Fundamentalism

[DeaconDean]

But that's not what you said. You said MODERN SCIENCE supports Geocentrism. Care to take that back?

Have you ever read Stephen Hawkins?

"What does Stephen Hawking say about these principles (A Brief History of Time)?

...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe."

Source

Modern Geocentricism

Like I said, I've seen numerous people try and use "modern science" to argue for geocentricism in the Baptist area.

Nice try.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Open Heart]

Have you ever read Stephen Hawkins?

Steven Hawkings does not teach Geocentrism, nor does the fact that other Galaxies are moving away from us prove that we are the center of the universe. The center of the universe is the point of origin of the Big Bang, which is nowhere near us. Consider a sponge being wet. All the parts of the sponge move away from the other parts. It doesn't make every part the center. You need to stop misrepresenting science. The fact that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE in Geocentrism shows your utter disregard for science.

 

[DeaconDean]

Steven Hawkings does not teach Geocentrism, nor does the fact that other Galaxies are moving away from us prove that we are the center of the universe. The center of the universe is the point of origin of the Big Bang, which is nowhere near us. Consider a sponge being wet. All the parts of the sponge move away from the other parts. It doesn't make every part the center. You need to stop misrepresenting science. The fact that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE in Geocentrism shows your utter disregard for science.

Whatever.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

No matter how you like it, I provided a quote, and links.

The fact that you keep arguing shows your just here to argue.

No matter if you like it or not, there is in the last 16 years a resurgence among Christians and scientists for the belief in Geocentricism.

I am not a physicist, never claimed to be one.

Even the "Big Bang" theory is just that, a theory.

Were you there when the creation event took place?

What I am however, is a theologian. In seminary I specialized in Systematic Theology (particularly Baptist and Reformed), Greek, Christian and Baptist History.

The fact that you ACTUALLY BELIEVE in Geocentrism shows your utter disregard for science.

And again, I do appreciate you misrepresenting what I said.

Please point out to me where I said point blank: "I believe in Geocentricism".

I'll also say this: May the good Lord bless you and keep you.

I'm outta here and done arguing with you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[sparow]

IIRC, Jesus told us to love, pray, and believe. The judgment is His part, so let Him judge. Later, when we are up to the task, we get to judge angels - boy, howdy!

Anything Jesus has said is in a context involving everything else He has said.

 

[juvenissun]

Obviously everyone who rejects Jesus is unsaved, but what about those who profess him yet distort and reject scripture? Can the Spirit of Truth be in a person who rejects the simple truths of Fundamentalism?

I'd appreciate any feedback.
Thanks!

The qualification of being saved is quite clear.

Your question is related to the "prize" one would be given by God in the Heaven.
You need to pay attention that the life in the Heaven is forever long. If I have $100 more than you do on the earth, the situation could be changed in the next hour. But in the Heaven, I would have $100 more than you "forever". That would be very significant.
I always think those Christian evolutionists, they would received much less prize from God in the Heaven due to their misunderstanding of God's creation power. They will still be happy in the Heaven, but much less happier than I would be, FOREVER.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I think that each should believe in the manner that best suits their understanding and leave the judging of who is or isn't saved to God. He can read hearts, men can't.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I think that each should believe in the manner that best suits their understanding and leave the judging of who is or isn't saved to God. He can read hearts, men can't.

One person's moderation is another person's fundamentalism, and vice versa.

 

[Open Heart]

I always think those Christian evolutionists, they would received much less prize from God in the Heaven due to their misunderstanding of God's creation power. They will still be happy in the Heaven, but much less happier than I would be, FOREVER.

ROTFL!!!!!! We so tick you off that you have to take the argument into the afterlife. You just can't stand to see us okay with God.

Please know that I do not feel the same about Creationists. When you get to heaven, God will have mercy on your inability to understand his word, your disdain for using the intellects he has given you, and thus your lack of true appreciation for the awe of his creation. You will have just as wonderful a time in heaven as I.

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[juvenissun]

Please know that I do not feel the same about Creationists. When you get to heaven, God will have mercy on your inability to understand his word, your disdain for using the intellects he has given you, and thus your lack of true appreciation for the awe of his creation. You will have just as wonderful a time in heaven as I.

Definitely not. If so, why do we still need to read the Bible? (forgive me, do Catholics read the Bible at all? historically, they don't. right? )
Do not cheat yourself. You do less work, or you do work on top of quick sand, you will be rewarded less in the Heaven, FOREVER.

 

[Open Heart]

Fundamentalism does not allow you to see when god does a new thing.

Behold I do a new thing.

Will you see it when it comes?

Even the new things are always supported by scripture, but that does not stop people from being against it. This is where "hitting people on the head with the book" comes from.

I am not a Fundamentalist, but I grew up in a Fundamentalist home. With all respect, Fundamentalists have no problem with this verse. What made you think they did?

 

[Open Heart]

Definitely not. If so, why do we still need to read the Bible? (forgive me, do Catholics read the Bible at all? historically, they don't. right? )

We read the Bible, including (perhaps especially) its creation myths, because it contains the message of salvation, deep spiritual truths, beginning with the fact that God is Creator, and we are flawed sinful beings who know right from wrong, hence the need for a Savior.

Catholics have never been prohibited from reading the Bible -- this is a Protestant myth. Most Catholic homes had a family Bible. Through much of history, reading the Bible has been nearly impossible due to 1. the rarity of manuscripts and 2. widespread illiteracy. But the Bible was of course read. Now there were serious problems with most of the translations by Protestants, and so Bibles were limited to official Catholic versions. This is probably the origin of the Protestant myth, since Catholics would refuse Protestant gifts of a Bible.

When I was a kid and my mother taught a neighborhood Bible club, she gave out Bibles to all the kids. She was smart enough to know to give Catholic Bibles to the Catholic kids. It prevented problems with the local Catholic church.

 

[juvenissun]

We read the Bible, including (perhaps especially) its creation myths, because it contains the message of salvation, deep spiritual truths, beginning with the fact that God is Creator, and we are flawed sinful beings who know right from wrong, hence the need for a Savior.

Catholics have never been prohibited from reading the Bible -- this is a Protestant myth. Most Catholic homes had a family Bible. Through much of history, reading the Bible has been nearly impossible due to 1. the rarity of manuscripts and 2. widespread illiteracy. But the Bible was of course read. Now there were serious problems with most of the translations by Protestants, and so Bibles were limited to official Catholic versions. This is probably the origin of the Protestant myth, since Catholics would refuse Protestant gifts of a Bible.

When I was a kid and my mother taught a neighborhood Bible club, she gave out Bibles to all the kids. She was smart enough to know to give Catholic Bibles to the Catholic kids. It prevented problems with the local Catholic church.

OK. So Catholics do read the Bible. Fine.
Sorry that I forgot what was the thing I argued about.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Now there were serious problems with most of the translations by Protestants...

What were the specific problems, and with which versions?

 

[Open Heart]

What were the specific problems, and with which versions?

This sort of detail is not available online. Some translators such as Wycliff translated from the Vulgate, meaning they were translating from a translation, which would make for a very poor Bible. And I know that Luther himself complained how overwhelming it was to try to translate Job, and it is agreed that however monumental his translation was (the only other translation in German was a Catholic one, 200 years older) it had many errors.

In addition to translational errors, the most obvious error is that Protestant Bibles left out 7 books.

 

[Lazarus Short]

This sort of detail is not available online. Some translators such as Wycliff translated from the Vulgate, meaning they were translating from a translation, which would make for a very poor Bible. And I know that Luther himself complained how overwhelming it was to try to translate Job, and it is agreed that however monumental his translation was (the only other translation in German was a Catholic one, 200 years older) it had many errors.

In addition to translational errors, the most obvious error is that Protestant Bibles left out 7 books.

Ah! I've seen some serious problems with the (dare I say it?) KJV, and is it not largely based on the Wycliffe? Given the statement in the NT that all Scripture is profitable, I can't see any reason to leave out this book or that - even the book of Esther, which I have next to no use for.

 

[Open Heart]

Ah! I've seen some serious problems with the (dare I say it?) KJV, and is it not largely based on the Wycliffe?

I'm not sure about it being based on Wycliffe, but I know that like Wycliffe, parts of it are translated from the Vulgate, another translation.

 

[Job8]

Fundamentalism does not allow you to see when god does a new thing.

Why would you say this, and why would you write "god" in lower case? Fundamentalism is simply believing what the Bible says without argument, and the Bible says that God will do many new things. Indeed, no human being has the remotest idea about what God will do after the New Heavens and the New Earth have been established.

 

[Job8]

Ah! I've seen some serious problems with the (dare I say it?) KJV, and is it not largely based on the Wycliffe?

Those "serious problems" with the KJV are essentially mythical, and no, it is Tyndale, not Wycliffe, who has contributed much to the KJV. Ultimately all existing English translations were consulted at that time, so that out of many, one exceptional translation would be created. And the proof of that is the dominance of the Authorized Version for over 400 years.