitted to themselves out of their own mouths.
Perhaps what we need to do is start asking more questions of our individual
stances on these christian issues. That would clarify misconceptions right off the homeplate.
: )

I was perhaps clumsy in my explanation. You are correct.

re: #29 Jimmah

Sickos.

I'm sure a very tiny number of bona fide mentals believe this. The vast majority of people in the UK have never heard of this and would just laugh at it if they did.

Maybe the vast majority of Brits need to pull their heads out of the sand and pay attention.

The take away from this is that the binding glue is tribal nationalism. These groups will lie and subsume any cause, infiltrate any forum, and say anything to influence others.
There are Catholic stripes of them just as well as protestant, there are anti-communist stripes, there are anti-capitalist stripes, there isn't a cause too good or too bad for them to adapt. That's why everyone needs to be careful when you see the idiotarian signs on their foreheads.

re: #33 notutopia

That is why WE must keep religious discussions to our children limited to the HOME.
Church camps, youth groups, teachers, sunday school, Are we sure what is being discussed AND in what context are they being discussed?

Huh? You really don't trust what Sunday school teachers say?

re: #30 notutopia

Pschotic.

Yes. It can be diagnosed. But it is never called.

It is pointed out that Farrakhan or Wright or Buchanan or Christian Identity or Hamas (fill in) are anti Semitic. But that is a sort of cover that permits an explanation that there are issues [maybe legitimate] they have in conflict with the Jews. But it is never pointed out that maybe they are just mentally ill.

re: #36 doriangrey

Please show some caution here Mandy, only a fool would presume to think they get to tell Jesus Christ who is or is not a Christian...

Christians must have discretion and be able to repudiate obvious nuts.

re: #33 notutopia

That is why WE must keep religious discussions to our children limited to the HOME.
Church camps, youth groups, teachers, sunday school, Are we sure what is being discussed AND in what context are they being discussed?

Um...I honestly believe that this is going too far.

The church I grew up in was pretty solid; the youth leader I'm thinking of was more mis-informed than malicious. Most of the misinformation tossed around is of that order.

Though I get more irritated than I think I make clear by some of it.

re: #37 Salamantis

The No True Scotsman fallacy is unfortunately still a fallacy when it is applied to Christians. Regrettably, people must be considered to be members of the religion that they practice and profess, even when some acolytes adhere to such an execrably cultic and malignantly delusional sect of it.

You cannot be a Christian and be a racist. Those two are mutually exclusive.

This pseudo-historical belief system allows white nationalists to claim that the Bible is a book written by Europeans

/well, it was first printed by Europeans

re: #45 MandyManners

You cannot be a Christian and be a racist. Those two are mutually exclusive.

Bob Jones University was both for many, many years.

re: #40 Thanos

The take away from this is that the binding glue is tribal nationalism. These groups will lie and subsume any cause, infiltrate any forum, and say anything to influence others.
There are Catholic stripes of them just as well as protestant, there are anti-communist stripes, there are anti-capitalist stripes, there isn't a cause too good or too bad for them to adapt. That's why everyone needs to be careful when you see the idiotarian signs on their foreheads.

A big, red, flashing "I" would be nice.

re: #35 reine.de.tout

I do understand. My dad could sometimes spout things that just left me staring.

I blamed it on left-over programming from his childhood.

re: #47 Salamantis

Bob Jones University was both for many, many years.

I stand by my assertion.

re: #43 MandyManners

Christians must have discretion and be able to repudiate obvious nuts.

Which of course explain why Christ said

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:27-30 KJV

Because it's so easy to tell what is really in a persons heart.

re: #45 MandyManners

You cannot be a Christian and be a racist. Those two are mutually exclusive.

/that would be news to Pat Buchanan

re: #32 MandyManners
"Only willfully ignorant people would confuse Christians with these hate-mongers."
Couldn't have been better said. Thank you.

re: #43 MandyManners

Christians must have discretion and be able to repudiate obvious nuts.

You can say that again.

re: #52 Thanos
Only if you believe that he's a Christian.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, split from the rest of the US Baptists in 1845 on the issue of slavery, which the Southern Baptists supported.

#14 reine.de.tout

This is a difficult thing for me to say, because I hate that it's necessary to say it.

These people self-identify as "followers of Christ", and so those of us who are Christian but do not subscribe to these views end up being considered as "with" these folks, when we're not.

It's one of those things that makes some of the conversations here so very difficult.

Absolutely right on. Agree completely. I consider it an honor that this group is targeting the RCC.

#19 doriangray

Thankfully by the grace of God it is Jesus Christ who gets to decide who his followers are.

There is a fine line in making judgments, and we are clearly warned in Scripture not judge one another. But it also tells us we can know people "by their fruits" and the fruits of these racist, hate-filled people are contrary to all biblical teaching, therefore I can make the judgment that these are not Christians. My judgment is not condemning these people to hell - that's His job. My judgment is simply saying these people have nothing in common with Christians. Period.

re: #51 doriangrey

Because it's so easy to tell what is really in a persons heart.

Humans cannot read hearts so we judge someone by what they say and what they do.

If not, are you actually saying that we must identify with these people?

re: #52 Thanos

/that would be news to Pat Buchanan

Screw Pat Buchanan.

re: #13 notutopia

I'd like to see the POPE make a comment on this.
Anyway to send him an email?

well, I guess you could call...Vatican Information

re: #50 MandyManners

I stand by my assertion.

/Karma advantage through attrition

re: #54 Ringo the Gringo

You can say that again.

I don't know those preachers and what they say so, I withhold comment.

re: #45 MandyManners

You cannot be a Christian and be a racist. Those two are mutually exclusive.

Which part applies to Rev. Wright?

re: #57 ladycatnip

#14 reine.de.tout

There is a fine line in making judgments, and we are clearly warned in Scripture not judge one another. But it also tells us we can know people "by their fruits" and the fruits of these racist, hate-filled people are contrary to all biblical teaching, therefore I can make the judgment that these are not Christians. My judgment is not condemning these people to hell - that's His job. My judgment is simply saying these people have nothing in common with Christians. Period.

What you said.

re: #59 MandyManners
No, thank you. I stand by my #55.

re: #61 Killian Bundy

/Karma advantage through attrition

You're making me laugh.

There's even a libertarian stripe of these guys, the Lew Rockwell / Jason Raimondo axis. So again, Idiotarianism crosses all politics, religions, and classes.

re: #63 Naso Tang

Which part applies to Rev. Wright?

What part of his sermons lead you to believe he's not a hater of white folks?

re: #62 MandyManners

I don't know those preachers and what they say so, I withhold comment.

I don't know anything about them either, I just thought the picture was kind of creepy.

Could you imagine the reaction if that was a picture of GW Bush?

re: #65 realwest

No, thank you. I stand by my #55.

HA!

re: #41 MandyManners

There are exceptions to every instructor. But, NO, not on the random chance that they corrupt the written word or include their own interpretation, I would and do not trust them. Religion should be taught at home.
I even had some nuns totally confuse concepts of creationism that were not in the bible.

: )

re: #69 Ringo the Gringo

I don't know anything about them either, I just thought the picture was kind of creepy.

Could you imagine the reaction if that was a picture of GW Bush?

Are there photographs of prayer breakfasts at the White House?

re: #57 ladycatnip

But it also tells us we can know people "by their fruits" and the fruits of these racist, hate-filled people are contrary to all biblical teaching, therefore I can make the judgment that these are not Christians. My judgment is not condemning these people to hell - that's His job. My judgment is simply saying these people have nothing in common with Christians. Period.

Amen to that. And to all those who say those folks have anything at all in common with Christians.

re: #71 notutopia

There are exceptions to every instructor. But, NO, not on the random chance that they corrupt the written word or include their own interpretation, I would and do not trust them. Religion should be taught at home.
I even had some nuns totally confuse concepts of creationism that were not in the bible.

: )

I trust The Kid's Sunday school teachers because they're members of the congregation.

re: #37 Salamantis

The No True Scotsman fallacy

Heh. I've had that one thrown at me a few times.

re: #68 MandyManners

What part of his sermons lead you to believe he's not a hater of white folks?

You misunderstand.

He is a racist (except to some think only whites can be racist), but if racist and Christian are mutually exclusive then he can't be a Christian, yet most would say he is.

Therefore, Christian and Racist are NOT mutually exclusive.

The guilt-by-association is finally too great.
We really must quit all Christian religion, lest we accidentally be ''associated'' with either racists, supremacists or fascists.
I even heard there were some "Christians'' who associated themselves with some Muslims (maybe it was this Pope?).
Once we have successfully purged all religion from our minds we will be open to clear thinking, right?
And who are the ones to set the new guilt-free, basis-free, religion-free standards for ''right and wrong?"
Oh, wait.
Forget right and wrong....it leads to guilt-by-association with others who agree with any of your standards at all..
So, wait a minute.
If we do that, why oppose Islam?
Just because it, too, is a ''religious structure of beliefs?"
Hmmmm.
Moral equivalence.
So, you can correct me if you explain on what basis your standards should become mine.
Mine, in some places, intersect those of racists, fascists and other baddies.....see, I support Israel and live by the standards set up by God's Son.

re: #70 MandyManners

I'm with you -- you cannot be a true christian and a racist.

Sadly, anybody can get a uniform and pretend to be part of the team. They are conscientious objectors to the actual mission and, therefore, traitors.

re: #56 Salamantis
You're point being, I suppose, that Southern Baptists are held in place by time and have not evolved?

re: #45 MandyManners

re: #53 realwest

This is probably going to come out clumsily . . .

Whereas you and I repudiate these people's actions and believe they are un-Christlike based on our understanding of Christ, the bottom line is what the world sees is this group of self-identified Christians holding these views.

We can sit here and make all the claims we want that these folks are not Christian. It doesn't really matter that we sit here and do that.

What needs to be done is we need to act in our lives in such a way that utter repudiation of these people is the result.

re: #76 Naso Tang

You misunderstand.

He is a racist (except to some think only whites can be racist), but if racist and Christian are mutually exclusive then he can't be a Christian, yet most would say he is.

Therefore, Christian and Racist are NOT mutually exclusive.

Oh, yes they are! Christ didn't come to save just one shade of skin. He came to save ALL shades of skin.

re: #78 hermit

I'm with you -- you cannot be a true christian and a racist.

Sadly, anybody can get a uniform and pretend to be part of the team. They are conscientious objectors to the actual mission and, therefore, traitors.

And, leading people down the wrong path!

re: #58 MandyManners

Humans cannot read hearts so we judge someone by what they say and what they do.

If not, are you actually saying that we must identify with these people?

Nope, not suggesting that at all. What I am saying is on the day the Jesus Christ personally calls you and asks your advice on anything I would like you to put in a good word for me. Until that day if any person claims to be a Christian I am going to accept that claim and expect that Jesus Christ will deal with them in his own special way.

Remember he is going to say to quite a few people... I never knew you... Those people are going to shocked because they DID do all the things that are suppose to be the signs of true Christianity.

Jesus Christ is the decider, not you and certainly not me.

re: #80 reine.de.tout

...you shall know them by their fruit...

..and criticize them by their nuts...

re: #80 reine.de.tout

re: #53 realwest

This is probably going to come out clumsily . . .

Whereas you and I repudiate these people's actions and believe they are un-Christlike based on our understanding of Christ, the bottom line is what the world sees is this group of self-identified Christians holding these views.

We can sit here and make all the claims we want that these folks are not Christian. It doesn't really matter that we sit here and do that.

What needs to be done is we need to act in our lives in such a way that utter repudiation of these people is the result.

Precisely.

re: #76 Naso Tang

He is a racist (except to some think only whites can be racist), but if racist and Christian are mutually exclusive then he can't be a Christian, yet most would say he is.

Who are these "most" you refer to? Mandy Manners is quite correct: you cannot be a Christian and a racist. Period.

re: #60 hermit

Thanks Hermit. I'll see if I can find an email address.

: )

Those who would deny that Westboro Baptist Church and KKK members are Christians, even if horribly racist and homophobic ones, would also have to deny that members of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and Ahmedinejad's Hojatiyyeh sect are Muslims. All of these groups profess to be members of their respectively claimed faiths with equally fanatic intensity.

All religions contain good people. All religions also contain bad people. The people concerned deserve both the credit and the blame far more than the religions do.

re: #77 mean Gene

The guilt-by-association is finally too great.
We really must quit all Christian religion, lest we accidentally be ''associated'' with either racists, supremacists or fascists.

I don't think anyone here is saying that. It would be good for Christians to recognize that this stripe of idiotarianism exists, and to purge it from their bodies when they find it, to not let it become the face of Christianity in the west, because that's the Tribal Nationalist goal.

re: #83 doriangrey

If you're not gonna' say that someone is not behaving in a Christian manner by espousing doctrine contrary to what Christ said, well, have at it.

I thought one of the most interesting parts of this was the way it provides cover for any European neofascist to claim they support Israel. Just change the definition of Israel.

re: #88 Salamantis

Those who would deny that Westboro Baptist Church and KKK members are Christians, even if horribly racist and homophobic ones, would also have to deny that members of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and Ahmedinejad's Hojatiyyeh sect are Muslims. All of these groups profess to be members of their respectively claimed faiths with equally fanatic intensity.

All religions contain good people. All religions also contain bad people. The people concerned deserve both the credit and the blame far more than the religions do.

That is so fucked up that I'm gonna' hafta' walk away from my computer for a while. MORAL EQUIVALENCY SUCKS.

BBL

a ‘Member of the Assemblies of God Pentecostal Church’,

Not knowing the name of this person I don't know if he is in the General Council of the Assemblies of God (commonly called the Assemblies of God), which is the organization with which I am affiliated. However, I can state that what is described above by Charles is NOT in any form what we teach. This sounds like some form of "Replacement Theology" which the AG specifically teaches against.
Just so ya know.

If one is prepared to claim a faith, then they ought to be accountable to the tenets of that faith. While I may believe whole-heartedly in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but cannot right now call myself catholic, because I have not been to mass for several months. I believe, but I may not wear the uniform in public while I am AWOL.

re: #88 Salamantis

Tell me the book, chapter and verse where Christ told his followers to go out and kill non-believers. Tell me.

re: #88 Salamantis

Those who would deny that Westboro Baptist Church and KKK members are Christians, even if horribly racist and homophobic ones, would also have to deny that members of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda and Ahmedinejad's Hojatiyyeh sect are Muslims. All of these groups profess to be members of their respectively claimed faiths with equally fanatic intensity.

All religions contain good people. All religions also contain bad people. The people concerned deserve both the credit and the blame far more than the religions do.

You are equating an organized religion with a faith. The true meaning of "Christian" is to be like Christ. Just because I stand in a garage and call myself a Car don't make it so.

re: #77 mean Gene

Gene, Nice try. This is America. YOU can believe whatever the hell YOU want to believe here. THANK GOD. and THANK the CONSTITUTION.
Just don't shove your beliefs on me on into the public school system or it my public restrooms. It won't work.
I've got titanium plated Lizard scales.
; )

re: #90 MandyManners

If you're not gonna' say that someone is not behaving in a Christian manner by espousing doctrine contrary to what Christ said, well, have at it.

So what you are saying is that you are the decider.............. Sorry I think not. There are some doctrinal issues that it is really clear cut others not so much. For instance racism, personally I think it is wrong, but you cannot show a single doctrinal statement by Jesus Christ or even the Apostle Paul that directly addresses the issue.

re: #81 MandyManners

Oh, yes they are! Christ didn't come to save just one shade of skin. He came to save ALL shades of skin.

That's fine, but we are speaking at cross purposes. You are stating the ideal and all I am saying is that reality is not there. Are you out there shouting that Rev. Wright and his flock are NOT Christians, or would you just call them deluded?

re: #83 doriangrey
I can't begin to express my disappointment with your

if any person claims to be a Christian I am going to accept that claim and expect that Jesus Christ will deal with them in his own special way.

How can you be willing to accept that someone is a Christian because he says so, when everything you know about him flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus Christ?
And NO, I'm not content to wait until that person's judgment day to determine whether or not he is a Christian - I'll judge people by their words AND by their deeds NOW.

re: #93 theparson

Not knowing the name of this person I don't know if he is in the General Council of the Assemblies of God (commonly called the Assemblies of God), which is the organization with which I am affiliated. However, I can state that what is described above by Charles is NOT in any form what we teach. This sounds like some form of "Replacement Theology" which the AG specifically teaches against.
Just so ya know.

Well said.

Christians are individually tested (refined) by their associationa within their congregations.
Even early Christian Churches (mentioned in the Revelation) were faulty six out of seven.
The refining that occurs by being among other fallen humans who strive in their own ways for Life is a test.
Otherwise all individual Christians would have to isolate themselves which is not recommended in both Old and New Testaments.
So, to constantly purge means to set oneself up as judge when only God is Judge.
Certain egregious acts, such as grieving Holy Spirit can lead to a purging on a person.
But constant splintering of the congregation is not be the answer.

re: #98 doriangrey

So what you are saying is that you are the decider.............. Sorry I think not. There are some doctrinal issues that it is really clear cut others not so much. For instance racism, personally I think it is wrong, but you cannot show a single doctrinal statement by Jesus Christ or even the Apostle Paul that directly addresses the issue.

Oh, brother.

re: #79 realwest

You're point being, I suppose, that Southern Baptists are held in place by time and have not evolved?

It took them a long long time. Most Southern Baptists supported Jim Crow laws and were virulently opposed to Brown vs. Board of Education, for instance.

Sunday still remains the most racially segregated day in America.

Just had a thought - which may make sense only to me - but for those here who believe it's impossible to know the difference between a real Christian or a fake one, try this on:

Why is it so easy to identify the politics of one party over another? If a staunch conservative politician comes out speaking in favor of pulllng out of Iraq, late-term abortion, spreading the wealth, and raising taxes, you know the party is going to distance themselves from him/her. Conversely, look what happened and Lieberman or Zell Miller.

You can identify people by what they say and what they do.

re: #99 Naso Tang

That's fine, but we are speaking at cross purposes. You are stating the ideal and all I am saying is that reality is not there. Are you out there shouting that Rev. Wright and his flock are NOT Christians, or would you just call them deluded?

WRIGHT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN.

re: #99 Naso Tang

That's fine, but we are speaking at cross purposes. You are stating the ideal and all I am saying is that reality is not there. Are you out there shouting that Rev. Wright and his flock are NOT Christians, or would you just call them deluded?

You do err in that you do not know the scriptures. The Apostle Paul most certainly addresses that in Galatians 3:28.

re: #96 theparson

The true meaning of "Christian" is to be like Christ.

Talk about setting the bar high. Are there any christians then? Are you one? Are you like christ?

re: #95 MandyManners

Tell me the book, chapter and verse where Christ told his followers to go out and kill non-believers. Tell me.

I didn't claim that, and you full well know it. But nice try at diversion from my contention.

re: #91 jaunte

I thought one of the most interesting parts of this was the way it provides cover for any European neofascist to claim they support Israel. Just change the definition of Israel.

Sad how it's been swallowed hook, line and sinker by some.

re: #106 MandyManners

WRIGHT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN.

And lots of Protestants don't think Catholics are either. By your definitions there can only be one true Christian church with one common name.

Which one is it, according to you, and which one is it according to any one of the others?

re: #100 realwest

I'll judge people by their words AND by their deeds NOW.

For example:
Guy shows up in your unit and wears the uniform, with the right patches etcetera....says he's with you. You will only know him when you go to take the hill, but even then, you are not allowed to shoot him as a traitor if he refuses.

We don't get to check their orders....if they say they're in the unit and have the trappings, we have to believe them. But yes, when it comes to taking the hill, we will know them as traitors -- and so will everyone else.

re: #100 realwest

I can't begin to express my disappointment with your

How can you be willing to accept that someone is a Christian because he says so, when everything you know about him flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus Christ?
And NO, I'm not content to wait until that person's judgment day to determine whether or not he is a Christian - I'll judge people by their words AND by their deeds NOW.

I make that statement because while I trust Jesus Christ to know what is in anthers heart I do not trust myself to know that. Just remember, there is only one unforgivable sin, and it isnt racism or homophobia. Would I associate with someone who claims to be a Christian yet all the evidence I see in their life contradicts that assertion? No I would not, but I am unwilling to pretend that I get to decide if they are really a Christian or not.

re: #91 jaunte

I thought one of the most interesting parts of this was the way it provides cover for any European neofascist to claim they support Israel. Just change the definition of Israel.

It is interesting; it also isn't new.

Christians are human beings. Human beings are not perfect. Imperfect humans can be christians. Massively imperfect humans can be christians. End of story.

re: #115 Jimmah

Except to add that total 100% nutbags can be christians as well.

re: #110 Sharmuta

I can't say for sure that everyone has "changed the definition of Israel", but this certainly throws open that possibility.

#98 doriangray

So what you are saying is that you are the decider.............. Sorry I think not. There are some doctrinal issues that it is really clear cut others not so much. For instance racism, personally I think it is wrong, but you cannot show a single doctrinal statement by Jesus Christ or even the Apostle Paul that directly addresses the issue.

Sure can. When Paul said he was all things to all men, he was breaking down the wall of distinction of granting only salvation to the Jews; now the Gentiles were included in God's salvation.

And Jesus certainly addressed this in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Remember Samaritans were considered to be dogs in the culture at that time. He also spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, again breaking cultural norms of racism.

There's plenty more. Just read the Bible.

re: #96 theparson

You are equating an organized religion with a faith. The true meaning of "Christian" is to be like Christ. Just because I stand in a garage and call myself a Car don't make it so.

What if you go to church every Sunday, take your kids to Sunday School and send them to Christian private school, tithe, devoutly believe in the deity of Jesus, practice the Great Commission through witnessing, and yet harbor racist feelings?

re: #108 Jimmah

Talk about setting the bar high. Are there any christians then? Are you one? Are you like christ?

Who would set the bar low?
The first century church called their new experience "The Way". Skeptics in Antioch began to taunt them by calling them "Christians" (identified with Christ). They took it as a compliment because their desire was to strive to be like Christ. That is my goal. I fail Him more than I don't but because of His grace I am forgiven.

re: #114 Dianna

I don't have wide knowledge in this area.

re: #107 theparson

You do err in that you do not know the scriptures. The Apostle Paul most certainly addresses that in Galatians 3:28.

I haven't looked that up, but by context I am guessing that you are saying that Christians cannot be deluded, and if they are, according to Paul, then they are not Christians. There must be a lot of deluded people out there.

re: #88 Salamantis
I'm not going to let myself get angry over this, again.
But when someone who manifestly acts in a Non-Christian fashion and is constantly and definitively reputiated because of their words and deeds, by large numbers of people who identify themselves as Christians, it would seem clear that most Christians repudiate the idea that those "others" - e.g., members of The Westboro Baptist Church, are Christians.
That bin Laden et. al. are NOT repudiated by equally large numbers of Muslims tells me that perhaps those large numbers of Muslims believe that bin Laden et.al. are in some way Muslims.

re: #115 Jimmah

Christians are human beings. Human beings are not perfect. Imperfect humans can be christians. Massively imperfect humans can be christians. End of story.

...and thankfully, Beginning of story....the journey didn't end with a cross.
A thousand *dings* to you.

re: #100 realwest

re: #106 MandyManners

I think we could sit and argue until everyone is as blue in the face as Sharmuta's avatar.

Those folks have self-identified as "Christian".

It doesn't matter whether or not we think they are.

The real question is, what can or needs to be done to counter that movement?

re: #122 Naso Tang

I haven't looked that up, but by context I am guessing that you are saying that Christians cannot be deluded, and if they are, according to Paul, then they are not Christians. There must be a lot of deluded people out there.

It deals specifically with racism. Paul's contention is that we are all one in God's eyes.

re: #120 theparson

So you can be imperfect yet call yourself a christian, but other's imperfections exclude them from being christian. Isn't that a kind of divine judgement you're exercising there?

re: #11 Killgore Trout

Interesting.

re: #16 Killgore Trout

Read the whole thing. It's a very interesting article.

Interesting, how?

re: #116 Jimmah

Except to add that total 100% nutbags can be christians as well.

Case in point, Christopher Smart.

Look up "My Cat, Jeoffry" some time.

re: #121 jaunte

It's a bit of a side-line for me.

re: #124 hermit

Thanks:)

re: #15 taxfreekiller

Hypocrites abound everywhere.

re: #123 realwest

Other than some people here, have you heard anyone with recognized Christian credentials and respect, publicly say that Rev. Wright and his many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of followers are NOT Christians?

re: #118 ladycatnip

The woman at the well isn't necessarily a Samaritan. She had had five husbands, though.

re: #130 Dianna

I've just started reading a bit on neofascism; do you have any recommended resources?

re: #119 Salamantis

The issue isn't the feelings one harbors, as much as the effort, in Christian love and charity, to overcome them and not act upon them.

That's a pretty basic tenet of Christian faith and practice. Even I remember it.

re: #127 Jimmah

So you can be imperfect yet call yourself a christian, but other's imperfections exclude them from being christian. Isn't that a kind of divine judgement you're exercising there?

I'm honestly not following your logic. You seem to be painting me with a very broad brush. I am not the arbiter of who is or is not a Christian, nor have I stated any particular person is or is not a Christian. That is solely the purview of God. There are people who call themselves Christians whom I do not believe reflect the life of Jesus very well. However, I fail quite often also. I am not a Christian because I am good, because my parents were Christians or because I live in what some call a Christian nation. I am a Christian because, according to Romans 10:9,10 I accept Jesus Christ as Lord of all and I believe that he rose from the dead. I am saved by (His) grace and by grace alone.

Based upon how most of y'all are talking right past one another (counting coup, as it were):

I am pretty sure that this thread will degenerate into one of those "I know you are, so what am I" threads

re: #138 least

Based upon how most of y'all are talking right past one another (counting coup, as it were):

I am pretty sure that this thread will degenerate into one of those "I know you are, so what am I" threads

well, thanks for that. there's an open thread next door.

re: #113 doriangrey

Would I associate with someone who claims to be a Christian yet all the evidence I see in their life contradicts that assertion?

I doubt it, but your unwillingness to disassociate them from the teaching of Christ - when all the evidence you see in their life contradicts the teachings of Christ means to me, quite simply, that you are not willing to judge people by what they say and do.

re: #138 least

Based upon how most of y'all are talking right past one another (counting coup, as it were):

I am pretty sure that this thread will degenerate into one of those "I know you are, so what am I" threads

Yes, and that conversation will be missing the point big-time, imo.

The real question in all of this - how can such movements as the one described here be countered? What is necessary? What alternatives are avalailable to these people - in order to preserve themselves, is there an alternative to this particular vile group?

re: #135 jaunte

I've just started reading a bit on neofascism; do you have any recommended resources?

Not really, as neofascism is definitely a side-path I haven't investigated much. I'd start with looking at the roots of "Christian Identity"; the theology they preach has some really interesting 19th century roots.

Several neo-fascist groups get there not through an admiration of either Hitler or Mussolini, but through theology and some very cranky beliefs.

re: #141 reine.de.tout

Here are some groups opposed to them:
[Link: unitywebring.com...]

re: #118 ladycatnip

#98 doriangray

Sure can. When Paul said he was all things to all men, he was breaking down the wall of distinction of granting only salvation to the Jews; now the Gentiles were included in God's salvation.

And Jesus certainly addressed this in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Remember Samaritans were considered to be dogs in the culture at that time. He also spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, again breaking cultural norms of racism.

There's plenty more. Just read the Bible.

Samaritans were Jews. Paul's point was the exact same one I am making.... God is the decider, not us. Yes I have indeed read the Bible.

re: #143 jaunte

Here are some groups opposed to them:
[Link: unitywebring.com...]

Ah. Thank you.

Christians for centuries used the scriptures to justify slavery. They used the story of Noah and and his Ham, who was burned with a mark for witnessing his father's drunken nakedness - a mark signifying that all of his descendents would be slaves. They interpreted this mark as blackness.

You can justify any good, and any evil, if you cherry-pick scriptures.

re: #138 least

Based upon how most of y'all are talking right past one another (counting coup, as it were):

I am pretty sure that this thread will degenerate into one of those "I know you are, so what am I" threads

That would be unfortunate. Fascists are using this logic to promote a twisted facade to mask their anti-Semitism. This is bad for Israel, bad for Christians, and bad for people lulled into supporting parties engaged in this thinking.

Nazis suck.

re: #142 Dianna

Thanks, I'll do some reading.

re: #141 reine.de.tout

The best way to begin to counter them is to know their history and beliefs. Then, you have a reasoned place to start.

re: #133 Naso Tang

Other than some people here, have you heard anyone with recognized Christian credentials and respect, publicly say that Rev. Wright and his many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of followers are NOT Christians?

Yeah,...okay. This is because no true christian would actually judge another except as proscribed in Matt 18. Which means I can recognize that their fruit is not good, but I may not tell them what they are or are not. I deal with those souls in my immediate community and no others.

BTW -- what precisely are recognized Christian credentials?

re: #126 theparson

It deals specifically with racism. Paul's contention is that we are all one in God's eyes.

I just did look it up and from a literalist's perspective it does NOT deal with racism and in fact it acknowledges the existences of slavery (without naming color) as a reality.

That you extend the literal meaning to a larger scope is admirable, but a slave owner of the day would not see that as a repudiation of himself; all he had to do would be give his slaves the opportunity to pray, and most slaves of the day would have been of other races, which we would call racist.

re: #146 Salamantis

Christians for centuries used the scriptures to justify slavery. They used the story of Noah and and his Ham, who was burned with a mark for witnessing his father's drunken nakedness - a mark signifying that all of his descendents would be slaves. They interpreted this mark as blackness.

You can justify any good, and any evil, if you cherry-pick scriptures.

his SON Ham...PIMF!

re: #146 Salamantis

You can justify any good, and any evil, if you cherry-pick scriptures.

While that is a point I agree with, and pretty much anyone here would find unobjectionable, no serious scholar of the Bible would currently accept them, and there were plenty of churches and scholars who objected to that interpretation at the time.

re: #140 realwest

I doubt it, but your unwillingness to disassociate them from the teaching of Christ - when all the evidence you see in their life contradicts the teachings of Christ means to me, quite simply, that you are not willing to judge people by what they say and do.

I am far from being perfect and am still working on getting the speck out of my own eye. Having not yet succeeded in that endeavor I am extremely reticent to tell others about the log in their eye. Someday perhaps I will get that speck out of my eye and feel comfortable pointing to the log in other peoples eyes, but not today.

re: #149 Dianna

The best way to begin to counter them is to know their history and beliefs. Then, you have a reasoned place to start.

Studying up.
But I guess it would be helpful to have some discussion here, without the discussion becoming one of "They are so Christian", "No they are not Christian".
That seems to be how these threads evolve. And it's pointless what they say they are, and pointless, imo, to argue whether they are or are not "Christian".

Nutball idiotarians exist in every segment of society, and there are universal signs:

1. Too strong identification with only one cause.
2. Starts off debates with variations of "we're doomed if..."
3. tends to malign other groups en masse as opposed to specific members or radical subsets.
4. has a designated enemy group, and everything tracks back to that enemy via various conspiracy theories.
5. writes long diatribes where five sentences would get the same point across
6. Identifies themselves not as an individual, but as a hypenated member of a group, e.g. a "white christian" "Black Muslim" "aryan socialist" etc.

All of us have exhibited some of this at one time or another (e.g. we are all "lizards") but the real trick in identifying Idiotarians is not seeing display of just one of these signs, but consistent display of several of them.

Hopefully I'm not one of the nutballs, but I've occasionally exhibited some of the signs at one time or another, most of us have.

re: #127 Jimmah
No, it's a perfectly normal human one.
If you see someone murder someone else, and you testify to that in court, knowing that if the person is found guilty he or she may very well lose their life, is that also not acting in a judgmental fashion? Or if you are the judge or a juror and not a witness?
Human beings make judgments ALL the time and in fact are judgmental all the time. From petty things (should I cross the street against the light because I see no traffic coming) to more significant things - should I repudiate someone who states that he is a Christian, but all of who's words and actions are contrary to what I believe to be Christian.

re: #142 Dianna

Not really, as neofascism is definitely a side-path I haven't investigated much. I'd start with looking at the roots of "Christian Identity"; the theology they preach has some really interesting 19th century roots.

Several neo-fascist groups get there not through an admiration of either Hitler or Mussolini, but through theology and some very cranky beliefs.

You could start with the council of Chalcedon

re: #150 hermit

BTW -- what precisely are recognized Christian credentials?

Good question. I hesitated for a bit before letting those words fly. In today's world I suppose it is just anyone who can get on FOX and CNN with a phone call.

re: #151 Naso Tang

You're wrong about Roman slavery; it was not race-based.

Paul's letter addresses equality in the Church, and in the eyes of the deity. Thus, neither slave nor free, male nor female, Jew nor Gentile.

Like most of Paul, it's the basis of Christian theology, and has become the notion that all are - and ought to be - equal everywhere, and that it is the act of a good Christian to promote that equality.

re: #151 Naso Tang

I just did look it up and from a literalist's perspective it does NOT deal with racism and in fact it acknowledges the existences of slavery (without naming color) as a reality.

That you extend the literal meaning to a larger scope is admirable, but a slave owner of the day would not see that as a repudiation of himself; all he had to do would be give his slaves the opportunity to pray, and most slaves of the day would have been of other races, which we would call racist.

I am amazed that you can arrive at that conclusion from what Paul wrote.

Galatians 3:26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

re: #137 theparson

I am a Christian because, according to Romans 10:9,10 I accept Jesus Christ as Lord of all and I believe that he rose from the dead.

That is a much more reasonable definition than "being like christ" which you offered previously.

re: #155 reine.de.tout

Such an argument is absolutely pointless, agreed.

For instance, I'm pretty sure they think of themselves as Christians, and would be thoroughly shocked to discover that other people think they're just nuts and that their theology stinks.

After all, what one is raised with is normal.

re: #56 Salamantis

The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, split from the rest of the US Baptists in 1845 on the issue of slavery, which the Southern Baptists supported.

Got to chime in on this one. That church believed that the blacks were their responsibility, and taught the whites to be wise Masters, to be beneficent, to be charitable. Yes, they believed that blacks were inferior, through no fault of their own, and thus, it was the "White Man's Burden" to enlighten and elevate the status of the slaves, while being good and responsible Masters. (BTW, many Northern churches held exactly the same sentiments at the time.)

To free a slave was no small thing, to grant freedom for those slaves who were not prepared for it was considered a cruelty, as their condition would not necessarily improve in that economic and political environment. How could you responsibly free a man who could not read or write, had no money, and no training? This was the thinking of the time.
(Coincidentally, the first evidence of successfully freed slaves were those that had musical ability, as they could then provide for themselves)

It needs to be said lest one come away with a feeling that all southern whites were hostile to all blacks, and vice versa. Southerners had a much different attitude about race than is those in the North. I grew up in the South, and was educated in the North. I went to a mixed race high school. We all got along fine for the most part. To the contrary, I saw much harsher racism in the North, even as recently as 30 years ago.

Of course, much cruelty is the legacy of such a mind set and I do not deny that, and I condemn it without hesitation.

Just to conclude, the stance of the Southern Baptist church was no less of a racist position, but it was a different and somewhat more benign variety of racism, and it was a common sentiment in the pre-war south.

re: #155 reine.de.tout

Studying up.
But I guess it would be helpful to have some discussion here, without the discussion becoming one of "They are so Christian", "No they are not Christian".
That seems to be how these threads evolve. And it's pointless what they say they are, and pointless, imo, to argue whether they are or are not "Christian".

Good point.
A better way to go would be to aim the thread into the reasonings and refutations of the actual wrong deed.
IF a person or group is apostizing itself by choosing to follow a racist or fascist line of reasoning, surely they could be corrected by Scripture.
In the Bible this is called reproving the person.
One uses verses to reprove and correct the path of the one who strayed.

re: #112 hermit
"But yes, when it comes to taking the hill, we will know them as traitors -- and so will everyone else."
Except their fellow traitors.

re: #158 Thanos

You could start with the council of Chalcedon

I'm blanking on that one. Let me google.

re: #162 Jimmah

That is a much more reasonable definition than "being like christ" which you offered previously.

I just didn't communicate it well. Sorry

re: #122 Naso Tang

I haven't looked that up

Based on some of the comments 'round here, that's a pretty common occurrence.

re: #134 Dianna

The woman at the well isn't necessarily a Samaritan

And you know this, how?

re: #118 ladycatnip

There's plenty more. Just read the Bible.

Indeed.

re: #164 rawmuse

Got to chime in on this one. That church believed that the blacks were their responsibility, and taught the whites to be wise Masters, to be beneficent, to be charitable. Yes, they believed that blacks were inferior, through no fault of their own, and thus, it was the "White Man's Burden" to enlighten and elevate the status of the slaves, while being good and responsible Masters. (BTW, many Northern churches held exactly the same sentiments at the time.)

To free a slave was no small thing, to grant freedom for those slaves who were not prepared for it was considered a cruelty, as their condition would not necessarily improve in that economic and political environment. How could you responsibly free a man who could not read or write, had no money, and no training? This was the thinking of the time.
(Coincidentally, the first evidence of successfully freed slaves were those that had musical ability, as they could then provide for themselves)

It needs to be said lest one come away with a feeling that all southern whites were hostile to all blacks, and vice versa. Southerners had a much different attitude about race than is those in the North. I grew up in the South, and was educated in the North. I went to a mixed race high school. We all got along fine for the most part. To the contrary, I saw much harsher racism in the North, even as recently as 30 years ago.

Of course, much cruelty is the legacy of such a mind set and I do not deny that, and I condemn it without hesitation.

Just to conclude, the stance of the Southern Baptist church was no less of a racist position, but it was a different and somewhat more benign variety of racism, and it was a common sentiment in the pre-war south.

It was a self-serving sentiment, considering that it was forbidden in the antebellum South to teach slaves to read and write.

Edmund Standing is an anti-Christian, anti-semite hate monger. Don't believe me? Here's his words:

Sadly, this is our world today. The leader I referred to in my narrative above is the God spoken of in the Old Testament, the God of Jews and Christians, and the book recording his actions is, of course, the Bible. The God proclaimed in the Old Testament, were he to be a modern leader, would be indicted for crimes against humanity. Instead, he is worshipped today by millions. This is a tragedy.

This is a disgusting human being.

Link to Standing's article...

This pseudo-historical belief system allows white nationalists to claim that the Bible is a book written by Europeans, about Europeans, and for Europeans...

Given how seriously these people take the Bible, I'm sure it'll be just a couple of days until they commit to eating kosher, keeping the Sabbath, etc. etc. etc...

re: #118 ladycatnip

#98 doriangray

Sure can. When Paul said he was all things to all men, he was breaking down the wall of distinction of granting only salvation to the Jews; now the Gentiles were included in God's salvation.

And Jesus certainly addressed this in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Remember Samaritans were considered to be dogs in the culture at that time. He also spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, again breaking cultural norms of racism.

There's plenty more. Just read the Bible.

one of the interesting cultural distinctions of the Samaritans was that they were an offshoot of Judaism, but at the time, among other things, they believed in an afterlife, for which they were ridiculed by the more numerous mainstream Hebrews.
I find that a interesting detail of why the historical Christ might have specifically used the Samaritan as an example of a person more in touch with spiritual truth. They believed the soul didn't die and was not forever attached to the body.

re: #170 Salamantis

It was a self-serving sentiment, considering that it was forbidden in the antebellum South to teach slaves to read and write.

I don't think that was the policy of the Southern Baptists, but of individual states. Many slaves did read and write, law or no.

re: #147 Sharmuta

. . . . Nazis suck.

Yah, sure, yew betcha!

re: #174 rawmuse

I don't think that was the policy of the Southern Baptists, but of individual states. Many slaves did read and write, law or no.

Who do you think elected the legislators who passed such laws?

re: #160 Dianna

You're wrong about Roman slavery; it was not race-based.

Paul's letter addresses equality in the Church, and in the eyes of the deity. Thus, neither slave nor free, male nor female, Jew nor Gentile.

Like most of Paul, it's the basis of Christian theology, and has become the notion that all are - and ought to be - equal everywhere, and that it is the act of a good Christian to promote that equality.

I am not critical of the current interpretation of that "letter", but the fact that slavery is simply taken as granted in the statement is not something that could be accepted today. Slavery is, if anything, an even worse concept than the one of personal racist bias, yet Paul's acceptance of it is taken at face value.

As to Roman slavery, that is not the basis of the debate, though I doubt they were immune to racial biases or preferences.

re: #37 Salamantis
"people must be considered to be members of the religion that they practice and profess,"
And when they profess it but don't practice it, are we then still obliged to consider them Christians? I would think not.

re: #176 Salamantis

Who do you think elected the legislators who passed such laws?

Men.
And who taught school?
Women.

re: #129 Dianna

Case in point, Christopher Smart.

Look up "My Cat, Jeoffry" some time.

Thanks - just reading this now. Fascinating...

re: #169 least

I have actually read the new testament. I grant, it's been a few years; I seem to remember that the woman at the well wasn't identified as a Samaritan, though since Jesus was travelling in Samaria at the time, she might have been.

I mostly remember that Jesus asked her where her husband was, and she replied that she had no husband; and Jesus told her that it was just as well she'd answered that way, for he knew that she'd had five husbands.

So...why did you ask?

Didn't Hitler believe something olong those lines, that Jesus was Aryan?

re: #168 theparson

I just didn't communicate it well. Sorry

I suspect that is the root of most of the disagreement in this thread. realwest has made the point quite clear that yes a person can make the claim to being a Christian while in fact not being a Christian, Jesus Christ himself made exactly that same claim. The Apostle Paul was very clear on that same point so there is no question regarding the reality of the statement. The only real question here is regarding who has the discernment to make the call that someone claiming to be a Christian is or is not really a Christian.

In spite of being a follower of Jesus Christ for over 30 years I personally am profoundly reluctant to make such a assertion. To quote the Apostle Paul I know that my heart is deceitful and wicked and do not trust it to make such assertions.

re: #167 Dianna

I'm blanking on that one. Let me google.

Their are several stripes of "Christian Identity" in the US, one of them is tied to DI, they tend to read Rushdoony and Chilton, and are the hard core reconstructions like Gary Bauer, etc. The Aryan stripe reads stormfront and VDARE.

re: #176 Salamantis

Who do you think elected the legislators who passed such laws?

Of course, it was the Property Owners. And the War was as much about Property rights as anything. Self-serving, yes. This cannot be denied.

re: #185 rawmuse

Of course, it was the Property Owners. And the War was as much about Property rights as anything. Self-serving, yes. This cannot be denied.

You're badly losing the karma war.

/try ripping on Christians more

re: #177 Naso Tang

You need to do some more reading on Rome, really, you do.

The ancient world, generally, saw nothing wrong with slavery. Paul had no reason to view slavery with loathing, as we do; he lived with it every day.

Interestingly, however, one of the most common acts of Christian charity, from very early on, was to free slaves.

re: #178 realwest

"people must be considered to be members of the religion that they practice and profess,"
And when they profess it but don't practice it, are we then still obliged to consider them Christians? I would think not.

In their own opinion, they ARE practicing it. Opinions differ. Even when some of them are morally repugnant.

They would probably not consider you to be a Christian, either. Or at least they would consider you to be a bad one, because you do not share their prejudices, which they religuiously justify.

re: #161 theparson

As I said, today we would find Paul's acceptance of slavery as reprehensible and expect any similar statement to not just claim equality to Jesus, but equality in human rights.

Having said that, your interpretation of the 3:28 is admirable, but I point out that anyone in the days of slavery would have easily interpreted it as a tacit approval of slavery.

re: #179 mean Gene

Men.
And who taught school?
Women.

And when anyone was caught teaching slaves to read and write in the antebellum South, they were prosecuted according to the laws of the time.

re: #182 Rancher

Didn't Hitler believe something olong those lines, that Jesus was Aryan?

The article title uses a quote from Wehrmacht belt buckles: "God mitt uns" or God is with us. The point of this is to be aware that the bigots are out there, and Christians need to be aware and not let them subsume their good causes with lunacy.

re: #182 Rancher

Didn't Hitler believe something olong those lines, that Jesus was Aryan?

He probably did, based on European Art depictions of Jesus available to him.
His school students had believed that Germany was at least as large as the USA because of the way the country's History texts made the size of the maps.
(Didn't make it true.)

re: #178 realwest

"people must be considered to be members of the religion that they practice and profess,"
And when they profess it but don't practice it, are we then still obliged to consider them Christians? I would think not.

THAT is why I hate the term "practising Catholic" -- there is no such thing IMO.

re: #184 Thanos

Their are several stripes of "Christian Identity" in the US, one of them is tied to DI, they tend to read Rushdoony and Chilton, and are the hard core reconstructions like Gary Bauer, etc. The Aryan stripe reads stormfront and VDARE.

Yes, but why did you mention the Council of Chalcedon? I'm reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article, and - so far - I haven't figured out what your point was.

re: #185 rawmuse

Of course, it was the Property Owners. And the War was as much about Property rights as anything. Self-serving, yes. This cannot be denied.

And these antebellum plantation owners considered slaves to be their property, as much as their estates.

re: #139 hermitI b'lieve I will go there.
*shakes dust off sandals*
*leaves*

re: #195 Salamantis

And these antebellum plantation owners considered slaves to be their property, as much as their estates.

Make no doubt, the slaves WERE their property. And their responsibility.

re: #171 ornery elephant

Edmund Standing is an anti-Christian, anti-semite hate monger. Don't believe me? Here's his words:

Sadly, this is our world today. The leader I referred to in my narrative above is the God spoken of in the Old Testament, the God of Jews and Christians, and the book recording his actions is, of course, the Bible. The God proclaimed in the Old Testament, were he to be a modern leader, would be indicted for crimes against humanity. Instead, he is worshipped today by millions. This is a tragedy.

This is a disgusting human being.

Link to Standing's article...

Sounds to me like a devout atheist in the mold of Hitchens and Dawkins (who he appears to defend). But I don't see anything anti-Christian or antisemitic (which implies antipathy toward people rather than ridicule of their beliefs) in anything he's written. You have more evidence for that accusation?

re: #195 Salamantis

And these antebellum plantation owners considered slaves to be their property, as much as their estates.

Of course they did - the form of slavery practised in the south was chattel slavery, the most restrictive and strictly "property based" view of slavery.

re: #104 Salamantis
"It took them a long long time. Most Southern Baptists supported Jim Crow laws and were virulently opposed to Brown vs. Board of Education, for instance."
Your language there is in the past tense. So do you believe that Southern Baptists today are not Christian?

Much of my research on this topic has come through my studies of American music history, in which race relations (and resulting politics) are thoroughly infused.

re: #181 Dianna

Actually, John 4:7 does identify the woman as a Samaritan woman.

re: #178 realwest

"people must be considered to be members of the religion that they practice and profess,"
And when they profess it but don't practice it, are we then still obliged to consider them Christians? I would think not.

I'm sure that there are people who call themselves Christian who would not think that you practice the religion properly either. Are they then still obliged to consider you Christian? Nope. Does it matter that they deny you are a Christian? Does their opinion make you a non-Christian? Nope.

re: #193 hermit
So you would say, then, that someone either is a Catholic or isn't? I'd agree with that 100%.

"...interesting background on connections between the British National Party and extreme right-wing (in fact, wacko-wing)..." . . . yes -- wacko-wing does make more sense - less confusing.

re: #200 realwest

"It took them a long long time. Most Southern Baptists supported Jim Crow laws and were virulently opposed to Brown vs. Board of Education, for instance."
Your language there is in the past tense. So do you believe that Southern Baptists today are not Christian?

No, I believe that they not only ARE Christian, but also that they always WERE. In spite of their racist history.

re: #187 Dianna

You need to do some more reading on Rome, really, you do.

The ancient world, generally, saw nothing wrong with slavery. Paul had no reason to view slavery with loathing, as we do; he lived with it every day.

Interestingly, however, one of the most common acts of Christian charity, from very early on, was to free slaves.

I wasn't aware we were discussing Rome as such. The underlying point here is, what is Christian?

Paul was quoted as a perfect example of true Christian attitude, yet I point out that true Christians today would consider acceptance of slavery (regardless of race), which Paul had, as being as bad as an any form of racism today and slavers in the past would have been comforted by his acceptance of it.

Someone here said earlier that Rev. Wright is NOT a Christian, which is what started my points.

I think he is a Christian, who I don't admire. That really is all I am saying.

re: #202 theparson

Actually, John 4:7 does identify the woman as a Samaritan woman.

Ah! Good.

As I said, it's been a few years.

Did I at least get the broad outline right?

re: #208 Dianna

Ah! Good.

As I said, it's been a few years.

Did I at least get the broad outline right?

You did fine!

re: #194 Dianna

Yes, but why did you mention the Council of Chalcedon? I'm reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article, and - so far - I haven't figured out what your point was.

Rushdoony

The Dominionists go back to this point of reference, it's the tie in to Orthodoxy and Armenia, via the Calvinists somehow, I haven't quite figured it all out myself yet, so I won't put my theories forth, they are not strong enough yet, still investigating.

To assume that ALL of a Southern demographic were in favor of denying teaching the Negro to read and write because a simple majority of such demographic voted in such abhorrent laws is false.

It would be as likely to assume that we on these threads are all in favor of President Barack Obama, which we are clearly not.

I recently told my sister that I believe I would have more liberty as a christian in this country, with our current constitution, if all the politicians were atheists (true atheists, not anti-christians, mind you) and the churches were full, than to see one more christian politician reveal him/herself a complete hypocrite to those who supposedly share their faith.

re: #209 theparson

You did fine!

Psst. That was a pun.

#177 Naso Tang

I am not critical of the current interpretation of that "letter", but the fact that slavery is simply taken as granted in the statement is not something that could be accepted today. Slavery is, if anything, an even worse concept than the one of personal racist bias, yet Paul's acceptance of it is taken at face value.

As to Roman slavery, that is not the basis of the debate, though I doubt they were immune to racial biases or preferences.

You cannot revise history or the Bible just because you find something repugnant in it. The history of that time was brutal - consider the crucifixion. Slavery was a cultural practice and had been for thousands of years. It had nothing to do with skin color. Sometimes it was because of indebtedness, others because one group of people were conquered by another. Please remember the Jews themselves were slaves for hundreds of years to the Egyptians and later to the Babylonians. It was considered normal.

The teaching in the Bible was never meant to encourage political mass hysteria over government wrongs in order to right them. It's a book of transcendent truths; if you were enslaved to someone during the time of Paul's writings, he admonished the slave owner to treat his slaves well, and equally admonished those who were slaves to work well.

Cherry-picking the Bible for political correctness just doesn't fly.

re: #204 realwest
Yes.
re: #94 hermit

If one is prepared to claim a faith, then they ought to be accountable to the tenets of that faith. While I may believe whole-heartedly in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but cannot right now call myself catholic, because I have not been to mass for several months. I believe, but I may not wear the uniform in public while I am AWOL.

I gotta go eat.

There is a difference between being a Christian, and being a good Christian. And what it means to be a good Christian has changed over time, as the ethics of their cultures and societies have evolved.

Once upon a time, Christians could be sexist and/or racist and still be considered to be good Christians by their fellow believers, but no longer. And in the future, homophobic Christians will also not be considered to be good Christians by their fellow believers.

re: #213 Naso Tang

I guess I'm missing it.

re: #208 Dianna

Did I at least get the broad outline right?

Hey, did you just call the Woman at the Well a broad?!
Samaritan-ist!
Well-ist!

re: #214 ladycatnip

Cherry-picking the Bible for political correctness just doesn't fly.

I agree entirely, and will add cherry picking for any other reason as well.

re: #207 Naso Tang

Oh.

I think you missed Paul's point, rather badly. Paul knew that all people are equal spiritually, whatever their condition in the secular world. He also knew that there was no way for the congregations of Christians - who (at that period, anyway) were mostly urban and poor, to do much about slavery. What Paul preached against was any discrimination within the Church, or any concern about status.

Paul cannot be condemned for his acceptance of his world, considering that his doctrine - equality - was a radical departure from that of his world. That was not a common view in most cults of Rome. The implications of the doctrine are radical. It just took time to work out.

I don't see how you can think that anyone of even slight good will, or neutrality, could condemn Paul.

As to what I was saying about Rome, it's actually relevant to the discussion, but it presumes more time than I think you have.

re: #198 Lynn B.

Well Lynn, there's plenty of stuff that Edmund Standing has put forth for me to label him anti-Christian, anti-Semite. Here's another example of this hate monger's thought patterns:

Jesus' mind was infested with Jewish apocalyptic fantasies and his cosmology was based on a Judeocentric universe created and ruled by the god of the Old Testament. We should not be shocked to find prejudice and ignorance in such a man. We should, however, be shocked every time we see someone today enthusiastically leafing through Matthew's gospel or spouting inane rubbish about it being the 'Word of God'.

Link...

re: #211 rawmuse

To assume that ALL of a Southern demographic were in favor of denying teaching the Negro to read and write because a simple majority of such demographic voted in such abhorrent laws is false.

It would be as likely to assume that we on these threads are all in favor of President Barack Obama, which we are clearly not.

But it is equally true that a majority of voting Southern Baptists, the dominant Southern denomination at the time, did indeed feel that way. And were considered to be Christian in spite of it.

re: #210 Thanos

Rushdoony

The Dominionists go back to this point of reference, it's the tie in to Orthodoxy and Armenia, via the Calvinists somehow, I haven't quite figured it all out myself yet, so I won't put my theories forth, they are not strong enough yet, still investigating.

OK.

I'll read further and see where I end up.

re: #217 Salamantis

Now we get in to the "Grace vs. Good Works" argument.
Another day for that one, but I am in the "grace" category.

re: #1 Sharmuta

Some sick, twisted stuff. Sadly- too many people have bought into the "they're pro-Israel" line without having bothered to look deeper.

Well- here's the ugly truth, and I doubt the fascists sympathizers will even blink.

Okay -- ready to catch up some with all this. . . . So who comes first to mind when one mentions the "fascists sympathizers"?

re: #217 Salamantis

There is a difference between being a Christian, and being a good Christian. And what it means to be a good Christian has changed over time, as the ethics of their cultures and societies have evolved.

Once upon a time, Christians could be sexist and/or racist and still be considered to be good Christians by their fellow believers, but no longer. And in the future, homophobic Christians will also not be considered to be good Christians by their fellow believers.

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian, I forget?

/for the record

re: #225 rawmuse

Now we get in to the "Grace vs. Good Works" argument.
Another day for that one, but I am in the "grace" category.

People who accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior are indeed Christians, regardless of whatever else they might believe.

re: #221 Dianna

Oh. As to what I was saying about Rome, it's actually relevant to the discussion, but it presumes more time than I think you have.

I agree with your summation. I also agree with you assertion above. This is a very complex issue and can't really be given a fair treatment on a blog, IMHO.

re: #225 rawmuse

Now we get in to the "Grace vs. Good Works" argument.
Another day for that one, but I am in the "grace" category.

Me too..... ;)

re: #227 Killian Bundy

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian, I forget?

/for the record

No, I've been a Pagan for more than 30 years. But I was raised Southern Baptist, and was a youth choir director in a 2000 member church in Oklahoma City.

re: #227 Killian Bundy

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian, I forget?

/for the record

If memory serves me correctly Sal is an atheist... I might be mistaken though....

re: #18 MandyManners

I'm not surprised at the things some believe. This world gets stranger every day, who can keep up with it all.

re: #225 rawmuse

Now we get in to the "Grace vs. Good Works" argument.
Another day for that one, but I am in the "grace" category.

Oh, and then let's get into the whole predestination vs. free will argument, too!

re: #227 Killian Bundy

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian, I forget?

/for the record

Killian,

Sal has as much credibility in citing what it's like to be a Christian as I have in citing what it's like to be an 18 yr old girl that voted for Obama.

Sal,

How about you give up trying to portray a Christian's intent and I won't start trying to portray a pagan's?

re: #234 Dianna

Oh, and then let's get into the whole predestination vs. free will argument, too!

How about we dont and just pretend we did?

re: #231 Salamantis

No, I've been a Pagan for more than 30 years. But I was raised Southern Baptist, and was a youth choir director in a 2000 member church in Oklahoma City.

/fair enough, full disclosure

re: #235 ornery elephant

Killian,

Sal has as much credibility in citing what it's like to be a Christian as I have in citing what it's like to be an 18 yr old girl that voted for Obama.

Sal,

How about you give up trying to portray a Christian's intent and I won't start trying to portray a pagan's?

Good afternoon OE....................... ;) How you doing this fine chilly day my friend...

re: #235 ornery elephant

Killian,

Sal has as much credibility in citing what it's like to be a Christian as I have in citing what it's like to be an 18 yr old girl that voted for Obama.

Sal,

How about you give up trying to portray a Christian's intent and I won't start trying to portray a pagan's?

But I have been a Christian. You, otoh, have never been an 18 year old female Obama voter.

re: #229 theparson

I agree with your summation. I also agree with you assertion above. This is a very complex issue and can't really be given a fair treatment on a blog, IMHO.

Good heavens, no! At least, not outside a very specialized one.

So far as I can tell, after all the years I've been interested in Rome and reading about it, I'm just scratching the surface.

My recent interest in the sequence of Roman civil wars has really improved my Latin, though!

re: #240 Dianna

Good heavens, no! At least, not outside a very specialized one.

So far as I can tell, after all the years I've been interested in Rome and reading about it, I'm just scratching the surface.

My recent interest in the sequence of Roman civil wars has really improved my Latin, though!

It's all greek to me :)

Gotta go for now.

How 'bout them Cowboys!

re: #231 Salamantis

Forgive me for saying this, but you sound much angrier about the Southern Baptists than you do happy about being a pagan.

I'm not angry at my old church, and I'm certainly not angry at Christians or Christianity; you seem to be. I'm not sure I understand.

re: #224 Dianna

It's been a while since I was out at Rushdoony's site, they've retooled again to tone down the message.

re: #222 ornery elephant

Well Lynn, there's plenty of stuff that Edmund Standing has put forth for me to label him anti-Christian, anti-Semite. Here's another example of this hate monger's thought patterns:

Jesus' mind was infested with Jewish apocalyptic fantasies and his cosmology was based on a Judeocentric universe created and ruled by the god of the Old Testament. We should not be shocked to find prejudice and ignorance in such a man. We should, however, be shocked every time we see someone today enthusiastically leafing through Matthew's gospel or spouting inane rubbish about it being the 'Word of God'.

Link...

Again, I see more ridicule of Christian and Jewish (specifically pre-Christian Jewish) religious beliefs and, again, nothing I haven't read in Dawkins' and Hitchens' rantings on the same subject. Still don't see anything to justify calling him anti-Christian or antisemitic (as opposed to anti-Biblical religion), and numerous parts of the article Charles linked imply the contrary.

re: #239 Salamantis

I guess if you were a Christian once Sal, it's entirely possible that I had an out-of-body pagan experience on 11/4/08 and actually did inhabit the body of an 18 yr old girl and cast a vote for Obama.

I would probably blame it on ACORN now, though.

re: #181 Dianna

I know, I know . . . I said I was leaving -- but then I read Dianna's comment (#181) where she aksded why I aksed (in #169) why I wanted to know why she said what she said ( in #134).

So I says, "The Samaritan woman said to Him, 'You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman . . ." - that's from John 4:9

NOW I go!
TTFN

re: #221 Dianna

I think I understand more than you think. I wasn't actually condemning Paul and I appreciate that he was not being a revolutionary. I was commenting on the usage of quotes to make a broad point. Parson said that Paul addressed a specific issue on racism. Paul did not. For every reading of tolerance in the bible there can be one of intolerance, and even this quote can be interpreted as favoring something abhorrent, like slavery, if one should so choose; which is the essence of the OP.

re: #236 doriangrey

How about we dont and just pretend we did?

I was being ironic.

re: #229 theparson

I agree with your summation. I also agree with you assertion above. This is a very complex issue and can't really be given a fair treatment on a blog, IMHO.

Oh yes it can ;)

re: #248 Dianna

I was being ironic.

I know, but that particular discussion/debate gives me serious headaches.....

re: #242 Dianna

Forgive me for saying this, but you sound much angrier about the Southern Baptists than you do happy about being a pagan.

I'm not angry at my old church, and I'm certainly not angry at Christians or Christianity; you seem to be. I'm not sure I understand.

I'm not angry about them at all. I was one up until adulthood. I just changed my faith to one that better suited me, as anyone in America can.

And I am very happy to be a Pagan. If I wasn't, I would change again, to some other faith with which I was happier.

re: #203 Jimmah
Your reply is remarkably similar to that of Salamantis in his #188.
What I am saying here is fairly simple and straightforward. There are some aspects to being a Christian which to me and to all Christians I know, are objectively observable: being a racist or a homophobe would, for example, exclude one from being able to claim that they are Christians.
But the fact of the matter is that few people other than Atheists, Agnostics or Christians seem to be willing to make "judgment" calls on whether or not someone is behaving in a "Christian like" manner. Those of us who are Christian and at least strive to speak and act in a Christian fashion are, regrettably unable to get separation out here from those extreme right-wing (in fact, wacko-wing) "Christian " groups - and indeed are told by some people that because someone calls himself (or herself) a Christian, in spite of saying and acting in what I believe an overwhelming majority of "Christians" would consider very Christian -like manner are no different than those "Christians" of The Westboro Baptist Church.
I don't understand why this seperation is so difficult to achieve but I do believe it's impossible to achieve here and will hereafter avoid these "discussions".

re: #244 Lynn B.

Again, I see more ridicule of Christian and Jewish (specifically pre-Christian Jewish) religious beliefs and, again, nothing I haven't read in Dawkins' and Hitchens' rantings on the same subject. Still don't see anything to justify calling him anti-Christian or antisemitic (as opposed to anti-Biblical religion), and numerous parts of the article Charles linked imply the contrary.

Lynn,

You seem to be assuming that I don't consider both Dawkins and Hitchens as anti-Christian.