WHAT GOD THINKS OF FUNDEMENTALISM

Willowtree, I'm NOT defending fundamentalists!!! How many times do I have to say this for you to understand that I'M NOT DEFENDING FUNDAMENTALISTS!!!? The whole point of my post was NOT TO DEFEND FUNDAMENTALISTS, but to ask you why you seemed to be saying that all Protestants were fundamentalists, NOT THAT I'M DEFENDING THEM! Jar obviously got the same idea from your post, that you considered all Protestants fundamentalists. It is this particular point I had a problem with and I AM IN NO WAY DEFENDING THEM!Can I ask where amongst this lotdo you manage to fit in Do you wonder exactly what Jesus was getting at when He said the two things you attribute to him?You say Does that mean that you consider that God hates your parents because Jesus said you should? Does that mean that as soon as someone becomes a parent God hates them? There's an inconsistency here in your reasoning when it leads to a conclusion like this.I find it funny that you consider Roman Catholicism to be politically correct nonsense, strange thing is, my views on God being a God of love are exactly the same as they were when I was a Protestant, not that long ago. I'm only telling you what I consider the main message of the New Testament to be. If you consider that to be politically correct nonsense, then can I say the same about your interpretation of the Bible? Maybe you consider parts of the Bible itself to be politically correct nonsense, only those parts that you don't agree with, of course.Now, can you stop with the personal attacks please. It's not really necessary, it's not very nice and it makes you look like an arrogant pillock.

I respect your arguments, Jar, and I really want to know what is your interpretation of the first chapter of John?"In the beginning [which was not a beginning] was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God...and also other passages that point to God being truth and scripture also being truth?

Sure. Where is that talking about the Bible?The WORD is God. The Bible is a guide, a map, that helps us learn to live with ouselves, with others and with GOD. But it is NOT God. it is nothing more than a Map and to treat it as though it were God is to miss everything that it teaches.If you read the chapter it goes on to say that "the Word was made Flesh".That is not some book. It is not some papers that have been vetted by committees, defined by political convenience.Take some time and look at how Jesus taught. He taught by example and through parable.When Jesus tells the story of the two houses, one built on sand, one on bedrock, does it matter if there were really two houses or if he made up the story to illustrate the point?When Jesus tells the story of the good servants, does it matter whether it is a true story, or is the important part the lesson to be learned?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What did he say?

But it's nice to talk to him regularly.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

cool

Hi Trixie !

quote:

---

ask you why you seemed to be saying that all Protestants were fundamentalists

---

Once again, I didn't say that, nor did I "seem" to say that.Why would I say such a thing when it is clearly not true ?What I said was that Protestantism has been completely taken over by the fundies. This means the Protestants who are not fundie are a tiny minority. Also, mind you, that when I speak of Fundementalists I am speaking about them in how I have already defined them in the OP.You say you are in no way defending them - OK !But IF you did then you can play devils advocate - I am game.Then you cut and pasted verses that I posted.What I posted was in response to your belief that "hate" was completely foreign to God/Jesus/Bible/N.T.But to answer your question:IF you truly want to honor your Father and Mother then do not put them ahead of Jesus in your life. This is Jesus's point. He must be first without conditions or qualification.How would you harmonize the verses in question ?Please refresh my memory and tell me where I mentioned Catholicism and the context I used it in ?Then please tell me where I connected Catholicism to political correctness.Trixie:Everyone says the message of the N.T. is about God's love. Your opinion is nothing unique. I agree with you 100 %.The issue is the negation of God's love by the traditions of the established religious Protestant community of our day - the Fundementalists, which perfectly matches the conduct and heresy of the church at Jerusalem in Paul's day.God's love is the new way to relate to Him via faith and not the conformity to Mosaic law as the Fundies insist. This is crucial to understand as it is the CENTRAL lesson that the N.T. attempts to make clear.I have used the Bible as my source and plainly cited my case using verses of scripture. This means, the very source that I and the Fundies recognize as our "Constitution"/Bible is condemning them, which means God is condemning them because the both of us recognize the Bible to contain God's eternal word.

as you rightly point out later, paul recommends against circumcision. however, jesus said that he did not come to change the law. in john 7, he even talks about circumcision, and never mentions that people should stop.the edict to stop circumcision has to do with removing christianity from its judaic roots. there was a lot of anti-semitic agenda in the early church for some reason. especially in letters written by paul (who also espouses slavery and the subordination of women), and in the book of john.yes, it's against fundamentalism, but in this case, in the wrong direction. in my opinion. betray comes from "paradidomi" in greek, meaning "to deliver." so his title here would be "judas the deliverer." remember, without him, there'd be no christianity. what about joseph smith? seriously, i can write anything i want in a bible, and publish it. is the skeptic's annotated bible also god's approved message?in my opinion, god outranks paul's opinion of god, as far as who to believe. i've been to a lot of fundamentalist churches, and i mean a lot. every kind, baptist, lutheran, pentacostal, methodist, and even some unnamed place where they told us not to go outside alone because they had been having an alligator problem.i've never been to a single church requiring circumcision. some suggested baptism though, which, according to the gospels, was just a temporary thing before jesus came.

I kind of thought Paul wanted the roles of bishops, like order in the churches(that God is not a God of confusion), to respect the elders, to edify the churches with words of understanding, to bring the sick before the elders, the anointing of oil, the laying on of hands, the preaching of the gospel, if someone not preach how will they hear, think part of the problem is some of the fundementalists churches have replaced the authorized kjv, and this is causing confusion, cause of the words man has altered in their tinkering with Gods Words, etc...I kind of found it interesting that Ronald Reagan shared my belief that theologians are tinkering with God's Word's, and he shared a quote that it will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right, etc...P.S. Jerry Falwell is offering 8,000 dollar's scholorships to new students entering Liberty University, I just don't see Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts all using the Authorized KJV replacing their sword with one of the compromised tinkered versions of the Word, etc...http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.htmlThe sponsors of the Good News version boast that their Bible is as readable as the daily paper — and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, "at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth"? Mr. Hanser suggests that sadly the "tinkering & general horsing around with the sacred texts will no doubt continue" as pious drudges try to get it right. "It will not dawn on them that it has already been gotten right."This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. aired September 6, 1977Indeed, it is an incontrovertible fact that all the complex and horrendous questions confronting us at home and worldwide have their answer in that single book.
Ronald Reagan
The King James Bible, Newsweek, Dec. 27, 1982 p.46This message has been edited by whatever, 06-11-2004 10:08 AM

quote:

---

i've never been to a single church requiring circumcision.

---

Where did I say or argue that circumcision is an issue today ?This quote of yours that I cut and pasted was your comment to a quote of mine that you cut and pasted. In that quote I plainly say" CIRCUMCISION IS NOT AN ISSUE TODAY"

you used present tense. threw me off.however, of all the points in my post, you pick that one to answer?

Wasn't present tense the issue ?Why would I say circumcision is an issue today when it is clearly not ?Why can't it be the truth - you made a mistake ?This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 06-12-2004 03:06 PM

Hi WT,I think you are above using language like that.AdminBrian.

If you say so. I will edit promptly.

Arach:None of your other points challenge the content of the OP.Like your point about Judas - ridiculous !Jesus picked Paul because he was raised at the feet of the brightest Jewish scholar of his time, and his brother was Rufus Pudens a Roman senator. Paul was going to leave a mark on the Empire regardless. God chose the most learned man alive to explain the theology of the O.T.
God would of forgiven Judas if he had asked but there is no record of that happening.