Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WHAT GOD THINKS OF FUNDAMENTALISM
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 222 (138914)
09-01-2004 7:30 PM


to: willowtree
You are right. Fundamentalism is not found in the Bible. At the same time neither is the word "trinity". Therefore, your whole thread is overturned. Granted, traditions which are against the word of God are bad. You have not shown that fundamentalism is against the word of God or untrue though.
Sincerely,
Ken

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 222 (138915)
09-01-2004 7:32 PM


to: willowtree, revised
revised post
You are right. The word "fundamentalism" is not found in the Bible. At the same time neither is the word "trinity". Therefore, your whole thread is overturned. Granted, traditions which are against the word of God are bad. You have not shown that fundamentalism is against the word of God or untrue though.
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-13-2004 10:27 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 183 of 222 (142222)
09-13-2004 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by kendemyer
09-01-2004 7:32 PM


Re: to: willowtree, revised
Hi Ken:
I just discovered that you are back.
You are right. The word "fundamentalism" is not found in the Bible. At the same time neither is the word "trinity".
In true fundementalist fashion you have completely avoided my careful scriptural identification of the Fundies to be the exact type of the church at Jerusalem.
IOW, the eternal word of God identifies heresy to be any established religious body which voids the gospel/way of faith via their version of Mosaic law/"righteous standard" as the way to maintain standing with God.
Your one-line comment only reinforces the truth of the OP.
The word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible because it is a man-made doctrine that N.T. personages never had to deal with.
I believe in the Trinity only to evade an accusation of heretic, but in reality Trinitarian doctrine is "logical nonsense".
Glad you are back.
WT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by kendemyer, posted 09-01-2004 7:32 PM kendemyer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 09-13-2004 10:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 184 of 222 (142226)
09-13-2004 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Cold Foreign Object
09-13-2004 10:27 PM


Re: to: willowtree, revised
You missed him. He's already slunk away again after having been soundly trounced on every topic he brought up. This time he's threatened not to come back. LOL

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-13-2004 10:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 222 (142423)
09-14-2004 7:16 PM


to: willowtree
TO: willowtree
I have stopped internet debating due to other priorities. This is unrelated to your argumentation but I did want you to know the word is spelled "fundamentalism" (Criticizing your spelling as a form of argumentation would be a "style over substance logical fallacy).
Here is a funny story. A man at a internet debating room was well known for his attacks on the Bible. He even knew a little Greek. One day we debated and he attacked the doctrine of Bible inerrancy. Here is the humorous part. He spelled the word "innerrancy". I told him if he was going to attack Bible inerrancy he should learn how to spell the word inerrant! LOL I could not resist the poetic justice and razzing this guy because he was on the obnoxious and deceptive side. I have no real problems with you Willowtree but I do think you should look into the doctrine of the Trinity further if you have not done so extensively.
He is a somehwhat related essay of mine:
"Alledged Bible Contradictions and Bible exegesis" at: http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-12-t-001271.html
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 09-14-2004 7:18 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 187 by Amlodhi, posted 09-14-2004 9:33 PM kendemyer has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 186 of 222 (142425)
09-14-2004 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by kendemyer
09-14-2004 7:16 PM


Re: to: willowtree
Ken.
What would make a convention upbeat?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by kendemyer, posted 09-14-2004 7:16 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 222 (142456)
09-14-2004 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by kendemyer
09-14-2004 7:16 PM


Fun with spelling
quote:
Originally posted by kendemyer
I told him . . . he should learn how to spell the word . . . I could not resist the poetic justice.
He(re) is a somehwhat related essay of mine:
"Alledged Bible Contradictions and Bible exegesis"
Incidentally, the word is spelled "alleged"; not "alledged".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by kendemyer, posted 09-14-2004 7:16 PM kendemyer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by kendemyer, posted 09-15-2004 12:19 AM Amlodhi has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 222 (142477)
09-15-2004 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Amlodhi
09-14-2004 9:33 PM


Re: Fun with spelling
TO: Amlodhi
Those who live by the spelling sword often die by the spelling sword. I should not have been a spelling Nazi with Willowtree. I received some poetic justice myself! I still reserve the right to think criticizing Bible "innerancy" is pretty darn funny though -especially when you spend hours discussing it each day in a chat room.
Sincerely,
Ken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Amlodhi, posted 09-14-2004 9:33 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 222 (142760)
09-16-2004 2:40 PM


to: all
TO: ALL
It might have been an overstatement that the skeptic who spelled Bible inerrancy wrong but who very often attacked the Bible spent hours each day in that chat room. It would not be an overstatement though to say he spent a lot of time there per month and that he was a fairly long member of that forum.
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by coffee_addict, posted 09-16-2004 3:01 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 190 of 222 (142763)
09-16-2004 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by kendemyer
09-16-2004 2:40 PM


Re: to: all
Ok, already. Go and do your stuff... whatever you were going to do.

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by kendemyer, posted 09-16-2004 2:40 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 191 of 222 (143153)
09-18-2004 11:29 PM


Nothing Too Low For A Fundie/Buzsaw
Buzsaw writes:
http://EvC Forum: Prophecy for Buzsaw -->EvC Forum: Prophecy for Buzsaw
"It is you, bud who despises me, the Biblical fundy. If you care to retract and apologize about the terrible things you inferred about me and other Biblical fundamentalists, those of us who believe, teach and follow the fundamenals of the Bible, things between you and me can be righted. Otherwise things remain the same......not good."
This topic of mine was carefully written to reflect POSITION of the Bible and the Fundamentalists.
Your instant reaction of taking the content personally, especially your shameless and hysterical rantings that I somehow insulted your mother is the conduct of a guilty person cut by the truths communicated in the OP. As everyone knows I do not know you or your mother. We wouldn't know each other if we bumped into to one another on the street.
IOW, your reaction of personal outrage betrays fundamentalism to be the perverts of Galatians 1.
This precise interpretation and application of the eternal word of God caused you to attempt to deflect away from the arguments and make this a personal attack on your mother.
Buzsaw, this perfectly exposes the truth of the OP and your gutter ploy of dragging your mother into this.
Galatians 4:29
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
In the above Galatians chapter/verse the one born after the flesh is Ishmael and he persecuted the one born after the Spirit/Isaac.
Our flame war proves that you are the type of Ishmael, which of course in the Galatians argument of Paul typifies the established religious church of his day which is the type of the established church of our day the fundies.
Galatians 4:30
Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
And Abraham did.
Paul says we are to do the same with you because of your perversion of the gospel.
Paul's argument is inescapable but of course you are deceived in thinking it does not really apply to you.
My next post will pick up right here and prove that point.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-18-2004 10:47 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 09-18-2004 11:55 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 192 of 222 (143155)
09-18-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Cold Foreign Object
09-18-2004 11:29 PM


It may be your position WT, but it is certainly not Jesus' position.
This topic of mine was carefully written to reflect POSITION of the Bible and the Fundamentalists.
While it might be your position, and even your interpretation of the Bible, it is not the position of Jesus or of Christianity.
Jesus said, Love GOD and love others as you love yourself. Jesus never said "Don't love fundamentailists".
Love GOD and love others as you love yourself.
It really is as simple as that.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2004 11:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 222 (143248)
09-19-2004 9:00 PM


To: Willowtree:
If you did say anything about Buzzsaw's mom I say to you:
Your mother was a cankerworm and your father smelt of Linberger cheese! I scoff at you! You non-fundamentalist swinehound!
I hope you do not mind me injecting some humor.
Here are some sites regarding the trinity and I believe the first one is written by a Bible scholar:
http://www.mbrem.com/god/trinity.htm
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm
Sincerely,
Ken
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-20-2004 7:12 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 194 of 222 (143471)
09-20-2004 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by kendemyer
09-19-2004 9:00 PM


Ken:
Anyone can scroll back through this topic and read where Buzsaw INITIATED his mother into this thread. I do not want to even link the garbage as it is so disturbing of a tactic, all because I showed how scripture condemns fundamentalism.
Your trinity stuff is preaching to the choir.
There are three Persons who make up the Godhead and they are ONE in unity.
We must also remember that Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning GODS/Elohim created...."
I believe in the Trinity even though it defies Aristotle's logic of A cannot be A and A at the same time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by kendemyer, posted 09-19-2004 9:00 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 222 (156212)
11-05-2004 1:04 PM


Words Mean Different Things To Different People!
In an attempt to get a better grasp on the discussion and disagreement in this thread I have chosen to begin with the following.....
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Fundamentalism
NOUN:
1.)A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.)
(A) often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
(B)Adherence to the theology of this movement.
As can easily be noticed by even the least educated of individuals, the above dictionary definition, while accurate, is hardly sufficient in describing the term "FUNDAMENTALISM", though I am quite certain that some would prefer such a narrow explanation of this term. Having said that, allow me to offer something a bit more substantial.....
From the Colombia Encyclopedia:
Fundamentalism
1.)In Protestantism, religious movement that arose among conservative members of various Protestant denominations early in the 20th century, with the object of maintaining traditional interpretations of the Bible and of the doctrines of the Christian faith in the face of Darwinian evolution, secularism, and the emergence of liberal theology.
A group protesting "modernist" tendencies in the churches circulated a 12-volume publication called The Fundamentals (190912), in which five points of doctrine were set forth as fundamental: the Virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Christ, the infallibility of the Scriptures, the substitutional atonement, and the physical second coming of Christ. The debate between fundamentalists and modernists was most acute among the Baptists and the Presbyterians but also arose within other denominations. In a highly publicized case, the so-called Monkey Trial (1925), the fundamentalist leader William Jennings Bryan won Tennessee's case against J. T. Scopes, for teaching evolution in the public schools (see Scopes trial). Other attempts, however, by fundamentalists in the 1920s to rid the churches of modernism and the schools of evolution failed.
By the 1930s many fundamentalists began to withdraw into independent churches and splinter denominations, and fundamentalism became identified in the public mind with anti-intellectualism and extremism. Many fundamentalists rejected this image, and a movement was begun in the late 1940s to present their position in both a more scholarly and popular way. This movement, known as neoevangelicalism (or, more simply, evangelicalism), sought a wider following from the major denominations through its various schools, youth programs, publications, and radio broadcasts. The separatists saw these efforts as compromising fundamentalist views and sought to disassociate themselves from these religious institutions and such well-known evangelical fundamentalists as Billy Graham.
Since the late 1970s fundamentalists have embraced electoral and legislative politics and the "electronic church" in their fight against the latest perceived threat to traditional religious values: so-called secular humanism, communism, feminism, legalized abortion, homosexuality, and the ban on school prayer. They have continued to oppose the teaching of evolution in the schools or have sought to have creationism taught as well. In recent years some fundamentalists have also attacked the teaching of scientific theories on the origins of the universe (see cosmology). Those Americans who describe themselves as fundamentalists (approximately 25% of the U.S. population) have become a political bloc in their own right. During the 1980s they made up a large portion of the new Christian right that helped put Ronald Reagan into the White House. The Moral Majority, founded by the fundamentalist Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell in 1979, was the most visible example of this new trend in the 1980s; the most prominent current group is the Christian Coalition, headed by Pat Robertson. Moderate fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals continue to forge new alliances, for example in the Southern Baptist Convention, to weld political and denominational control.
See N. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 19181931 (1954, repr. 1963); L. Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement, 19301956 (1963); E. R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (1970); M. Ellingsen, The Evangelical Movement (1988); W. H. Capps, The New Religious Right (1990).
2.) In other religions. In Islam, the term "fundamentalism" encompasses various modern Muslim leaders, groups, and movements opposed to secularization in Islam and Islamic countries and seeking to reassert traditional beliefs and practices. After the Shiite revolution (1979) led by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, the term was applied to a number of ultra-conservative or militant Islamic movements there and in other countries, such as the Taliban of Afghanistan. There are both Shiite and Sunni fundamentalist leaders and groups, such as the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Muslim Brotherhood. The term has also been applied to Hindu nationalist groups in India (see Hinduism; Bharatiya Janata party).
It is my contention that one must be both careful and clear when using such terms. Fundamentalism is not a 4-letter word and adherents to the teachings of both the old and new testaments could be labeled as fundamentalist propagandists, depending upon the level of their individual dependancy and adherence to said works. Now to be clear, I must state that if I were required to choose and to claim an allegiance to either, and thereby openly promote expanding the teaching of either to the exclusion of the other, those whose choice was opposite of mine would no doubt label me as a fundamentalist propagandist, or a heretic.
I must also admit and confess that since joining EVC my views have indeed moved in the direction of creationism as opposed to evolutionism and this move is based upon a number of factors, not the least of which is an ever-growing realization that the possibility of evolution happening in the manner that is promoted by the majority of evolutionists is virtually non-existant.
This, however, does not give any greater credence to the idea of an all-knowing, all-seeing god throwing this whole thing together a mere six thousand years ago. Just the fact that it would take much longer than that for the light from distant stars to arrive at the earth is a big stumbling block to that premise.
My recent involvement in the political process, working to further the agenda of morality and conservatism, could be falsely interpreted by some as an evangelical position, based upon religious beliefs. So you see, even I could be labeled a "fundamentalist", depending upon the individual whose may be assessing my position. I will have to read a larger number of posts to get a greater understanding of the individual positions that have been taken here and I cannot say how much free time I will be able to expend in this arena, so bear with me if I am tardy in responding to anyone.

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024