What is a Christian fundamentalist?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
PureX
Well-known member
How can one "deny the bible"? Do you mean we deny that it has "magical" properties? Do you mean we deny that it was written by God through some magical manipulation of the hands and minds of it's human authors? Do you mean that we deny that every word in it is absolutely correct and true even though different versions have different words in them?
Christians love to accuse people of "denying the bible" but they're never very clear about what exctly they mean by this accusation. Could it be that if they were really clear about what they're accusing people of, we would be able to see that they're accusing people of denying that the bible has magical properties, or more specifically, that they're really just accusing people of not believing what they believe?
In fact, I think this is the real accusation these Christians are making against others, but if they were this clear about it, everyone would be able to see how self-serving and disingenuous it actually is.
The Word admonishes against magic/sorcery.
Case in point. You insist on using the magic/sorcery terms. This is not the case.
Never said that but you would deny what you "don't like" or don't understand.
Perhaps you have a position on it?
Perhaps you could actually TELL.
You don't have to beat about the bush Purex. The Word has Words, YOU have words. Why accept "yours" in place of The Word?
and perhaps AIMiel could learn to read someday.
I have never denied the reality of hell, ever.
I just deny PEOPLE being TOSSED IN THERE because there is not a SINGLE NAMED HUMAN BEING in THE ENTIRE TEXT given as an example of what AIMile promotes is IN THE B-I-B-L-E he purports to KNOW oh so very well.
I have never denied the reality of hell, ever.
I just deny PEOPLE being TOSSED IN THERE because there is not a SINGLE NAMED HUMAN BEING in THE ENTIRE TEXT given as an example of what AIMile promotes is IN THE B-I-B-L-E he purports to KNOW oh so very well.
Perhaps we could have received just ONE NAMED EXAMPLE?
Obviously the DEVIL and his MESSENGERS were foretold of receiving the infamous TOSS. Why no named PEOPLE?
Surely Judas, the BETRAYER OF GOD. Or one of the many bad guys in the O.T.
Certainly such a fate deserves ONE NAMED EXAMPLE if it is such a VITAL DOCTRINE.
Of course this would conflict severely with Jesus Own Words which I previously posted that you can't seem to either read or accept.
Obviously the DEVIL and his MESSENGERS were foretold of receiving the infamous TOSS. Why no named PEOPLE?
Surely Judas, the BETRAYER OF GOD. Or one of the many bad guys in the O.T.
Certainly such a fate deserves ONE NAMED EXAMPLE if it is such a VITAL DOCTRINE.
Of course this would conflict severely with Jesus Own Words which I previously posted that you can't seem to either read or accept.
On Fire
New member
The fact of the reality of Hell is taught throughout the Bible in innumerable passages. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself probably had more to say about it than anyone else. He was a teacher with the most impressive credentials--a sinless life, a miraculous ministry, and an empty tomb that could not hold Him.
Christ is often spoken of as "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild," but that label hardly fits with the language we find in Mark chapter nine as He affirms the fact and reality of Hell. We read these strong statements:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
-Mark 9:43-48
In another passage Christ calls the Scribes and Pharisees a "generation of vipers," and warns them, "How will you escape the damnation of Hell?" (Matt. 23:33) Those are pretty strong words from the Lord Jesus. He laid it on the line. He told it like it is.
When smaller questions the fact and reality of Hell, he's actually questioning the authority of the Bible, and the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The Christian faith is all tied up together, and when it is attacked at one point, it becomes vulnerable at all. It holds together beautifully.
Christ is often spoken of as "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild," but that label hardly fits with the language we find in Mark chapter nine as He affirms the fact and reality of Hell. We read these strong statements:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
-Mark 9:43-48
In another passage Christ calls the Scribes and Pharisees a "generation of vipers," and warns them, "How will you escape the damnation of Hell?" (Matt. 23:33) Those are pretty strong words from the Lord Jesus. He laid it on the line. He told it like it is.
When smaller questions the fact and reality of Hell, he's actually questioning the authority of the Bible, and the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The Christian faith is all tied up together, and when it is attacked at one point, it becomes vulnerable at all. It holds together beautifully.
PureX
Well-known member
Words in themselves are meaningless. They are only symbols. Just the act of reading words is already an act of interpretation; of reasoning for ourselves. We are inventing ideas and deciding that these ideas are the ideas that the symbols are referring to.
In fact it's ALL ideas. It's all men's ideas. Some men wrote their ideas in books, using these symbols. Other men try to interpret the symbols to reclaim the writer's ideas from them. But the process is inevitably flawed. The ideas are never transfered precisely. To claim that the ideas in the book are somehow superior to the ideas in the reader is an inaccurate representation of the whole process of reading and writing. The ideas were never in the book. There's nothing in the book but symbols. The ideas are only in our minds. In men's minds.
So why should I accept another man's ideas over my own just because he recorded them with symbols in a book? You don't. No Christian does. Yet many Christians seem to love to accuse everyone else of not doing so as if it were some sort of moral failure. Why is that?
Greetings Purex
What you refer to is the position of subjectivity.
I do not say subjectivity is flawed. What are the alternatives? NO thing.
We have subjectivity=all things in diversity and OBJECTIVITY meaning without form or definition.
This is merely your subjective view of an OBJECTIVE presentation.
The particular document we are discussing has presentations. It does not present itself as a compilation of "mens ideas" but of course any individual subjective view of same will produce "mens ideas" of it.
enjoy!
smaller
What you refer to is the position of subjectivity.
I do not say subjectivity is flawed. What are the alternatives? NO thing.
We have subjectivity=all things in diversity and OBJECTIVITY meaning without form or definition.
This is merely your subjective view of an OBJECTIVE presentation.
The particular document we are discussing has presentations. It does not present itself as a compilation of "mens ideas" but of course any individual subjective view of same will produce "mens ideas" of it.
enjoy!
smaller
On Fire
New member
smaller,
Waiting to hear your thoughts on http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=516479#post516479
Waiting to hear your thoughts on http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=516479#post516479
Greetings AS
The Jews had and have to this day NO BELIEF in the eternal torture of mankind. This position is one that has only come about AFTER Christ. Not even Christ taught that any of MANkind would be ETERNALLY TORTURED by God.
And because this is my single favorite biblical topic I think it makes for a good discussion point for the vailidity of certain "fundamentalist" positions.
You could divide FUNDAMENTALISM into DENOMINATIONAL camps and find that nearly every denomination will DIVIDE SEVERELY on certain individual topics BUT the on the topic of the ETERNAL TORTURE of nearly ALL OF MANKIND the fundamentalists would RALLY indeed.
It is a "pet" doctrine of the fundamentalist.
You would be hard pressed to find a SINGLE INSTANCE of Christ teaching that ANY NAMED PERSON would BURN IN HELL FOREVER.
I do not deny the POSITION of the ETERNAL FIRE OF DESTRUCTION.
I emphatically DISAGREE with your INTERPRETATION of these things.
Should you engage me on this matter you will find yourself quite defenseless in justifying such a position without casting YOURSELF into said ETERNAL TORTURE as well.
If you take a position that MANkind are CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL then you will merely make GOD HIMSELF the FATHER OF DEVILs. If Adam was A SON OF GOD (he was) then ALL OF HIS CHILDREN are also SONS AND DAUGHTERS.
IF then GOD'S OWN CHILDREN become for any reason DEVILS, then GOD HIMSELF has spawned DEVILS. Quite an untenable position scripturally.
But you see I DON'T. Can't you READ??? I am beginning to think you are more than a LITTLE SLOW.
I am questioning ONLY YOUR FALSE INTERPRETATIONs in the light of the TEXTS I previously cited. Perhaps you can GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ THEM and then come with YOUR POSITION and we can simply COMPARE what you falsely believe and what JESUS actually presented. But of course this would take some actual WORK on your part and it is EASIER FOR YOU to BLINDLY ACCUSE because that is WHAT CONTROLS YOU.
Your presentation of unified faith is good for a hardy belly laugh, that is all,
...except of course for the UNIFIED FALSE THEORY OF HELL and it is in this very subject that MOST of what passes for "christianity" can be PROVEN as both FALSE and as a VERIFICATION of the very document they supposedly stand upon.
enjoy!
smaller
The Jews had and have to this day NO BELIEF in the eternal torture of mankind. This position is one that has only come about AFTER Christ. Not even Christ taught that any of MANkind would be ETERNALLY TORTURED by God.
And because this is my single favorite biblical topic I think it makes for a good discussion point for the vailidity of certain "fundamentalist" positions.
You could divide FUNDAMENTALISM into DENOMINATIONAL camps and find that nearly every denomination will DIVIDE SEVERELY on certain individual topics BUT the on the topic of the ETERNAL TORTURE of nearly ALL OF MANKIND the fundamentalists would RALLY indeed.
It is a "pet" doctrine of the fundamentalist.
You would be hard pressed to find a SINGLE INSTANCE of Christ teaching that ANY NAMED PERSON would BURN IN HELL FOREVER.
I do not deny the POSITION of the ETERNAL FIRE OF DESTRUCTION.
I emphatically DISAGREE with your INTERPRETATION of these things.
Should you engage me on this matter you will find yourself quite defenseless in justifying such a position without casting YOURSELF into said ETERNAL TORTURE as well.
If you take a position that MANkind are CHILDREN OF THE DEVIL then you will merely make GOD HIMSELF the FATHER OF DEVILs. If Adam was A SON OF GOD (he was) then ALL OF HIS CHILDREN are also SONS AND DAUGHTERS.
IF then GOD'S OWN CHILDREN become for any reason DEVILS, then GOD HIMSELF has spawned DEVILS. Quite an untenable position scripturally.
But you see I DON'T. Can't you READ??? I am beginning to think you are more than a LITTLE SLOW.
I am questioning ONLY YOUR FALSE INTERPRETATIONs in the light of the TEXTS I previously cited. Perhaps you can GO BACK AND ACTUALLY READ THEM and then come with YOUR POSITION and we can simply COMPARE what you falsely believe and what JESUS actually presented. But of course this would take some actual WORK on your part and it is EASIER FOR YOU to BLINDLY ACCUSE because that is WHAT CONTROLS YOU.
Your presentation of unified faith is good for a hardy belly laugh, that is all,
...except of course for the UNIFIED FALSE THEORY OF HELL and it is in this very subject that MOST of what passes for "christianity" can be PROVEN as both FALSE and as a VERIFICATION of the very document they supposedly stand upon.
enjoy!
smaller
On Fire
New member
You and the Jews have it wrong? Imagin that.
There's a big difference between "hard pressed" and impossible.
I EMPHATICALLY DISAGREE WITH YOUR INTERRPRETATION!
Big bark, zero bite.
You missed the sign that said "BEWARE: Deep End".
Pretty well sums up the last half of your diatribe.
Hey Atheistssuck---
tell me which of these STATEMENT are NOT TRUE since you can't seem to get the picture for some reason:
"And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." Matt. 12:21
SOME of the gentiles AS????
"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." John 3:35
How MANY THINGS AS????
"All things are delivered to me of my Father-" Luke 10:22
How MANY THINGS AS???
"All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15
How MANY THINGS AS???
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of allwhich he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. John 6:39
HOW MUCH does JESUS LOSE AS???
"Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." John 17:2
How much FLESH does Jesus have POWER OVER AS???
"All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." John 6:37
HOW MANY AS???
"Who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1Tim. 2:4
HOW MANY AS???
God IS THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN, especially those who believe." 1 Tim. 4:10
How many of these texts DO YOU really believe anyway???
enjoy!
smaller
tell me which of these STATEMENT are NOT TRUE since you can't seem to get the picture for some reason:
"And in his name shall the Gentiles trust." Matt. 12:21
SOME of the gentiles AS????
"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand." John 3:35
How MANY THINGS AS????
"All things are delivered to me of my Father-" Luke 10:22
How MANY THINGS AS???
"All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15
How MANY THINGS AS???
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of allwhich he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. John 6:39
HOW MUCH does JESUS LOSE AS???
"Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." John 17:2
How much FLESH does Jesus have POWER OVER AS???
"All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." John 6:37
HOW MANY AS???
"Who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1Tim. 2:4
HOW MANY AS???
God IS THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MEN, especially those who believe." 1 Tim. 4:10
How many of these texts DO YOU really believe anyway???
enjoy!
smaller
BChristianK
New member
PureX said:
As it stands now, do you agree that objective truths can exist?
You said:
Grace and PEace
I think I have called them objective truths in the past, but there little use arguing that point.
As it stands now, do you agree that objective truths can exist?
Ok.
No apologies necessary.
Well I applaud you for your second admission. I would still urge you to reconsider your definition of fundamentalism. It’s a little antagonistic to define a movement for those in the movement. Why not just let them (the fundamentalists) define their movement for themselves?
You said:
And I think, if we are both honest, we will both admit that we see elements where the other refuses to give up their right to be right.
Sounds good to me, I’ll agree. And if you feel like I have made personal suppositions than I apologize.
Grace and PEace
BChristianK
New member
Smaller,
Is that you dragging universalism into a thread again?
No way
:noway:
:chuckle:
Grace and Peace
Is that you dragging universalism into a thread again?
No way
:noway:
:chuckle:
Grace and Peace