Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

It is certainly possible to find material that can be used to portray Jesus as someone who was preaching "turning the other cheek" or "follow the laws" but that is really the same mistake the Fundamentalists, Biblical Christians, Bible Christians, authoritarian right make; the other side of the coin. And it also has absolutely nothing to do with what Christianity was or is.We need to understand and admit that Christianity has been and still is diverse with good and bad points and positions. It's up to us to pick how Christianity is expressed.

But it was also one religious group (and actually pretty much the same religious group that now opposes abortion) that succeeded in getting abortion decriminalized in the US.

Except, of course, for the fact that Jesus was at least a hippie socialist and according to the Bible a communist and supporter of social welfare.If you would like to learn I will be happy to once again direct you to some of the Biblical support for my position and as you well know, it will be extensive and conclusive.

Your idea of what the "Gopel" is just makes Jesus' life pretty much worthless, God stu8pid and the whole story a farce.It is just a revolt misrepresentation of Christianity or the Gospel of Jesus.

What does that even mean? How are words alive? Do they eat or drink or have to take a crap? Do they pay taxes, wear clothes, weigh much? Unless you test the message against reality how can you tell if it has any value, importance, significance or is from any particular source?Edited by jar, : fix quote box.

Sorry but that is just more word salad nonsense. If I form a jug is the jug alive? If someone translates the jug does it have any meaning? More word salad nonsense. Just how do you determine "the God in whom I believe equates to reality"? What tests told you that? What does that even mean?Phat there is a pattern here that is important within the context of this thread. I'm not sure hypocrisy is the correct diagnosis, rather it seems a willful decision by American fundamentalists and "Bible Christians" to accept that words can mean whatever you want them to mean, that the words do not mean what they actually say and that those words you like should not be critically examined to see if they make any sense; that the source of the words are more important than the actual content. That the analysis of the words can change the meaning of what was actually said or written.

Phat, you are just trying to palm the pea, con the rubes, move the goal posts.Is something I make (other than a child) living?Is what I write living? Okay, so you have studied the subject.How do you test to see if something is the will of God?How do you test to determine if something is the Plan of God?What are the tests? Do any of the tests require some prior conditions of YOUR personal beliefs?Can the tests be done with consistent results whether the tester is a believer or non-believer?Compare what you describe to what scientists do.It is irrelevant what the tester believes the answer should be, the results are what the testing device shows.The testing device itself is tested before and after the test to remove any artifacts that are the result of the device itself.And there are outside independent folk that are also testing and their results must match the earlier results or there is a full stop until the discrepancies are explained and understood.Edited by Admin, : Fix typo in 2nd sentence: "I" => "Is"

Yet all your post does is avoid answering the question (just as in the post I was replying to). Phat, you are just trying to palm the pea, con the rubes, move the goal posts.The post you quote was a reply to one of your posts where you claimed:

quote:

---

Lets take a recent Bible Study i had-how to differentiate the will of God from the plan of God.

---

You took the class. What were the answers?How do you test to see if something is the will of God?How do you test to determine if something is the Plan of God?What are the tests? Do any of the tests require some prior conditions of YOUR personal beliefs?Can the tests be done with consistent results whether the tester is a believer or non-believer?

My argument is that every source can be wrong, can lie, can be mistaken, can mislead, can word replies to make them intentionally ambiguous.It is never smart to simply believe what you are told regardless of the source.And I agree that it is very likely you do not do it on purpose but what happens is instead of answering questions you change the subject.Look at the post in question.Here is is entirely:

quote:

---

Yet all your post does is avoid answering the question (just as in the post I was replying to). Phat, you are just trying to palm the pea, con the rubes, move the goal posts.

​

The post you quote was a reply to one of your posts where you claimed:

​

quote:

---

Lets take a recent Bible Study i had-how to differentiate the will of God from the plan of God.

---

​

You took the class. What were the answers?

​

How do you test to see if something is the will of God?

​

How do you test to determine if something is the Plan of God?

​

What are the tests? Do any of the tests require some prior conditions of YOUR personal beliefs?

​

Can the tests be done with consistent results whether the tester is a believer or non-believer?

---

I was asking you to tell us what you learned in the class you claimed to have just taken. What were the techniques they taught you to use to discriminate between the will of God and the plan of God?

Especially anything claiming to be from God or Jesus.Always test and exceptional sources requite exceptionally critical testing.