…and this is a 
We're getting blamed for everything
Category: Kooks
Posted on: April 14, 2008 12:27 PM, by PZ Myers
Would you believe that atheists are to blame for the Westboro Baptist Church?
They can't be real Christians. They must be part of an atheist cabal.
Their goal? To undermine churches. To give religion a black eye. To plant in the minds of the young a twisted and evil view of Christianity.
Somebody needs to be introduced to Poe's Law. Besides, everyone knows that crazy religion can't be blamed on the godless … it's actually a conspiracy by squirrels.
Comments
I've met the Phelps family on a few occasions (a 'benefit' of living in Kansas). They are very much fervent Christians. It's just another case of the No True Scotsman fallacy often employed by Christians who are ashamed that their religion produces some loonies.
Posted by: Doug | April 14, 2008 12:29 PM
Ahh, the good old "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Posted by: Plutarch | April 14, 2008 12:32 PM
The Westboro Baptist Church is actually part of the gay cabal.
Posted by: J | April 14, 2008 12:35 PM
I think that line about atheists was tongue in cheek. I wasn't offended, and found it humorous anyway.
Posted by: Bob O'H | April 14, 2008 12:43 PM
Wherever two or more of you are gathered in His Name
The odds will rise, the exercise is one of casting blame.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | April 14, 2008 12:45 PM
You mean a Nut Group?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 14, 2008 12:49 PM
Cuttlefish(#5)
Well done, my friend. That is worthy of Ambrose Bierce.
Posted by: Larry | April 14, 2008 12:57 PM
Is this also referring to the Dishonesty Institute, Premise Media, and Expelled?
Whether their intent is to trash Xianity and create a backlash or not, that is what they are doing.
I'm noticing a lot lately that calling someone a fundie is getting to be an insult. They much prefer being called ignorant, lying, bigots who want to destroy the USA for Jesus. In their minds that sounds much better.
Posted by: raven | April 14, 2008 12:59 PM
That squirrel video is hysterically funny. Thanks for making my day.
Posted by: dogheaven | April 14, 2008 1:02 PM
Or Hanlon's Razor
Posted by: tsg | April 14, 2008 1:09 PM
Well, sure, it's also really we who came up with Expelled, to deny the truth that ID isn't religious in nature, and to make them look like incompetent losers who can only attack by using ad hominems.
And I'd like to personally claim responsibility for this tidbit (OK, not directly, but via my evil influence). It's an announcemnt for Expelled:
OK, but why would I mess with our atheist film's title? Because not everyone is as bright as we'd like them to be, and might not figure out that "no intelligence allowed" refers to Stein & co. "No intelligence here" spells it out for those who can't take a hint.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 14, 2008 1:12 PM
A link to a Ray Stevens video???
I thought this was a Science blog!!!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | April 14, 2008 1:13 PM
If WBC were somehow a product of the atheist cabal, they wouldn't stop at 'God Hates Fags' on their signs, but instead would list everything the God of Love hates: women, Canaanites, uncircumcised boys, Egyptians, Amalekites, those that follow a different god (yet He curiously makes very little effort to have His one true god self known to all His children), witches, wizards, the handicapped, strangers, slaves, foreigners, Amorites, Midianites, artists, Hazorites, Moabites, Philistines,....
Boy, I can sure see now why Xians view us atheists as so lonely without God's love to
smiteshine o'er us.Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 14, 2008 1:24 PM
Since the "No True Scotsman" and "Hanlon's Razor" points have already been covered...
*waits for Holbach to show up and tell us it's really The Male that's collectively responsible for the WBC*
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 14, 2008 1:25 PM
Really. Who could believe that people who base their life on the beautiful writing of the bible could believe the people from the WBC are christians:
Romans 1:27 - 32.
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Posted by: Kay | April 14, 2008 1:27 PM
I know that the Westboro bunch make most "mainstream" Christians feel uncomfortable, but to try and push them off as an atheist conspiracy is just plain stupid. WBC is a product of the intolerant, hatemongering fundamentalism that has overtaken many Christians in their reaction to modernity and secularism. WBC is a direct result of years and years and years of using Christianity (and religion in general) to beat up on whatever group(s) is/are the pariah of the day.
If Christians are uncomfortable with the message that WBC is preaching, then they themselves need to do something about it. Where are the contingents of ministers from other churches, sitting down with the Phelpses and asking them to cut it out? Where are the laypeople who stand by and say "not in my name" yet don't so much as lift a finger to do anything about it?
The Phelpses and the WBC are probably the best-known extremists in America today, but the message of Bible-based intolerance and hate is by no means unique to them. The same sort of vile, shrill hatemongering is the stock and trade of many, many Sunday morning sermons at churches all over this country.
Christians, it's time to clean house. Stop blaming others for problems created by members of your own community. If you're tired of seeing Phelps and his clan make a mockery of the teachings of Jesus, then do something about it and put an end to that sideshow.
Posted by: Jonathon | April 14, 2008 1:29 PM
Are the Phelps's still suing everybody that speaks agin' 'em? Bunch of peckerwoods...
But the video! Ha! First Self-Righteous Church in Pascagoula! Unfortunately spent too many childhood days in a church like that. Why didn't I think to take a squirrel????!!!!
I don't know how Pascagoula held up from Katrina, but I doubt it was well. Back when I lived in MS, it was a dump. I'm trying to think of one redeeming feature...
....Thinking....
....Thinking....
Nope. Nothing.
Posted by: Aquaria | April 14, 2008 1:31 PM
I'm sure it was tongue in cheek. But would the writer have dared to substitute "a Catholic cabal", "a Jewish cabal", or "a Muslim cabal" (with corresponding changes to the subsequent sentences) for "an atheist cabal"?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 14, 2008 1:35 PM
Cabal: n 1: a clique that seeks power usually through intrigue 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act [syn: conspiracy]
Yep, here we are plotting in secret - conspiring - to carry out illegal acts.
Oh, wait. This is all public. And legal.
Maybe the ID crowd, or possibly Ben Stein, or even the Catholic Church, deserve the title more.
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 14, 2008 1:36 PM
Jesus, and people wonder why I left California... Between attracting 3 of ever 4 kooks and cranks in America, there's plenty of bigotry, racism, eco-facists, neocons, and just about every idiot group known to mankind, including the effing KKK and enough wacko religious cults to start your own jihad. Including the inbred nit-wit that wrote that particular editorial, there are probably 20 million worthless dregs in the damn over-populated, over-developed, corporatist/placticized state.
I don't even like to back to visit anymore. And Australia, albeit not perfect, is looking better EVERY DAY.
Posted by: Moses | April 14, 2008 1:38 PM
Christians, it's time to clean house. Stop blaming others for problems created by members of your own community. If you're tired of seeing Phelps and his clan make a mockery of the teachings of Jesus, then do something about it and put an end to that sideshow.
The problem is Phelps is not making a mockery of Jesus teaching. Homosexuality is a capital crime in the Bible. Phelps is just saying something the rest of them are to cowardly to say.
Posted by: Bob L | April 14, 2008 1:42 PM
OT:
There was talk on a thread awhile back that Cuttlefish should be specially honoured for his unique talents and contributions to this blog (an idea with which I wholeheartedly concur).
Perhaps Larry has hit upon a name for this new-fangled award: the Ambrose Bierce Award (informally known as the 'Biercey'.)
Thus, I hereby nominate Cuttlefish for Pharyngula's first-ever Biercey. And who could be more deserving? After all, the Cuttlefish's poetry is pure ambrosia.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 14, 2008 1:43 PM
A link to a Ray Stevens video???
Sven, you saved me before I clicked on that link. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I absolutely did NOT need that song running through my brain - no, wait, it's there anyway! Noooooooooo!!!!!!!
Posted by: Carlie | April 14, 2008 1:44 PM
The original post made me laugh..the comments made me cry.. :(
Posted by: Scott | April 14, 2008 1:44 PM
Everyone knows that every blunder made in the name of faith is actually the fault of atheists. Just like the Inquisition. Come on people, read your history books.
Posted by: Jay | April 14, 2008 1:50 PM
Wow, those comments are racking up fallacies at an astonishing rate.
My favorite ones are where people think they are being intelligent and berating someone else for overgeneralizing when no such thing took place. Apparently Christians do not share any attributes. And most certainly not any negative ones. It's like arguing with a child, who is just parroting lines he's seen others use with good result, but clearly has no idea what he's actually saying or whether it's relevant in the discussion.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | April 14, 2008 1:55 PM
Oh, come on, Romans? If its lust, rapine and murder all rolled into one that you want, come on, you can't beat the OT, especially Leviticus 20. Now those Levites knew how to wedge rebellious children, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and incest of more kinds than one could imagine in 12 verses between exhortations to worship statues honoring Yahweh.
That's the kind of Scripture that can really get the congregation hopping for the organ.
Posted by: Aquaria | April 14, 2008 1:55 PM
Kay (#15),
Don't you know that the reach of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy extends to rewriting the original, impeccably-moral, scientifically-accurate Bible so that it appears to be a bronze-age, morally-anachronistic book of myths?
Posted by: Jason Failes | April 14, 2008 1:55 PM
RE: Bob L @ #21
The portion of the Bible dealing with the "criminal" aspect of homosexual relations is in the Book of Leviticus. Capital punishment is prescribed for this "offense" as well as many others.
We do not have any commentary from Jesus himself on the issue of homosexuality. The denouncement of homosexuality in the Book of Romans comes not from the words and teachings of Jesus but rather from the pen of Paul (or whoever in the early church decided to write it for him). So, Jesus' position on the rights of same-sex couples and of homosexuals in general as we are known in this day and age are not known.
My comment, which you referenced in your comment, was directed at those Christians who would say that Phelps is part of an atheist conspiracy. The WBC call themselves Christians and say that their arguments are Bible-based. If other Christians are unhappy to be associated with Phelps and his clan then they should do something about it other than trying to pawn them off onto another group.
In my mind, the WBC are actually Yahwists. They seem to love the old-fashioned, fire and brimstone, vengeful, merciless, jealous and petty Yahweh/Jehova that we know from the Torah and the "Old Testament" and give very little regard to the teachings of Jesus. They advocate strict adherence to Mosaic law, parts of which are rejected by most modern-day Jews and some of which was rejected by Jesus himself.
Remember the line about "not casting the first stone"? Jesus interceded for a woman accused of adultery and prevented her execution by stoning. Rather than rebuke her, he forgave her and sent her own her way with the instruction to "sin no more". This is one of the many reasons that Jesus was despised by the religious leadership of his time.
Posted by: Jonathon | April 14, 2008 1:56 PM
The worst comments are the ones yelling at anyone who disagrees with them where they claim atheists are bringing it up, when the original article is just a horrible piece of slanderous poop against atheists.
Am I allowed to say slanderous instead of libelous because I think it sounds better? :(
Posted by: Scott | April 14, 2008 2:04 PM
*waits for Holbach to show up and tell us it's really The Male that's collectively responsible for the WBC*
As long as it's not PYGMIES + DWARFS who are responsible...
Posted by: DwarfPygmy | April 14, 2008 2:05 PM
If you look on the web a little you can find groups that don't think they are extreme enough. For every extreme Christian sect, there is another one that considers them heretical.
As despicable as they are, they don't hide their true beliefs. Other groups believe the same thing but dress up their dogma to make it not look so bad.
Posted by: jeh | April 14, 2008 2:06 PM
Kay @15 What is this, the freaking bible network? We are trying to dispense with logic and your spouting biblical crap and insanity. Why don't you log onto the Westboro house of insanity's website where you can join them in their gushing of derangement!
Posted by: Holbach | April 14, 2008 2:11 PM
I'm thinking about the mechanism of belief after watching the Ray Stevens video about the squirrel in the First Self-Righteous Church.
I couldn't help but think how funny this was - to all of us - back when I lived among the Christians.
But the really funny thing is that if you view it from the perspective of a non-believer, the song opens up the box of belief and shows the inner workings. This revival of devotion was caused by a tree rat loose in the church, touching and scaring people.
And yet for the believers, it can all still seem true. Christian listeners can see the box torn open and still believe in the magic: It was a squirrel that caused everybody to get religion? --Then the squirrel was sent by God.
Yeah, yeah, I know it's just a song. But it's still food for thought.
Posted by: Hank Fox | April 14, 2008 2:13 PM
Holbach (#32),
I think Kay was making a fairly straight-up point that such immoral morality is not a misinterpretation of Christian doctrine, but is rather a natural expression of Christian doctrine.
I don't think he was advocating the bible, but rather pointing out that it is logically inconsistent for Christians to believe the Bible is perfect and inerrant, yet also criticize Phelps and other's who derive their world view from it.
Posted by: Jason Failes | April 14, 2008 2:24 PM
Nope. Slander is oral. Libel is written, printed, painted, sculpted, etc.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 14, 2008 2:26 PM
I know which is which, if I didn't I wouldn't have any reason to ask if I could differ to taste instead of correctness.
Posted by: Scott | April 14, 2008 2:34 PM
I would have sworn that the reference to an "atheist cabal" was ironic, and rather funny, but looking at the comments has shaken my - er - faith. A newspaper is a commercial enterprise that has to take into account its readers. If the paper's audience is so damnably dumb, maybe the editorial writer, who should know the audience, meant it as many took it.
Posted by: CJColucci | April 14, 2008 2:35 PM
If a major motion picture can contend that evolution is responsible for the Holocaust, it's not a bigger departure from reality to claim atheism may be responsible for fundamentalist Christianity.
Posted by: Barry Klatzkin | April 14, 2008 2:36 PM
"In the absence of religion good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. In the presence of religion a lot of good people will do bad things" :) words of a wise man - sorry I forgot who
Posted by: RedPrince | April 14, 2008 2:40 PM
Damnit! They found me out! I flew to Kansas in 1955 and had the Eastside Baptist Church kick Phelps out, knowing that was all the push he need to form his own church.
Then I fronted him with money in order to help him get off the ground. I got this money from the CIA Psychological Operations Division. It was earmarked specifically for starting religious institutions.
I knew setting Phelps up to be a pastor would be a serious blow to religion and would help the great Atheist cause: To convert all of the kids of religious parents to being godless heathens who would all become part of my hellish army after the end of the world.
Posted by: E in MD | April 14, 2008 2:43 PM
I knew even before I clicked through the link what the squirrels comment was about.
Posted by: sistercoyote | April 14, 2008 3:00 PM
Did Ray Stevens' 60s hit "Ahab the Arab" ever earn him a fatwa?
Posted by: Mikey M | April 14, 2008 3:04 PM
Redprince, that would be Steven Wienberg if I remember right (mobel laureate in physics).
So could we somehow get confirmation on whether this was meant as a joke or not? It would be way more funny if it wasn't hehe.
Posted by: Coriolis | April 14, 2008 3:05 PM
Some dude in the comments to that article keeps insisting that Phelps is a democrat. Does anyone know if there is any basis for that, or is it in the same realm as "Obama is a muslim"?
Posted by: Pablo | April 14, 2008 3:07 PM
It's true. Phelps was a democrat. So was Zell.
There is no political party untainted by kooks, I'm afraid.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 14, 2008 3:20 PM
Sometimes it seems easier to believe that there is a plot to undermine Christianity than to believe that the people who spout pseudoscientific nonsense really believe it and are really that poorly informed or dishonest. But I too have only made this claim in jest. Alas, the truth is that Christians regularly do more harm to their own reputation than any opponent ever could.
Posted by: James McGrath | April 14, 2008 3:31 PM
"Ironic rhetorical device," apparently. Not that it would be surprising if they were serious, given many Christians attempts to turn Adolph "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter" Hitler into an atheist.
By that standard, wouldn't it be the case that we do not have any commentary from Jesus himself on any issue?
Posted by: Citizen Z | April 14, 2008 3:32 PM
According to Wikiquotes: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
Posted by: Elf Eye | April 14, 2008 3:38 PM
Assuming that the Gospel authors wrote down what he said correctly, we do in fact have Jesus "word" on several subjects (naturally, I can't come up with a single one off the top of my head and I'm at work, where I don't have a Bible handy). For example: "Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself" I'm pretty sure is (Biblically) Jesus speaking directly.* Of course, the Jesus Seminar went through and picked out using some standard (that I likewise don't remember and don't have my text to hand to reference) those words that were "likely" "most likely," "not likely" and "not at all likely" spoken by Christ.
We just don't have any such commentary on homosexuality. And Paul said a lot of things that Jesus didn't.
*IANAChristian and I'm agnostic as to the existence of a historical Iashua ben Ioseph.
Posted by: sistercoyote | April 14, 2008 3:42 PM
It is written in Holy Scripture that "We want the sense of solidarity and identity that comes from having our interests narrowed and exploited by like-minded zealots!" (Calvin & Hobbes 94: 2-10)
Just sayin'
Posted by: Lyssad | April 14, 2008 4:00 PM
Considering your neck of the woods, you should look up Garrison Keillor's CD with "Gospel Birds" on it.
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Birds-Other-Stories-Wobegon/dp/1565110102
"Irma and Ernie Lundeen's traveling flock of acrobatic, bible-reciting birds"
Posted by: bernarda | April 14, 2008 4:21 PM
Hey, everybody!! Big street party outside Fred's compound in Topeka the day after he croaks!
Flamboyant cross-dressing recommended!
Posted by: Farb | April 14, 2008 4:33 PM
The Gospel of Jesus
Here endeth the gospel of Jesus.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 14, 2008 4:38 PM
They're not fake, a fake religious group would be a lot more entertaining.
Posted by: M. Campbell | April 14, 2008 4:38 PM
A guy named "razor" in the comments said "darnedtoheck..If you want to be left in peace then why are you responding to this stuff,Sounds hypocritical to me,Which is typical seeings how an atheist opened this line of talk.Via treebones 7:09 post."
Guy must be a troll. By his logic, if you went up to some stranger and punched them in the face and they punched back, you could then laugh and say "Ha! You retaliated! That means I was justified in hitting you! If you don't want to be hit, don't defend yourself! I'm so clever!"
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | April 14, 2008 4:49 PM
Yes. It's the typical act-like-a-jackass-and-play-the-victim-for-being-treated-like-one behavior.
Posted by: tsg | April 14, 2008 4:51 PM
Poe's Law got me: I was positive Westboro was a parody, and Landover was real.
Posted by: chancelikely | April 14, 2008 4:53 PM
Doug,
No, it is not another case of "No True Scotsman" Fallacy. As a Christian, I am certainly entitled (nay, required) to judge whether or not Phelps, as a claimant to the name, is a Christian. True Scotsman does not mean that anyone who claims to be X must be afforded the benefit of the doubt. Matt. 7 tells us by their deeds they will be known. Calling oneself a Christian, regardless of fervency or sincerity, is not the litmus test. The bible clearly teaches the concept of excommunication, which presupposes that Christians are to judge. From Phelps's deeds, I judge him to be either a charlatan or an apostate. He is free to make the same judgment of me. But in any case, it is perfectly reasonable for mainstream of Christianity or just an individual Christian to judge that Phelps is outside an acceptable circle of orthodoxy. But of course "Some Christian says Phelps is not a true Christian" will, on this and similar blogs, Pavlovian style, trigger "No True Scotsman" choruses and often a chance to demonstrate that you are clever enough to generate a ™ symbol. Why? Because it is convenient for the weak-minded not to have to make any argument beyond "Phelps is just as much a Christian as anyone else who calls himeslf a Christian."
On this blog it is not impossible to find comments (from non scientists--the arrogance makes the mind reel) about whether, say, Collins or Townes or Ken Miller or Freeman Dyson are "true" scientists. Thus any charge of "True Scotsman Fallacy" deserves a blanket response of pot-kettle-black.
Posted by: heddle | April 14, 2008 5:03 PM
They can't possibly hope to persuade anyone.
My understanding is that Phelps and his church are not trying to persuade anyone, change anything, or seek converts. Despite the word "Baptist" in their name, from what I've read they seem to be following one of the branches of Calvinism, complete with the tenets of pre-election and Total Depravity. Their protests are displays of God's wrath and condemnation, not calls to repentance. God has already saved whom He will, and damned whom He will. Which is, apparently, pretty much everyone.
It is, of course, perfectly acceptable for a Christian such as heddle to judge the Phelps as heretics, and back his case up with the Bible or other forms of revelation. Outsiders, on the other hand, have different rules for judging who is, or is not, Christian (or Muslim or Hindu or Wiccan) -- rules mostly based not just on sincerity, but on whether the beliefs of a sect or individual can be included in the most basic definition.
Posted by: Sastra | April 14, 2008 5:27 PM
#59, I might just be confused and not seeing where you're going with this, but it seems to me that even those non-scientists, the brainless dolts, those idiot peasants, might be able to judge who is or isn't a scientist based on knowing what the defenition of a scientist is.
Of course, when it comes to scientists, you can also apply the "by their works ye might know them." Tossing out non-testable hypotheses without evidence? I'm going to go out on a limb and say maybe that person isn't a scientist, if you will forgive me my arrogance, sir. I'm not making any comments about any of the people you mentioned, I'm just saying in general, maybe as a drooling, non-scientific idiot I might still know what I'm talking about at least sometimes.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | April 14, 2008 5:38 PM
There is a lot about the FLDS in Under the Banner of Heaven. They strike me as the closest adherents to biblical scripture.
Posted by: efp | April 14, 2008 5:57 PM
And I guess that the Mormons are atheists too, trying elaborately parody religion so that it looks even more ridiculous than it already does...
Sometimes, religion pretty much parodies itself.
Posted by: JStein | April 14, 2008 6:03 PM
I cant remember the exact details but i though i heard about a group that was actually posing as a church to make religion look bad. I dunno it might have been a joke or something but it did sound real at the time. Sort of like landover baptist church, which is hilarious.
Posted by: Paul Johnson | April 14, 2008 6:04 PM
No, you're a Calvinist, which is a bunch of New-Agey bullshit, and you're going to burn for all eternity for your heresy.
I can say this with complete certainty as a Catholic, and thus a member of Jesus's only true church on Earth.
Fucking blaspheming neo-Pagan heretic.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 14, 2008 6:12 PM
Get used to it, OctoberMermaid. Twaddle is a moron (when he's not actively engaging in obfuscating obscurantism, that is).
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 14, 2008 6:15 PM
Brownian, OM
Exactly. I see you grasp the concept.
When The Catholic Church, at Trent, placed multiple anathemas on the doctrines of the Reformers they were not committing a "True Scotsman Fallacy." They were judging, as required, that the Reformers (essentially Calvinists) were preaching a different gospel. Having reached that conclusion, Rome did exactly what it was supposed to do: it excommunicated them.
Posted by: heddle | April 14, 2008 6:20 PM
sistercoyote in # 50 said:
"Assuming that the Gospel authors wrote down what he said correctly, we do in fact have Jesus "word" on several subjects".
You know what they say about "assuming", right? :D
The writers of the Gospels never heard (the supposed) Jesus say anything. They likely never met anyone who heard T.S.J. say anything.
None of them wrote down anything about T.S.J. during any period of time that T.S.J. was alive. Not even within a decade, and usually much, much more.
And there is very good evidence that at least some, if not all, of the writers of the Gospel ( whomever they might actually be) were writing falsehoods.
"Of course, the Jesus Seminar went through and picked out using some standard (that I likewise don't remember and don't have my text to hand to reference)"
Not sure who those folks may be, but their name doesn't inspire confidence! :D
If you are interested in this topic, here is an interesting place to start: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 14, 2008 6:37 PM
And there is very good evidence that at least some, if not all, of the writers of the Gospel ( whomever they might actually be) were writing falsehoods.
There is nigh-incontrovertable evidence that what they were engaged in was crafting theological fictions. While this does not jibe with any modern concept of Historical Truth, it is not quite in line with "writing falsehoods," either.
The audiences for these documents had no concept of historical fact; it's not surprising that the authors didn't consider it important. Basically, the entire modern notion of "objectivity" as an ideal for the balanced treatment of a subject simply didn't exist. Nobody expected that a document like a gospel or any other nominally biographical piece of writing wouldn't support a given point of view. This is why the gospels we have are great as windows into the concerns of the various groups practicing early forms of Christianity, but are not considered reliable biographies by us moderns.
None of this means that it's impossible or even unlikely that some authentic sayings made it into the gospels, even if just by accident.
Posted by: CJO | April 14, 2008 7:17 PM
The point is that none of at least the four canonical gospels* mentions homosexuality at all (unless you interpret descriptions of the Apostle John as "the disciple that Jesus loved" in a particular way). Neither does the rest of the New Testament, except for IIRC two of Paul's epistles -- and those never even indirectly imply that Jesus ever opened his mouth.
* I once got hold of a book that is a compilation of the apocryphal ones. There are dozens. The diversity is astonishing.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | April 14, 2008 7:33 PM
"If Christians are uncomfortable with the message that WBC is preaching, then they themselves need to do something about it. "
The religious types are not really upset with the message of the WBC, but with the protest venue. Picketing soldiers' funerals is positively un-Uhmerkin, but none of the faithful complain when they picket the funeral of some poor gay dude stomped to death by yahoos.
Hell, there was no major Christian denunciation of Robertson and Falwell post-9/11, was their garbage really that different from Phelps'?
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | April 14, 2008 7:34 PM
If WBC were somehow a product of the atheist cabal, they wouldn't stop at 'God Hates Fags' on their signs, but instead would list everything the God of Love hates: women, Canaanites, uncircumcised boys, Egyptians, Amalekites, those that follow a different god (yet He curiously makes very little effort to have His one true god self known to all His children), witches, wizards, the handicapped, strangers, slaves, foreigners, Amorites, Midianites, artists, Hazorites, Moabites, Philistines,....
And shellfish. Don't ever forget the shellfish, for they are an abomination.
Posted by: DaveR | April 14, 2008 7:34 PM
As a Christian, I am certainly entitled (nay, required) to judge whether or not Phelps, as a claimant to the name, is a Christian.
A Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Jesus--nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. Heddle, what you seem to be arguing is that an argumentum ad populum is valid rejoinder to a No True Scotsman. Pick your poison well, I suppose.
Posted by: J Myers | April 14, 2008 7:38 PM
heddle, are you also entitled to judge whether Phelps is an atheist? Considering that's the context of Doug's statement, and the context of virtually every use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy as a rebuttal?
I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that someone could diverge so substantially from orthodox Christian practices that it would be incorrect to call them a Christian, generally the objection is to throwing on the mantle of "atheist" instead.
In those cases, what they do is redefine to terms to their advantage. Christians do good things, the ones that do bad things are really atheists. "No True Scotsman" is a convenient shorthand description of this kind of fallacy, is it not? Phelps' beliefs are at least much more influenced by Christianity than atheism.
Posted by: Citizen Z | April 14, 2008 7:59 PM
hahahahahaha, that's hilarious.
But seriously, that's really scary. People are frigging idiots.
Posted by: LisaJ | April 14, 2008 8:03 PM
J Myers,
That is disproved, trivially, by the fact that such a definition renders Satan a Christian. Apart from that, it can be shown that the NT has quite a few examples of people who "believe" but are not saved.Citizen Z
I don't think he is. I think (possibly) he thinks he is a Christian. An atheist doesn't think he is a Christian. No, most Christians come to realize, rather begrudgingly, that atheists are not as bad as we (as Christians) would naively expect, and Christians are not as good as we would naively hope. For example, people like to point out on here that the divorce rate among evangelicals is comparable to the rate of the general public--as if this is a surprise to us. But I can't even estimate how many times I have heard in a sermon that "we should be ashamed" for exactly that statistic.
Well yes, they may be almost entirely "influenced" by Christianity. Any apostasy would be influenced, in a misguided sense, by that which it bastardizes.Posted by: heddle | April 14, 2008 9:19 PM
You've completely missed the point of my comment. And I doubt J Myers will be convinced that his definition is "disproved" by fictional characters.
Posted by: Citizen Z | April 14, 2008 9:48 PM
blah-spit-spew-belch!
That site () is pure poison. I spent half an hour trying to determine if it really was satire or not ... finally I dove into the comment section.
There sure are a lot of morally bankrupt souls lurking there :-(
Posted by: Ben Abbott | April 14, 2008 9:57 PM
heddle is confused as always and this discussion has been had with him before. It is a 'No true Scotsman' as it simply is impossible to tell who and who isn't a 'TRUE BELIEVER'. Phelps feels he is sticking to his version of scripture. This is his interpretation and just because heddle doesn't like it he wants to pretend it isn't Christian. BS.
This has got to be the most abjectly stupid hair brained ignorant responses on a religous topic ever. Satan- a fictional character- is not human. If said being was real he still wouldn't be human. I suppose angels aren't Christians either. A Christian is a human who has faith is Jesus as the son of God. Period. No one is perfect and Phelps 'sins' areno greater or less than yours.
Belief makes one a Christian. The man on the cross beside Jesus had only that and faith alone is enough.
Isn't that all anyone actually has their own belief in their belief? Your actions and attitudes don't lend much credence to your belief, your accepting of genocide and deceipt in discussion are no less 'sinful' or Christianlike.
I don't think people should be ashamed of this at all. Many marriages suck and many new marriages are far better for all involved. If marriages are your barometer for good vs. bad you need a new barometer. Divorce can be good or bad just as marriage can be the same.
There is no such thing as apostacy unless truth is determined by a majority vote. This was mentioned in #73 above.
Your really bringing the stupid tonight aren't you? Anargument from authority about whether or not a non-scientist can offer an opinion on science if they are not one themselves?
Posted by: JimC | April 14, 2008 10:27 PM
I don't know where Heddle gets his theology. It seems pretty strange. It says in the NT, many places that judgement is up to god not man. One such quote is below.
Of course, there are also places, mostly in the Old Testament where any number of wild eyed prophets claim to be standing in for god and they throw judgements out like lightening bolts. These days there are still a few who claim that, the Pope, the Mormon President, and the head of the fundie FLDS polygamists who is in jail right now.
The trend in mainline Protestant is to forget dogma and sectarian warfare. 2,000 years of religious wars has acomplished nothing but convince many people that Xians can be amazingly violent.
If Phelps wants to call himself a Xian, sure, but not a good one IMHO.
Posted by: raven | April 14, 2008 10:46 PM
Heddie says:
"From Phelps's deeds, I judge him to be either a charlatan or an apostate. etc."
Because he follows the Bible? The Bible says gays should be slaughtered and that we should praise God for all things. These are two dictates that he follows. He doesn't even accept donations for his activism because he, unlike so many other preachers, shouldn't be corrupted for greed of money.
It's not like he's new to being hated. Phelps was a prominent attorney fighting for the civil rights of African-Americans. He was called many things back then.
On the other hand you call yourself a Christian and put yourself in the authority of the divine to judge who is truly faithful and who isn't. According to the Bible that's blasphemy and the punishment is death. So if you are a true Christian then you should kill yourself. My simple test for a true Christian is to do what the Bible says, drink poisons and see how you come out.
Are you up to the challenge or are you a hypocrite?
Posted by: Doug | April 15, 2008 12:21 AM
Jason @ 35
Sh*&t.
I'm the worse editor of my own text!
You express most eloquently what I was trying to say. Thx
Posted by: Kay | April 15, 2008 12:31 AM
Jason @ 28
Are you freakin' kidding me!!!!????
...you mean I crucified myself with rusty nails this Easter for NOTHING!!
Posted by: Kay | April 15, 2008 12:38 AM