Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simply making a claim and posting someone elses opinion proves absolutely nothing. Your fake news article was not even talking about the points I posted. Like I said, feel free to believe anything you want. I could care less what you believe, or don't believe. As a matter of fact, you can go pound sand for all I care.
I didn't post an opinion. I posted a FACT about intentional mistranslation. You posted something that had been altered from a correct translation and were dishonest enough to provide NO LINK for viewers to go and read for themselves. That's manipulative and smacks of trumpism. If you were honest you would withdraw your statement or apologize for not checking it out further. But no apology ever comes from a fundamentalist.
You tried to state in your post that Hitler was trying to persecute Christians and hated Christianity. I proved that he USED christianity in a similar fashion to you---in order to look like God was on his side when he went after homosexuals first, abortion second, and finally Jews. You may not be anti Semitic, but you mirror Hitler's ideas about homosexuals and abortion. Now you are claiming my article, full of references, is "fake" without providing ANY link to your own false statement. And YOU claimed another person with differing views from yours was a Trump follower. Buddy, you are his blood relative.
Ah ... a link to a known perversion of the truth tentmaker site proves nothing.
No, in this case it is a matter of how different interpretations can arise from different groups. I'm not certain I believe in universalism, but I think it is perhaps the only hope for fundamentalists.
And it's been around a lot longer than the inerrant and infallible theology that hold the Bible out as an idol. So it's a matter of opinion with regard to who holds on to a "perversion of the truth."
Ah ... a link to a known perversion of the truth tentmaker site proves nothing.
Yep. Tentmaker.com authors has led many in the wrong direction.
You know you are talking to a tentmaker.com reader when they start telling you that you worship demons, or that your views look like those of a devious nazis or ISIS terrorists, or they try to convince other readers that you are not even a Christian (no Spirit or no relationship with God), or that Bible is full of errors and written by ignorant, barbaric savages (Hitler was also fond of equating Christianity with savagery). By their fruits you shall know them, and such language seems the fruit of universalism.
They do not realize it, but such comments do nothing but help people see the venom in their hearts and in their views.
I do not want what they are selling, and I hope other readers see the ugliness too and stay away from it.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 03-06-2018 at 06:07 AM..
No, in this case it is a matter of how different interpretations can arise from different groups. I'm not certain I believe in universalism, but I think it is perhaps the only hope for fundamentalists.
That maybe but then Jesus isn't a democracy.
He says he is the only Truth, that's only what counts. All the different interpretations from different groups will evaporate instantaneously with a mere breath from his mouth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
And it's been around a lot longer than the inerrant and infallible theology that hold the Bible out as an idol. So it's a matter of opinion with regard to who holds on to a "perversion of the truth."
True. The father of Tentmakers message was spoken a lot longer before any Word of God was written: "Did God really say ... Nah he didn't, he wouldn't do what he said what would happen if ... (aka: God IS love \ he saves all if you do anyway)".
You're only fooling yourself.
The same malice attitude toward God's Word in written form is the same malice attitude when God's Word was solely in spoken form.
Last edited by twin.spin; 03-06-2018 at 10:01 AM..
The only similarity I claimed was that we both trust God. As I also said, that seems to be the only point of convergence we have in our respective beliefs. If that makes me "nervy", okay.
Again, claiming we both trust in God is a meaningless phrase as long as your premise is "I am starting with the premise that God is love. Anything that contradicts that premise I discard as untrue"
That is trusting in a god created in human image ... which is not trusting the God whom Jesus truthfully taught.
There is no convergence possible that ends with a loving God according to Jesus just because you trust in your premise which is another way of saying " I decide what is the truth, my way is the way and the life ... anything that contradicts that I discard as untrue".
Again, claiming we both trust in God is a meaningless phrase as long as your premise is "I am starting with the premise that God is love. Anything that contradicts that premise I discard as untrue"
That is trusting in a god created in human image ... which is not trusting the God whom Jesus truthfully taught.
There is no convergence possible that ends with a loving God according to Jesus just because you trust in your premise which is another way of saying " I decide what is the truth, my way is the way and the life ... anything that contradicts that I discard as untrue".
I don’t think you are going to have much luck converting Mystic, Pleroo, nateswift, Warden, or the other liberal Christians to your views. Why? Because your approach to understanding the world is radically different than theirs:
For you, if the Bible says X is true, then X is true.
For them, if it feels good to believe X, then X is true.
Obviously those are two radically different epistemologies. They are fundamentally incompatible.
No, in this case it is a matter of how different interpretations can arise from different groups. I'm not certain I believe in universalism, but I think it is perhaps the only hope for fundamentalists.
And it's been around a lot longer than the inerrant and infallible theology that hold the Bible out as an idol. So it's a matter of opinion with regard to who holds on to a "perversion of the truth."
Even I am not CERTAIN of the teaching of Universalism, though I do lean toward it because of the immeasurable depths of the love of God. But the main thing I do agree with Tentmaker on is that God is not like Molech - sacrificing his creation/children in eternal torment of fire - that is just disgusting to me and am insult to God's character.
I don’t think you are going to have much luck converting Mystic, Pleroo, nateswift, Warden, or the other liberal Christians to your views. Why? Because your approach to understanding the world is radically different than theirs:
For you, if the Bible says X is true, then X is true.
For them, if it feels good to believe X, then X is true.
Obviously those are two radically different epistemologies. They are fundamentally incompatible.
Now which of those two should have prominence when it comes to following Christ?
You couldn't have spelled it out any better...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
