Posted on 01/08/2006 7:58:18 AM PST by SJackson
Re-read posts # 4 and # 58. I complimented Christianity for not engaging in the violence common to Islam.
IF you're still offended, it is because you're looking to be offended despite the facts, i.e. Morton's demon is at play.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
And these are?
"And these are?"
* * *
Looks like Morton's demon strikes again.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html
Hello...McFly,...(knock,knock,knock) ... our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, who is alive and well today is Himself Jewish.
But speaking in tongues is scriptural and thus it may be considered fundamentalist to believe in them...however many fundamentalists aren't so fundamental in that they reject tongue speaking as "it was for another era" and that "now that we have the completed Bible, we have no more need for tongues"!
>>Moderate Christians believe that all people who believe in the One God, be they Christian, Muslims or Jews, will go to Heaven<<
"Moderate Christians" would be wrong.
Christ is ths only way to the Father.
That being said, Robertson is an a$$ for making such comments, and IMO does not speak for the rest of us "fundies".
The five fundamentals that I identified were debated during the latter part of the 19th Century and established as the 'five fundamentals' of Christian fundamentalism in 1910. Since then, the term 'fundamentalism' has been used, abused, broadened, etc. to include other beliefs, including those of evangelicals and Pentecostals. As I mentioned, these two have overlapping beliefs with fundamentalists, but strictly speaking, are not fundamentalists except in the eyes of the MSM.
"But speaking in tongues is scriptural and thus it may be considered fundamentalist to believe in them..."
The speaking in tongues scripturally speaking were understood by the listeners. Tongues means languages and it was the Holy Spirit that spoke and each hearer understood the tongue in their own language. In another words it was a miracle, not a jumble of sounds that make no sense.
Note Peter refers to Joel the prophet as to what was said, a second witness.
Back to the original article, the author makes quite a few statements which are consistent with freemasonry perspectives, but not Scripturally consistent.
WRT Pat Robertson, I may not disagree with his point of view, but the implied statements attributed to him are also mistaken.
He raises a decent point that anybody splitting the promised land is walking on a path against the will of God. Divine discipline might include a sin unto death, i.e. God has a plan for each of us and if we continue to rebel in our personal volition and refuse to abide by His plan for us, it is possible for us to corner ourselves into a position where we are no longer good for anything in His plan for us and all of mankind on earth, and He might remove us from this first life.
Conversely, in identifying today's events with Prophecy, the country called "Israel" by the UN, in many ways, is not the Israel of Prophecy. Accordingly, becoming preoccupied with blessing those of the present country 'Israel' and Israel of Prophecy is arguably a mistaken notion.
Secondly, even if the identity of Israel in Prophecy is granted as the present day country, identifying the cause of a person's declining health as being a divine punishment, insufficiently recognizes this age of grace. The suffering being endured, if endured while one perseveres in faith through Christ, may simply be a testing and a natural part of the Christian experience advancing in spiritual maturity.
In both notes, though, it appears Robertson didn't overstep any judgmental lines, but rather concluded that any person dividing Israel is interfering with God's edicts. Such a discernment is more theologic, than hateful. On the contrary, if spoken from a position of fellowship with God, the statement reflects a point of view that directs attention to God, not of any other party.
More directly, the association of Robertson's perspective as being anti-Jewish/Semitic/religion fails to understand the thinking or mind of Christ, but instead reflects the perspective of a person absorbed in a cosmic system of wrong-thinking absorbed in soulish perspective.
FYI - ping! Just when you think it can't get any more bizarre, it does1
Instead of hurling a clever insult, support your claim.
If there is a Pentecostal sect that doesn't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible they are small, obscure and not representative.
Actually, that's not true. A couple short links.
According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles. Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come.
The Noahic commandments are binding on all people, because all people are descended from Noah and his family. The 613 mitzvot of the Torah, on the other hand, are only binding on the descendants of those who accepted the commandments at Sinai and upon those who take on the yoke of the commandments voluntarily (by conversion). In addition, the Noahic commandments are applied more leniently to non-Jews than the corresponding commandments are to Jews, because non-Jews do not have the benefit of Oral Torah to guide them in interpreting the laws. For example, worshipping G-d in the form of a man would constitute idolatry for a Jew; however, according to some sources, the Christian worship of Jesus does not constitute idolatry for non-Jews.
There is a growing movement of non-Jews who have consciously accepted these seven laws of Noah and chosen to live their lives in accordance with these laws. This movement is referred to as B'nei Noach (Children of Noah). For more information about the B'nei Noach movement and the Noahic commandments, see Chavurath B'nei Noach of Fort Worth, Texas.
very true.
Utterly false; this is by no means the "core of the evangelical movement". Though irrelevant, thanks for claptrap on morton's demon. I'm not "offended"; are you sure you're not projecting?
I agree!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.