Really? We have to jump straight to the extreme? There is no middle ground. Can you be a "christian church" and believe in the Koran instead of the bible?

It seems to me that stripping the word "christian" and "church" of all it's qualifying attributes makes it much more meaningless.

I know other Christians think they're wrong. The problem is that whether or not somebody else thinks my congregation's interpretation of the Bible is wrong has no bearing on whether or not it is a church.

No, when somebody starts to say 'anybody group who disagrees with how I interpret the Bible is not a church' then there is no middle ground because this applies to everybody. Nobody is a church anymore.

No.

Exactly.

Huh? This has nothing to do with the no true Scotsman fallacy. You are just resisting an ideological/theological understanding of what it means to be a Christian. The no true Scotsman fallacy applies when we define groups in ad hoc ways. There is nothing ad hoc about defining being a Christian as being a follower of the teachings of Jesus. If that is your understanding of what it means to be a Christian, then of course you'll say that those who don't follow the teachings of Jesus, even if they think they are, aren't Christians.

It's true that for non-Christians, this understanding is less useful and so we understand Christianity as a social movement, in which case it doesn't really matter much whether or not they are following the actual teachings of Jesus or just what they think Jesus taught.

If i accept that someone is not a Christian because some Christians say their not. Then there are no Christians after everyone gets done excommunicating each other.

That is until they need a lot of Christians for a numbers game or something then there are suddenly a lot of Christians again.

I assume that the intent is not to say that the WBC isn't a church in a legal sense--obviously it is. I also assume that the intent is not to deny that it is a church in a sociological sense, again, somewhat obviously it is. The intent is to deny that it is a Christian church, that is, part of the communion of Christianity, part of Christendom, etc. Here it is not whether other Christians think they're wrong that matters, but whether God thinks they're wrong.

The claim being made is that God does think this as he has made his intentions about the nature of the Church clear in the Bible and in history.

I don't see how non-Christians have much to say here. After all, we don't believe in the Christian God, so we don't believe that this God has any specific plans or desires about how this Church is supposed to be. We are left with understanding the church in the role it plays on earth, not in heaven.

But the whole thing becomes hopelessly subjective, does it not? From the point of view of the WBC, people like splendour aren't "real" christians. I've also heard some christians say that mormouns are not "real" christians. And, when I was a member of the assemblies of god we would sometimes have discussions about whether or not catholics could be saved.

So who is a real Christian and who isn't? Sort of changes based on perspective, doesn't it? Just because traditional christians believe god is love, doesn't make them right, does it? Whose to say which way of interpreting the bible is correct?

Is there a discernable difference here?

It has everything to do with it.

There is when everybody has a different interpretation of what 'the teachings of Jesus' are.

A lot of people will, yes. But they shouldn't, seeing as though they are doing the same thing you are. In order for the word 'Christian' to not be meaningless, it has to mean 'somebody who follows the teachings of Christ as they see them' and not 'somebody who follows the teachings of Christ as I see them.'

The point is that what you think a Christian is depends on what version of Christianity you think is true. Since non-Christians like us believe that no version of Christianity is true, we have no reason to think there is some essential core to what it means to be a Christian. Instead, we should think of Christians as groups of people who identify as Christians and not worry about whether they really are Christians. If we do this we can usefully describe different Christian beliefs, we can note which practices and beliefs are more common, which are less common and so on. But that is all.

But we aren't claiming that our view is better than that of, say the Church of Christ (which is very narrow). We are just talking about different things. They are talking about who is part of the Church of God, who is saved, who is going to heaven, who has been covered by the atonement of God, or whatever. We are not talking about that because we believe that no one is saved, or going to heaven, etc. Instead, we are just talking about who calls themselves "Christian."

Obviously, if you are a Christian, the answer is yes. If you are not a Christian, you will probably think the answer is no. That is my point. To quibble at a Christian saying that some people are heretics and thus not Christians is to quibble at them being a Christian in the first place.

I understand the distinction you are making, I just think that the definition of 'church' as 'what God actually means' is useless. The best we can do is interpret what God wants through the Bible, so interpretation is pretty much as far as we can go. But then again, we've had this type of disagreement before (re: knowledge - which you're still wrong about btw ).

But who decides who is the "real" christian, and who is the heretic? We can't very well base it on the bible can we? Each side could find scriptural support for its position

Feel free to demonstrate this. I don't see it myself.

Why? The mere fact that there are different interpretations of the teachings of Jesus doesn't mean that Jesus didn't actually teach anything. The Christian will believe that she is following the true teachings of Jesus.

Nah, if you are a Christian, you'll say that the word, "Christian" means "somebody who follows the teachings of Jesus."

I think you have to be careful here. On the one hand, I agree with you that it is useless, all we have is interpretation here because there is no fact of the matter about what God actually means.

However, I also recognize that Christians believe there is a fact of the matter about what God actually means, and that it is this fact that determines whether you are a Christian. So I won't be able to convince the (traditional) Christian to accept my own account of Christianity unless I first convince him to reject his Christianity.

It depends on who is asking. I don't think that as outsiders we can. But obviously, if you are a member of a particular denomination of Christianity, you believe that your own views on the Bible are correct, your own interpretation of the Bible is correct, and that those who disagree with you are just wrong. If they disagree with you about the nature of Christianity in important enough ways, but yet still call themselves Christians, then you'll consider them a heretic.

You seem to have an obsession with inventing your own definitions for words. They are a church and being a church has absolutely nothing to do with correctly (in your interpretation) spreading the Gospels about Jesus.

There are countless ways the Bible is interpreted. Either way, the only thing required to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus and his death for your sins.

Splendour is making the ridiculous assertion that they are not even a church, which or course they are. The Church of Scientology is also a church. There's also no real functional difference in ascribing one practicing group to be a cult and another to be a church.

I know Christians believe there is such a thing as 'what God actually means.' The problem is we aren't privy to it. We are only privy to our interpretations, and so that's where the definition has to fall to have any practical application. Talking about who actually follows the correct intent of God and ignoring interpretation is useless when we are forced to use interpretation to determine what we think the correct intent of God is.

Right. But then everyone can call everyone else a heretic and be right about it?

It seems like you're saying as non-believers our opinions on something like this isn't valid. I disagree. I am not using my skepticism of religion to make this claim. I'm simply pointing out that the different interpretations make it impossible to have an objective standard for "real christian."

One persons "real christian" is anothers heretic.

I blame God for the Westboro Baptist Church. Specifically, for authoring or inspiring Leviticus, and for telling Saul of Tarsus that homosexuality was sinful.

Obviously, if God had been less negligent and more principled, and had understood that eventually humanity would recognize that centuries of prejudice against gays and lesbians was shameful and tragic, God would have put the correct passages in the Bible rather than what actually got in there.

So this one's totally on God.

Yes. Everyone can call everyone else a heretic and be right about it. One person's "real Christian" is another's heretic.

I'm not saying that our opinions are incorrect, what I'm saying is that our opinions are only correct if Christians are wrong that there is a God who sent his Son to earth to teach Christians how to follow him. Since I in fact do think that Christians are wrong about this, I think my view of Christianity is the correct one.

But of course, Christians talk about what it means to be a Christian as well. What I'm describing here is the understanding of Christianity someone might have if they don't think Christianity is false.

Yes, but it is still the intent of God that matters. We use interpretation to try to figure out what the intent of God is, but we don't think that the interpretation is itself what's important. For instance, Christians will often say that their interpretation of a particular passage or doctrine has changed. By saying this, they don't mean to imply God's will has changed, or that they used to believe correct Christian doctrine. No, they think that their prior interpretation was incorrect (because it didn't reflect the actual intent of God), and that their current interpretation is correct (if it's correct), because it does reflect the actual intent of God.

Actually, I don't think even those are either necessary or sufficient

Sure, if splendour means to say that they are not a church in the same legal sense that the Church of Scientology is a church then, yeah, that's ridiculous. I don't think that is what she is saying.

When you see that Jon Stewart and the pastor of this church agree that WBC really isn't a "church" it leads one to contemplate a little more carefully what "church" is meant to be, and why it is that they might both assent to the same statement, and why it seems short-sighted simply say "LOL disturbing interpretation of the Bible." It seems that there's much more being indicated.