WHAT GOD THINKS OF FUNDEMENTALISM

WT, could you agree with me that the word fundamentalist is derived from the word fundamental?

it's not ridiculous. that's what it says. without judas, we'd have no christianity. certainly none of the other disciples would have done it if asked. that's like, without evil, we'd have no meaningful choice for good. the two define each other.however, it was really just a side point. jesus was also dead at the time. paul never met christ while he was alive, during his ministry. paul does anything except the theology of the ot. he contradicts it all over the place, however. you know, with the whole bit about the new covenant, no more circumcision that you posted. that's a start. well, he apparently regretted it enough to hang himself over it, if that's any hint as to his feelings on the matter.

this is the bit that confused me: which followed talking about circumcision, and seemed to imply that you were saying maybe some churches require it. i haven't been to many churches that follow very much of the mosaic law, either. they like the 10 (13?) commandments, but not the rest of it.you know, except for that parts that say things like witches and gays should die.

I have spoken plainly in the OP Buz.You are asking for a concession, none will be given. Your only choice is to refute or remain silent.

WT, the answer to my simple question to you, of course is yes so I understand why you refuse to answer. To give the correct answer shoots your ideological airplane outa the sky. Perhaps someone else would care to address my question for you, either pro or con since you are avoiding it.

I see the Fundementalists, want righteous laws, its the liberalists that are the ones that want the unrighteous laws, this is the very reason Israel as a nation missed the visitation of the Lord, was in respect to the righteous laws of the Lord being rejected, in favor of abomination, and in America righteous laws are being rejected in favor of what the bible fundementally calls an abomination, etc...God judged Israel because they rejected the laws of the Lord, God judged Sodom and judged the world with the biblical flood, etc... the Word says Jerusalem became as an harlot, there is wisdom and warning in the old testament, but it does say in Revelations that the Anti-christ will overcome the church(including the fundementalists believers), and that those not written in the lambs book of life will take the Mark of the Beast, cause the dragon will be given power for those 42 months to kill those that don't, but the victory is the Lord's, cause he is Lord of Lords, King of kings, the beast and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire, and the beheaded for their faith, will be resurrected, to rule & reign with Christ, cause they believed in the Word of the Lord, and not the delusion of the Anti-Christ, etc...P.S. God the Father seeks people to worship him in spirit and in truth. I see fundementalisms/liberalisms the battle of truths, in respect to the laws of the land, being replaced by immoral liberal federal judges. George W. Bush to his credit took a stand against the judges responsible for redefining marriage, however, we all know the only fruitful marriage is between a man and a woman,(the family unit) a fundemental truth, the sword of the spirit is the Word, etc... I see it all that one needs to put on the full armour of God, and that includes the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word, but agree that this also includes the helmet of salvation, and the shield of faith, etc...

Using your definition of fundamentalism

quote:

---

...I have generically defined "fundementalism" to be the bad element in any given good.

---

I have yet to see what God thinks of the bad element within any given good.You have shown what Paul thinks of those who disagree with him or who choose not to follow his gospel, but that doesn't make them a bad element.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

I understand why you refuse to answer. To give the correct answer shoots your ideological airplane outa the sky

---

I didn't refuse to answer as you know. I refused to grant a concession. Why don't you refute from the OP how the concession that you gave yourself shoots down my airplane.This quote of yours that I cut and pasted is a bare dogmatic opinion - an indigenous trait of fundementalism.

Hi Purpledawn:Your opinion is noted. However, the latter portion of the OP clearly does say what God thinks of fundementalism, if you want I will cut and paste the excerpt - let me know.

quote:

---

You have shown what Paul thinks of those who disagree with him or who choose not to follow his gospel, but that doesn't make them a bad element.

---

All evangelical Protestantism accepts the authority of Paul the Apostle to speak for God/Jesus. When Paul gave his master argument in Galatians 4/Abraham had two sons analogy - this is God's thoughts and viewpoint. The Spirit had Paul interpret Geneis 21:10 the way he did. That interpretation ended by saying that when God had Abraham cast out Hagar and Ishmael that this is what the true church is to do with the church that now is: Jerusalem/fundementalism.The ejection of any person or entity assumes the person or entity was bad or they wouldn't be ejected.Judging you from your "Terms of the New Covenant" topic; you are against/hostile toward Paul.This topic of mine is not concerned with persons who reject Paul because I and the fundies both accept Paul to speak for God and I then proceed to show the fundies how the Bible which they accept as the eternal word of God condemns them.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 06-13-2004 05:26 PM

Whats up Whatever !

quote:

---

I see the Fundementalists, want righteous laws

---

Are you talking about secular law, O.T. law, social laws/morality ?O.T. law was righteous - nobody disagrees with that.I think you are expressing a quasi secular/theological mixture that confuses how society should be governed with how a person relates with Christ. My OP has nothing to do with politics or secular law or social issues.The message that I get from your entire post is that secular society is abandoning Biblical morality and the fundies are leading the way to prevent this.Whatever, please listen closely; My topic is not about the issue mentioned above. My topic is about the gross misrepresentation of God that the established church world of fundementalism does to the gospel - a theological issue.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 06-13-2004 05:49 PM

Please feel free to play devils advocate, as I will not accuse you of defending the fundies.Thanks,WT

And I think that about sums up the differences between how you and the fundamentalists view GOD and how many of the rest of us view GOD.You see, I don't believe that GOD condemns anyone over something so silly as books in the Bible.A GOD that gets upset over something like that would be like a human getting really pissed off because the dog brought the ball instead of the squeeky toy.GOD may hate and condemn acts, particulary against the weaker, but he certainly is not going to worry too much about issues of theology.You see, the words of Jesus were always inclusive. He did not ask the Centurion what his belief system was. He simply acted.IMHO, you place far too much emphasis, as did the elders of the Temple, on the show of piety. GOD on the otherhand, will look at the actions of the people. If they tried their best, even if they denied the very existence of GOD, it really won't matter.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The entire content of your post is tangentle gnosticism/heresy.You cite no source or authority except yourself. The true source of your dogma is a secular "everybody is alright and equal" non sequitor.You are just like the JW's I mentioned in the OP - you know your Bible....................verses.My OP carefully cites scriptural verses then interprets them. This post of yours demonstrates zero knowledge of theology.

quote:

---

GOD may hate and condemn acts, particulary against the weaker, but he certainly is not going to worry too much about issues of theology.

---

Jar, tell me what the word "theology" means ?God is not going to worry about theology ? - what utter subjective ignorance ! 6th graders with Sunday School knowledge know more than you.You have outed yourself as a complete idiot and unworthy to waste any more of my time.ATTENTION:Now Jar will create a furious post trying to deflect away from his massive ignorance of religious and theological truths. Why don't you ask Brian or someone of his caliber what he thinks of the post I am responding to.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 06-13-2004 06:15 PM

WILLOWTREE, WILLOWTREE.You should know me better than that by now. Seldom do I resort to furious posts.First, about GOD and theology.Theology is the provence of us mere humans. GOD has no need to define, debate or even discuss his existence. GOD is.So instead of the furious post, let me ask a simple question.Does the existence of GOD depend on either my affirmation or denial of such existence?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ah... Willowtree... I like some of the things you say. I'm sorry, but, perhaps you should read Dale Carnegie's book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People" You'll never get anywhere with people talking to them like this even if you are right.