But all indications show that Jesus took those stories as literal. He refered to them specifically. So if those stories were not true then Jesus was perpetuating a lie.
What is your definition of a "Fundi" or a Fundamentalist?
by brotherdan 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
laverite
I don't get too wrapped up in definitions and meanings. Words can mean vastly different things to different people, and are often emotionally charged.
I simply think of you, dear Bro. Dan, as a Christian and a good person with a good heart.
-
PSacramento
These topics have been covered MANY times by creationists. If you did some research you will find that there ARE answers to these things.
The answers just aren't very good or even correct at times.
When did the Global flood happen?
-
SweetBabyCheezits
If I were to reject part of the Bible, I would reject the entire thing. The Bible is completely interconnected. Jesus spoke of the flood. He spoke of Adam and Eve. So if I reject Adam and Eve and the flood, then why would I not reject Jesus Himself. It makes no sense.
Agreed.
-
Mad Sweeney
I don't care what modern Jews think
You don't care what A LOT of people think. You have demonstrated time and again that anything that conflicts with your preconception of Biblical truth, is wrong or false to you. THAT is what makes you a fundi. You are willing to read anything and reject most of it, yet you read the Bible and are unwilling to reject ANY of it. You're narrow-minded and you call it being logical and accepting things that make sense. It's like putting lipstick on a pig, Dan. You've become the kind of Christian that's every bit as narrow as JWs, who are also fundis.
You are JUST LIKE one of my closest friends. He calls himself "a free-thinking Christian" because he doesn't belong to a specific church, and reads and studies on his own. But he's the most narrow-minded person I know, moreso than you even. And he is under the same delusion that he's open minded and a deep thinker, too.
Delusions are usually obvious to all but the one deluded.
No offense intended, Dan. As I said, one of my best friends is a fundi just like you.
-
brotherdan
The commonly accepted creationist date for the flood is 2304 BC
-
brotherdan
You're narrow-minded and you call it being logical and accepting things that make sense.
That wasn't very nice. I do care what others think and believe and try to respect that. But if I'm debating then I'm going to voice my opinion if I think you're wrong.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
But all indications show that Jesus took those stories as literal. He refered to them specifically. So if those stories were not true then Jesus was perpetuating a lie.
A bit of a false dichotomy. Don't exclude the other possibilities. For example, the likelihood that the gospel writers were putting the words in his mouth in the first place.
-
brotherdan
Cheeze, that's what I'm saying. You and I agree completely on this point. If the writers WERE putting words in Jesus mouth, then why would I believe ANYTHING they wrote? If the OT is full of lies and is upheld by the NT, then I reject the entire Bible and move on.
-
lisaBObeesa
A non-fundamentalist Christian would say that these questions don't matter.
It doesn't just doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if the flood was a real global flood or if it is a very old story of a huge local flood that the people thought to be a global flood or if it is just an old story, period.
And it doesn't matter if a Christian believes it was a literal global flood or not.
It just doesn't matter.
It doesn't change the teachings of Christ one bit.