Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

First lets define a few terms, shall we?
Fundamentalist-(Urban Dictionary had the funniest response!

quote:

---

A person who takes their religion so literally and to such extremes that they contradict the very basis of their faith. They typically believe in a literal, verbatim interpretation of their scripture. They also have ridiculous, childish defenses to intelligent criticism of their beliefs that border on insanity.

---

I would say that Christians who do not consider themselves fundamentalists--or at least conservative--believe in scripture as inspired by God. This does not necessitate that it be word for word literal. I persionally lean towards a belief in thought for thought literalism. As a sidenote, our very own Ringo has a quote that bears repeating. To wit: I somewhat agree with you--as we discuss this more I will define my own position.

I would say that our job is to allow righteousness to live through us. It is possible, and it requires more humility than i currently possess.

Quite frankly, I dont believe that a christian should ever be president of the united States due to conflict of interest. The interests of the United States are not what Jesus would advocate, in my opinion.Of course the alternative president would be worse....so this is not an easy issue to discuss. Were we a Theocracy rather than a Democracy (or Republic, according to some) the issue would be easier.

The United States had different interests in IKEs time.Our national focus has faded since then, IMHO.

So it means "good news". I have been taught that the words are alive. If anyone of you were speaking a life or death message of common significance, and if you were certain that what you heard came directly or indirectly from God, aside from critically examining your "certainty" wouldnt you be sure and articulate whatever you told others with the importance of the source and content of such a message? Edited by Phat, : ? added

They have been initially formed in the mind of a living being, arranged in the manner that the being wishes to communicate. Filtered through translators diminishes the impact only if the message has changed.

True. And the God in whom I believe equates to reality,as far as I can tell so far.

Is this your best attempt at communication? With a jug? How does one translate a jug?More so, a Creator by definition does more than sit on a potters wheel forming jugs.The entire point of the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among us was and iscommunication.Lets take a recent Bible Study i had-how to differentiate the will of God from the plan of God. Of course, you will likely ask me all sorts of non-believing questions like "how do I know god is alive? or How do I know God is real...etc etc.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Sounds like the words of an honest agnostic to me.
When we read Tom Sawyer, we expect the words of Mark Twain to come through the characters. If we simply said that many unknown folks wrote Tom Sawyer, would the stories IMPACT be any less?
Heck, what if computers "wrote" it? How would we test the truthfulness of the words,phrases and stories against "reality"? Is it possible for a computer to be truthful? Is it possible for a computer to lie? Is it possible for a computer to have an ulterior motive?

I wonder if our Creator cares who we vote for or how we decide?

You always say this, and yet I honestly am unconscious of any motivation to fool anybody. What I think is happening is our old source vs content argument that you attempted to show me some years back. I was merely attempting to show that source matters and that human beings are capable of truthful content if inspired by the right source. Also that hypothetically a computer can neither be inspired nor uninspired. I suppose you could argue that facts are facts and reality is reality and if I move the goalposts in order to win that one, it is intellectually dishonest. You know of my belief in a necessary source to inspire and/or illuminate content.Im still trying to work through this philosophy.
ABe: Perhaps you would argue that even if Source was tales told around a campfire, Content can still be important and valid. Am I close?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Now you have me pulling out the Dictionary again to see what sophistry is! And what does my argument deserve? In your eyes, what precisely is my argument? I need some help hereABe: My argument may certainly be fallacious...but who decides? Also I have no intention of deceiving anyone.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Even Jesus? To be honest with you, I forgot what I learned. It made sense at the time, however.